Congress reaffirms indefinite detention of Americans under NDAA.

I need a little help here, please.

I've been going through the 2015 NDAA as thoroughly as I can. Sections 1201 and 1203 have nothing to do with detention, nor could I find it anywhere else in the House passed bill.

In short, what are you guys getting upset about? Something in some previous version?

a reply to: charles1952

Hey Charles... I know you're not afraid of a little research and I don't have more right in front of me, but can we generally agree the ACLU fights for the right side (even if they choose some real crappy causes to do with with at times)?

The first one I came across was this...

In December 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA's dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.

Source

This next one is what links from the above and is an article the ACLU did during the latter part of the process when it was being passed. The Udall Amendment was the topic, which failed.

UPDATE I: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday.

Source

This is another item and I think it may help show what you need to hunt for... Courthouse news covered the case which brought an injunction passed against that very provision. However, that has issues of it's own between ruling and reality, as I understand it.. Anyway...

In a signing statement, Obama contended that the language in Section 1021 "breaks no new ground" and merely restates the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).

Government lawyers whistled the same tune to swat away the lawsuit, but they failed to convince the judge that no changes had been made.

"Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little - it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster," Forrest wrote.

Source

The signing statement and what it's referring to as basis...coupled with ongoing states of National Emergency which are renewed on an annual basis are where I believe the 'rest' of the issue lay.

The court case summary there says a lot to what the Court recognized as accepted fact of intent or lack of for the area we're talking about as one of the more important things for sharing this.

I know some of the relevent docs are in the daily list of floor items within the Congres sional Records here, but that's what I also just haven't had the energy and time to get back to. I was only in 2013/14 for House and Senate dailies (and each listed item, links to transcript/docs/whatever it was).. It's easy to move around in. There were NDAA items and some from the White House within all that. I can't say when I'll get back to it, but that's where some of the original stuff which defines a thing like this, outside the primary document is.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Dear Wrabbit2000,

You're a man among wrabbits. By the way, when are you going to come on the Reality Remix broadcast. It's an ATS event and the conversation can get very impressive, indeed.

The problem I'm having is that the few sources I've gone to don't show indefinite detention past the 2012 act (Although, I'm not sure about 2013). Then there are all sorts of stories about judges ruling this or that unconstitutional (followed by judges allowing it to stand). Then there are all the amendments which have been passed and rejected.

I'm having a very difficult time finding the current state of the law. I don't think it would be anywhere in the US Code, but maybe in a military guidance letter? That's why I was asking for help.

I'll give it a little more looking, but I'm not promising anything.

With respect,
Charles1952

Try this: Thomas documents
I'm looking at Sec. 1032 (a & b). It says (of course you can read it for yourself) that citizens and legal residents (generally) are not covered by this military detention business.

It seems that this indefinite detention business was done away with in the 2012 NDAA. What am I missing?

a reply to: charles1952

Well, I may just dive back into the House/Senate records to find what I'd been reading a few days ago. I should have made notes then but figured I'd be back sooner. Anyway.. If you don't find it sooner, I'll find it since I was just looking at it here recently.

You know I've been on the last few Reality Remix shows, right?

I've been a little quiet outside the story I do each time (except last episode of course) but I've been there.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Dear Wrabbit2000,

That explains it. I was on a 4 week leave of absence until last week's show. I'm really sorry I missed you.

Take your time on this NDAA business. I'm beginning to wonder if our dear Russian friends at RT are simply attempting to score points and sow discord.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Your next president needs to be one of those that voted nay

Have you ever known of a personality type that gravitates to
power that would turn down more?
It's quickly coming down to that last choice one gets to make:
whether you're willing to die for what you believe in:
or what someone else does.