Indefinite detention without trial enshrined in US law

30 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2011-12-15 14:34

Kaspar Hauser

"By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law." -- Kenneth Roth, president of Human Rights Watch

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/obama_drops_veto_threat_house_passes_defense_bill_20111214

"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single American citizen at risk."--Ron Paul

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama?newsfeed=true

Thu, 2011-12-15 15:17

Unionist

Well, he promised to close Guantanamo... By opening it to all, isn't that a kind of abolishment? Just want to ensure Obama gets a fair shake here.

Thu, 2011-12-15 17:33

Fidel

Americans must rebel in the streets if they want change.

Viva la revolucion!

Thu, 2011-12-15 21:13

NDPP

Indefinite Detention: 'Architecture Of A Fascist State' (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/battlefield-america-veto-theater-857/

"Terror suspects in American could be held in prison indefinitely - without charge or trial. The military will be able to take custody of alleged terrorists virtually without question. Radio show host Ralph Schoenman says that under the new law the US military will be entitled to 'disappear' American citizens for offences that are never made public...This is the architecture of the fascist state..."

Sat, 2011-12-17 15:48

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Quote:
Imagine allowing the government to deny people accused of involvement with terrorism (undefined), including U.S. citizens arrested within the United States, the right to a trial by jury. Imagine allowing indefinite imprisonment for those accused without even proffering charges against them. Goodbye 5th and 6th Amendments.

On some government agency’s unbridled order: just pick them up, arrest them without charges and throw them into the military brig indefinitely. This atrocity deserves to be repeatedly condemned loudly throughout the land by Americans who believe in the rights of due process, habeas corpus, right to confront your accusers, right to a jury trial—in short, liberty and the just rule of law.

— [url=http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/15-0]Ralph Nader[/url], a man widely reviled among the North American pseudoleft for having the nerve to think he would make a better president than Obomba.

Sat, 2011-12-17 16:15

Fidel

Americans ignore the cause of 9/11 - Ralph Nader, advocate for 9/11 Truth

Sat, 2011-12-17 20:43

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

Americans ignore the cause of 9/11 - Ralph Nader, advocate for 9/11 Truth

Your gratuitous thread drift is clearly intended to imply that Nader is a "9/11 truther". He is nothing of the sort. He is, rather, a rational and sensible person.

Unlike the so-called "truthers" that you admire so much, Nader does not say that 9/11 was an "inside job" or that the WTC collapses were "controlled demolitions". He wants nothing to do with those conspiracy theories. He says it is important to ask why the WTC and the Pentagon were the targets of terrorist attacks on 9/11, because it would tell Americans something about their governments' imperialist foreign policies. His concern with the 9/11 Commission in particular is that "things went wrong" on September 11 2001, but the Commission was not allowed to hold anybody accountable for those errors.

Sat, 2011-12-17 20:56

KenS

A timeless thread in American history:

A peoples that have arguably the gold plate version of enshrined protections of their civil liberties.

And a government that always finds other ways to single out citizens for 'speical treatment' anyway.

Usually it is done through organized 'extra-legal' means.

But from time to time it is done completely out in the open.

I have read no legal analysis of this. But I bet that the perpetrators know this will never survive constitutional challenges. But who cares? Put lots of citizens in jail for years, and terrorize the rest. How can we lose? What's not to like?

Sat, 2011-12-17 21:06

Fidel

Nader says the Feds have lied constantly regarding 9/11. Not you, though. And that's where you and your personal god, Ralph Nader, part ways apparently. Nader supports 9/11 Truth and opposes Backwater mercenaries TubeYou

Sat, 2011-12-17 22:06

#10

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

Nader says the Feds have lied constantly regarding 9/11. Not you, though. And that's where you and your personal god, Ralph Nader, part ways apparently. Nader supports 9/11 Truth and opposes Backwater mercenaries TubeYou

Repeating a dishonest caption on a YouTube video, written by some half-witted conspiracy theorist, does not make it so. If you watch the video, Nader supports holding a new commission of inquiry. That's it. He does not endorse the so-called "9/11 Truth" movement.

Unlike you and your co-"thinkers", he does not purport to prejudge what the outcome of such a commission of inquiry would be.

Sun, 2011-12-18 00:21

#11

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Nader says the Feds have lied constantly regarding 9/11. Not you, though. And that's where you and your personal god, Ralph Nader, part ways apparently. Nader supports 9/11 Truth and opposes Backwater mercenaries TubeYou

Repeating a dishonest caption on a YouTube video, written by some half-witted conspiracy theorist, does not make it so. If you watch the video, Nader supports holding a new commission of inquiry. That's it. He does not endorse the so-called "9/11 Truth" movement.

That person asked a direct question of Nader as to whether he supports a new investigation, and Nader plainly says that he does. Naders says he was there in the audience collecting signatures.

You can coincidence theorize the video all you like, but the audio track is quite clear. I see no obvious clues that it was faked or forged.

M.Spector wrote:
Unlike you and your co-"thinkers", he does not purport to prejudge what the outcome of such a commission of inquiry would be.

But just as 9/11 truthers have demanded, so does Nader believe a new investigation is in order. Why? Because he knows they lied their heads off. These are war criminals, Spector. And they've lied constantly. Sorry, but invisible armies of darkness and Elvis bin Laden were just a myth all along. At least half of the alleged hijackers are alive and well. Just as the phony war on terror continues ten years on, so is 9/11 an ongoing investigation in case you weren't aware. You might be surprised with how little proof they have of anything.

Sun, 2011-12-18 01:29

#12

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

That person asked a direct question of Nader as to whether he supports a new investigation, and Nader plainly says that he does. Naders says he was there in the audience collecting signatures.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying:

M. Spector wrote:
If you watch the video, Nader supports holding a new commission of inquiry. That's it. He does not endorse the so-called "9/11 Truth" movement.

Sun, 2011-12-18 04:59

#13

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

That person asked a direct question of Nader as to whether he supports a new investigation, and Nader plainly says that he does. Naders says he was there in the audience collecting signatures.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying:

M. Spector wrote:
If you watch the video, Nader supports holding a new commission of inquiry. That's it. He does not endorse the so-called "9/11 Truth" movement.

I've never noticed Nader stating categorically that he does not support the 9/11 Truth movement.

Ralph Nader Demands A "Real" 9/11 Investigation

Strangely similar to a truth movement we all know about ten years after the official cover-up, Nader also does not believe the official 9/11 Commission cover-up. That tells me that he has more in common with truthers than those who tend to support the war criminals version of 9/11, or even the CIA's own explanation for why 9/11 happened and specifically the imperialists' baloney concerning "blowback."

And come to think of it, some of the hand-picked bipartisan commissioners of the inquiry themselves have since stated that it was a cover-up from start to finish. Contrary to someone's offhand claim about it, there have been whistleblowers come forward.

Sun, 2011-12-18 14:40

#14

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

I've never noticed Nader stating categorically that he does not support the 9/11 Truth movement.

And according to your twisted logic, that's apparently enough to justify counting him among the "9/11 Truth movement" nitwits.

Quote:
...Nader also does not believe the official 9/11 Commission cover-up.

Nader has never accused the 9/11 Commission of a cover-up. He has said that they were denied access to a proper investigation, and their terms of inquiry were so circumscribed that they were not allowed to investigate why 9/11 happened, why the defence and security establishment failed to prevent it, and who was to blame.

Nader wants public officials held accountable for their [b]failures[/b] on 9/11. The purveyors of 9/11 truthiness want public officials held accountable for their alleged [b]successes[/b] on 9/11. There's a big difference.

[img]http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/biggrin.gif[/img] @ Michael Nenonen

Sun, 2011-12-18 14:51

#15

Unionist

What an odd thread! What does indefinite detention have to do with 9/11 truthers???

Oh, wait a sec...

ETA: While I'm at it - did you ever wonder how come they only ever identified 19 out of the 911 hijackers?? Eh? Huh?

Sun, 2011-12-18 16:54

#16

Jacob Two-Two

M. Spector wrote:

Nader wants public officials held accountable for their [b]failures[/b] on 9/11. The purveyors of 9/11 truthiness want public officials held accountable for their alleged [b]successes[/b] on 9/11. There's a big difference.

It may be a big difference, but it's also an irrelevent one. Nader wants a real investigation of what happened that day; so do I; so do the "truthers". What about you, Spector? Yes to accountability and transparency or not?

If you're obsessed with nit-picking the motives of everyone who supports a good cause you will be remarkably successful at killing any movement to enact it. That's all you're likely to accomplish, however.

Sun, 2011-12-18 16:59

#17

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgMRBqWEKFU]The Punk Patriot comments[/url] (YouTube)

Sun, 2011-12-18 18:08

#18

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Nader wants public officials held accountable for their [b]failures[/b] on 9/11. The purveyors of 9/11 truthiness want public officials held accountable for their alleged [b]successes[/b] on 9/11. There's a big difference.

When asked to comment on 9/11 Nader has stated that false flag terrorism is real and that there are examples from recent history.

None of the 1600+ engineers for 9/11 truth have concluded that it was an inside job.

You are misinformed and posting misleading comments as a result. You are no more credible than extremists expressing their opinions on the matter. You will find that few people care what you believe regarding 9/11. Facts and the law are different matters, though.

Sun, 2011-12-18 18:27

#19

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

At least I know how to stay on topic.

Sun, 2011-12-18 20:11

#20

Fidel

...said he who freaked out in response to #5. Sorry, but Nader is not the compliant yes-man you thought he was. He's not been duped into believing the Oops! Elmer Fudd made them do it accidentally on purpose again theory of neocon foreign policy.

Sun, 2011-12-18 23:54

#21

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

It's Sections 1031 and 1032 of the act that has everyone concerned.

You can read it in detal here. Note the definition of a covered person...

National Defense Authorization Act: Sections 1031 and 1032

Quote:

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(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.

Tue, 2012-01-03 00:00

#22

NDPP

Naomi Wolf: NDAA - Congress Signed Its Own Arrest Warrants

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/9236-focus-naomi-wolf-nda...

"...The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse. Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders,

as well as in charge of everyone else - as any Parliamentarian in any society who has handed this power over to the military can attest..."

Keep in mind at all times that this was the bill of a Democratic, constitutional law professor, and Nobel peace laureate. Keep in mind also that not only was it a Dem bill but mostly Dems that voted for it. Nifty no?

Tue, 2012-01-03 00:52

#23

NDPP

The NDAA Is Our Mayan Moment - by Jonathan Turley

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/9240-the-ndaa-is-our-maya...

"For civil liberterians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.."

Wed, 2012-01-04 23:23

#24

Polunatic2

What's most shocking to me is how easily the detention provisions in the new bill have passed into law. Have people become that numb? Is "the movement" that paralyzed? Has Obama lulled people into inaction/inertia (notwithstanding the Occupy movement)? Is he that confident of re-election that he can once again spurn his base in favour of corporate/military interests? I guess I know the answers.

ACLU Statement - President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

Quote:
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again.

The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.

National Lawyers Guild statement - NLG condemns NDAA provisions on indefinite detention

Quote:
The National Lawyers Guild adds its voice to the many others who oppose this legislation. Our opposition is not based solely on the fact that this bill allows indefinite detention of US citizens and residents or that the presumed “battlefield” encompasses the entire globe. We oppose indefinite detention without trial because it is immoral and cruel and because it violates the U.S. Constitution and international law.

OWS supporters arrested in NYC speaking out against NDAA

Mon, 2012-01-16 20:00

#25

NDPP

Obama Sued Over Indefinite Detention and Torture of Americans Act

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-hedges-ndaa-sued-933/

"...I susect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them,' concludes Chris Hedges. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.."

Sun, 2012-01-22 02:04

#26

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Chris Hedges: [url=http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_suing_barack_obama_20120116/]Why I'm Suing Barack Obama[/url]

Sun, 2012-01-22 11:43

#27

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Chris Hedges: wrote:
[url=http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_suing_barack_obama_20120116/]Why I'm Suing Barack Obama[/url]Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren't afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

The oddest part of this legislation is that the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the Pentagon and the attorney general didn't support it.

The CIA, NSA, and "Joint Chiefs of Staff" were created back in 1946-47 with the signing of the National Security Act. The republic was overthrown with that document signed behind closed doors.

The U.S.A. became a military dictatorship on July 26, 1947.

Gore Vidal wrote:
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt -- until recently ... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

Gore Vidal on the cosmetic government in Washington.