Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit any American captured by the U.S. military in its war on terrorism from being held indefinitely without trial, this in the wake of an overwhelming bipartisan defeat of a measure that would have stripped language from a massive defense spending bill that requires military custody for individuals suspected of being members of al Qaeda or its affiliates.


"I strongly believe the U.S. government should not have the ability to lock away its citizens...without charging and providing a heightened level of due process. We don't pick up citizens...without giving them due process of law," Feinstein, chairwoman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said, as she introduced an amendment to the defense bill, a measure that funds troop pay raises, weapons systems, and money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The White House has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act for several reasons, not the least of which is the detainee provisions. In strong language, the Administration has warned that the bill's requirements, including mandatory military custody for those detained on any battlefield, including inside the United States, would greatly hinder its ongoing operations.

"The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision...which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals," the "Statement of Administration Policy reads. "Applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."

Bill supporters, including both Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and his GOP counterpart, John McCain of Arizona, successfully fended off a challenge Tuesday led by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., with support from Tea Party conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Feinstein then announced her intention to challenge the bill on a narrower basis, attempting to carve out American citizens from the bill's strictures.

The Feinstein amendment expressly prescribes the authority of the U.S. military where U.S. citizens are concerned, saying that the authority of "the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial."

"We're fighting a war, not a crime," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, an Air Force Reserves military lawyer and key author of the nation's detainee treatment law. "Here's what we decided to do as a body today. America is part of the battlefield. We firmly believe the war is coming back home, so we're no longer going to have an absurd result that if we capture you overseas where you're planning attack on the United States, we can blow you up or put you in a military prison indefinitely. But if you make it to America, all of a sudden you get Miranda rights and you go to federal court. That's an absurd result; never been known in war before."

Graham, Levin, and McCain say the Administration should not object to the requirements of their bill, because they put in a national security waiver, allowing the Secretary of Defense to determine if certain situations necessitate a criminal/civil path, not a military one.

The Senate is slowing moving toward final passage of the $662 billion defense measure by week's end, a normally popular bill that Congress has approved every year for a half century, but it's fate this time around is, as yet, uncertain. A key test vote is set for Wednesday.

The problem is that under this bill the administration/military can simply say "we think you are a terrorist" and just pick you up and lock you away.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The ability to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States

d-usa wrote:Again, you are assuming that the Government functions on a permisive ruleset.

Looking at all the decisions of the various administrations post 9/11 it seems pretty clear to me that the government functions on a restrictive ruleset.

The bill says that:

1) You have to detain all terrorists.

2) You don't have to detain all terrorists that are citizens.

It does not say that you cannot detain citizens, only that you don't have to.

If you want to argue that that means that the government will not detain citizens, then that is fine. But the bill does not state that they can't.

CptJake wrote:

d-usa wrote:Again, you are assuming that the Government functions on a permisive ruleset.

Looking at all the decisions of the various administrations post 9/11 it seems pretty clear to me that the government functions on a restrictive ruleset.

The bill says that:

1) You have to detain all terrorists.

2) You don't have to detain all terrorists that are citizens.

It does not say that you cannot detain citizens, only that you don't have to.

If you want to argue that that means that the government will not detain citizens, then that is fine. But the bill does not state that they can't.

Again, show where DOD is given ANY authority to arrest and detain anyone CONUS at all not subject to the UCMJ. You can't. Because they don't.

Jihadin wrote:@D-usa

At what capacity are you thinking the military is in for this happen? Deployed within the states?


@Frgsinwntr
Awalakywhateverhajinameis is a enemy combatant in a enemy organization at War. Seems some forgot that

Jihadin wrote:That means we're deployed within states. Everybody suspected of anything that even hints of harming troops will more then likely be detain and process to the local law enforcement. We do not fall under state and local laws but under UCMJ then.

Jihadin wrote:That means we're deployed within states. Everybody suspected of anything that even hints of harming troops will more then likely be detain and process to the local law enforcement. We do not fall under state and local laws but under UCMJ then.

Jihadin wrote:Edit
Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became a leading figure in Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. He was killed there on Sept. 30, 2011 by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft.

Mr. Awlaki had been perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States, with his message carried extensively over the Internet. His online lectures and sermons had been linked to more than a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States, Britain and Canada. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had exchanged e-mails with Mr. Awlaki before the deadly shooting rampage on Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in May, 2010, cited Mr. Awlaki as an inspiration.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Jihadin wrote:Edit
Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became a leading figure in Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. He was killed there on Sept. 30, 2011 by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft.

Mr. Awlaki had been perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States, with his message carried extensively over the Internet. His online lectures and sermons had been linked to more than a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States, Britain and Canada. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had exchanged e-mails with Mr. Awlaki before the deadly shooting rampage on Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in May, 2010, cited Mr. Awlaki as an inspiration.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

d-usa wrote:And I would be perfectly fine with anybody that is accused of being a terrorist, even a citizen inside the US, being picked up by law enforcement and being charged.

The problem is that under this bill the administration/military can simply say "we think you are a terrorist" and just pick you up and lock you away.

It just feels like we are getting closer and closer to the "you are an enemy of the state, time to send you to the Gulag" of the Soviet Union.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:And I would be perfectly fine with anybody that is accused of being a terrorist, even a citizen inside the US, being picked up by law enforcement and being charged.

The problem is that under this bill the administration/military can simply say "we think you are a terrorist" and just pick you up and lock you away.

It just feels like we are getting closer and closer to the "you are an enemy of the state, time to send you to the Gulag" of the Soviet Union.

In SOVIET RUSSIA THEY SEND THE GULAG TO YOU!

n SOVIET RUSSIA THEY SEND THE GULAG TO YOU

The guy who shot Reagan was inspired by the show taxicab... does that mean the writer of taxicab is a terrorist?

Is that like the wife giving you a honey-do-list?

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Jihadin wrote:

The guy who shot Reagan was inspired by the show taxicab... does that mean the writer of taxicab is a terrorist?

Wasn't a straw grab there was it? Was the taxi driver affiliated with a terrorist organization?

Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in May, 2010, cited Mr. Awlaki as an inspiration.

Jihadin wrote:EXPAND GITMO!!

Edit

Example was given

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

edit 2

Faisal Shahzad
Mr. Shahzad, a naturalized United States citizen from Pakistan who lived in Bridgeport, Conn., was charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and other federal charges, several related to explosives. He was interrogated without initially being read his Miranda rights under a public safety exception, and he provided what the Federal Bureau of Investigation called “valuable intelligence and evidence.

Mr. Holder said Mr. Shahzad had been providing “useful information” to federal investigators since he was pulled off the plane. Besides saying that he had received training in Pakistan, Mr. Shahzad said he had acted alone, a claim that was still being investigated.

In Pakistan, developments unfolded quickly. Officials identified one of those arrested as Tauhid Ahmed and said he had been in touch with Mr. Shahzad through e-mail and had met him either in the United States or in the Pakistani port city of Karachi.

Another man arrested, Muhammad Rehan, had spent time with Mr. Shahzad during a recent visit there, Pakistani officials said. Mr. Rehan was arrested in Karachi just after morning prayers at a mosque known for its links with the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad.

Investigators said Mr. Rehan told them that he had rented a pickup truck and driven with Mr. Shahzad to the northwestern city of Peshawar, where they stayed from July 7 to July 22, 2009. The account could not be independently verified. Mr. Shahzad spent four months in Pakistan last year, the authorities said.