USA PATRIOT Act or NDAA Section 1021?

[FordGT90Concept]

Bush had surveillance without a warrant or even court approval; Obama approved indefinite detention without a trial. Both in the name of terrorism. Which is worse?

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012: Section 1021

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (a.k.a. USA PATRIOT Act)

[jmcslob]

I say the NDAA...at least Bush had a terrorist attack as an excuse...

[DannibusX]

The USA PATRIOT Act would be a great law if there was one line added.

This law applies only to non-citizens of the United States.

[Screaming Beaver]

Why should non-citizens be exempt for having Constitutional rights respected? ALL people get civil rights, not just Americans. Though I suppose many Americans will think they are so fucking special that they can be given special privileges while everyone else can be held indefinitely with no lawyer and be tortured while in custody. USA! USA!

NDAA is worse but it is built off of the Patriot Act so I'm not going to give Bush a pass.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Bush had surveillance without a warrant or even court approval; Obama approved indefinite detention without a trial. Both in the name of terrorism. Which is worse?

Neither, you don't have a government which makes people disappear (or torture them) simply because they are suspected communists, they said bad things about your regime in the press, etc.

[Screaming Beaver]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Neither, you don't have a government which makes people disappear (or torture them) simply because they are suspected communists, they said bad things about your regime in the press, etc.

Not Americans anyway. Maybe.

So we have to wait until things progress to that point? Shouldn't we try and stop it from getting there by protesting things as of now "relatively" mild strikes against our liberties?

[erocker]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Neither, you don't have a government which makes people disappear (or torture them) simply because they are suspected communists, they said bad things about your regime in the press, etc.

O'rly?

[Hate_Camel]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Neither, you don't have a government which makes people disappear (or torture them) simply because they are suspected communists, they said bad things about your regime in the press, etc.

That may be true right now but that doesn't seem like a far-fetched possibility within the next couple decades.

[Screaming Beaver]

I suppose we have to be sit in water that slowly comes to a boil not noticing the increasing temperature. By the time the water does in fact boil it will be too damn late to protest. I'd like government to get their hands away from the stove now thank you very much.

[Hate_Camel]

Originally Posted by Screaming Beaver

I suppose we have to be sit in water that slowly comes to a boil not noticing the increasing temperature. By the time the water does in fact boil it will be too damn late to protest. I'd like government to get their hands away from the stove now thank you very much.

Screw that, I'm jumping out of the pot as soon as possible.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by erocker

O'rly?

Ya rly.

Originally Posted by Odameyer

That may be true right now but that doesn't seem like a far-fetched possibility within the next couple decades.

It's "far-fetched" for you over there? It has been "far-fetched" over here ever since the Cold War began. Meaning, it isn't far-fetched at all. lol

[Hate_Camel]

Originally Posted by entropy13

It's "far-fetched" for you over there? It has been "far-fetched" over here ever since the Cold War began. Meaning, it isn't far-fetched at all. lol

wat
EDIT: OH, understood. Read that wrong.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Odameyer

wat

We had the HUK rebellion, the start of the longest communist insurgency ever. They were "supported" by the USSR, considering their leaders prefer Leninist/Stalinist thought. So the CIA "swooped in" and "advised" on policy relevant to the HUK.

That's why when the PEFTOK (Philippine Expeditionary Forces To Korea) arrived in the Korean peninsula, they're the only armed force that can say "we already have experience fighting communists."

By the time of the declaration of Martial Law by Marcos however, the communist insurgency is no longer "Soviet supported" as the Philippine Communist Party no longer existed and the Communist Party of the Philippines (Maoist) replaced it. The insurgency was therefore "closer" to China now. Martial Law was declared under the pretense of subjugating this insurgency. Once again "under recommendation" from the CIA.

Don't forget also that until 1991 there were US bases in Subic and Clark.

Even recently "disappearances" continue, until the current administration started though at least.

[FordGT90Concept]

I got a reply from Grassley on this subject and it was created through sending a contact via DemandProgress.org. If Grassley is to be believed, and there's no reason not to believe him, Demand Progress made a mistake and this whole NDAA "indefinite detention" fiasco is not rooted in fact.

Keep in mind that that Grassley is the ranking minority member (second only to the ranking majority member) of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that played a major role in the NDAA drafting and approval.

Without further ado, here is the response from Grassley in its entirety (he usually doesn't emphasize stuff in emails but he did in this one so I've included them)...
---------------------
Thanks for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about parts of a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual piece of legislation that authorizes expenditures for the Department of Defense. The legislation is over 1,000 pages long and includes funding for military programs and projects, including the annual salaries for soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. Additionally, the bill usually includes a number of different military policy pronouncements dealing with the conflict in Afghanistan and other operations around the globe.

Your letter expressed concerns with provisions in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 related to the detention of individuals who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These provisions, found in Subtitle D of the bill titled, "Counterterrorism," codify a number of existing policies and legal authorities that are the result of Presidential Executive Orders, previous laws passed by Congress, and decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States.

There have been a number of misconceptions about these provisions, especially their applicability to U. S. citizens. These provisions do not authorize the President to unilaterally detain U. S. citizens in military custody, they do not authorize or require the detention of any U. S. citizen at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and they do not erode any protections for U. S. citizens under the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Much of the debate has surrounded Section 1021 of the NDAA, which is titled "Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force. "This section does nothing more than reaffirm the current legal authority to detain al Qaeda and Taliban fighters under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. This includes reaffirming the President's authority to detain a person "who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for the attacks. "It also includes "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. "Section 1021 also reaffirmed that this authorization allows the President to detain such a person for the duration of the conflict "pending the disposition under the law of war. "The avenues for a "disposition" under the 2001 AUMF include detention until the end of hostilities, trial by military commission, trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having jurisdiction, and transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin.

Congress passed the AUMF in 2001 and the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld upheld detention ofal-Qaeda and Taliban fighters and their supporters under the AUMF as "fundamental and accepted [as] an incident to war. " Further, the Court held in Hamdi that detention authorized under the AUMF is "for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured" and is for the purpose of removing and preventing such a person "from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. "Thus, the detention authority authorized in Section 1021 merely reaffirms the authority already granted by Congress as part of the 2001 AUMF and recognized as constitutional by the Supreme Court in Hamdi. All of this follows the traditional laws of war.

Section 1022 of the NDAA has also raised concerns and has also been the subject of misrepresentations of the impact it has on U. S. citizens. Section 1022 is titled, "Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists. "This section requires that the President detain anyperson covered by Section 1021-those affiliated with or supporting al-Qaeda. . . etc. -in military custody pending disposition under the law of war as outlined in Section 1021-that is, detention for the duration of hostilities, a trial by military commission, trial by an alternative court, or transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin. One major misconception has been that this provision would authorize and require the President to detain in military custody any U. S. citizen arrested for conspiring with al-Qaeda. By the express terms of Section 1022, U. S. citizens are excluded from the mandatory military custody provision.

While the express provisions in the NDAA clearly exclude U. S. citizens from any military detention requirement, there continues to be a number of misconceptions about what impact these provisions will have on U. S. citizens who are arrested for working with, on behalf of, or in substantial support of al-Qaeda terrorists. Simply put, the provisions do not impact the President's authority under the law to detain U. S. citizens who engage in terrorist activity at home or abroad. This legal framework includes U. S. criminal laws and existing detention authority under the law of war as outlined by the Supreme Court.

More specifically, the NDAA does not amend the current Supreme Court precedent, first established in 1942, that during times of military conflict, the President has the authority to detain those who take up arms against the United States and try them via military commission instead of traditional criminal courts. In 1942, the Supreme Court, in Ex Parte Quirin, upheld President Roosevelt's authority to detain an American citizen who was captured along with a number of German Nazi saboteurs. These individuals were sent to the United States to attack both military and civilian targets . They were captured and arrested and then tried by military commission. The Supreme Court heard an appeal of their conviction and held that the President was acting within the scope of his duties as Commander in Chief and that the detention and trial did not violate Quirin's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court also recently upheld the ruling in Ex Parte Quirin in the case called Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which was decided in 2004. In Hamdi, the Court held that a U. S. citizen who was captured and arrested on a foreign battlefield, in this case Afghanistan, could be detained in military custody and tried via a military commission under the AUMF provided that there was sufficient opportunity to challenge the detention. Finally, the Supreme Court has held in another recent case, Boumediene v. Bush, that individuals detained under the AUMF, including U. S. citizens, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court. While the NDAA expressly exempts U. S. citizens from the detention provisions, it is important to note that this Supreme Court precedent exists regardless of what Congress included in the NDAA. To be clear, a U. S. citizen always has the right to appeal to a federal judge to review his detention, and the NDAA does not change that.

In voting to support the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012, I recognized the important need to fund the military and support the soldiers, airman, sailors, and marines that defend our Nation. I understand the concerns that were expressed with early drafts of the NDAA that included U. S. citizens in the reaffirmation of military detention under the AUMF. Ultimately, the final conference report of the NDAA I voted for expressly exempts U. S. citizens from the detention regime. Ensuring that those who take up arms against the United States are detained in a lawful manner is an important part of providing for the national defense as outlined in the Constitution. That job must ensure the security of our citizens from terrorists while balancing civil liberties of those who are American citizens. I take this job seriously and believe that the final version of the NDAA strikes the careful balance between protecting the civil liberties of American citizens while ensuring we remove dangerous terrorists from society under a lawful detention authority.

In closing, I appreciate hearing your concerns; they are an important part of the two-way communication necessary for Congress to function. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Chuck
---------------------
Knowing that, would you change your vote on NDAA Section 1021 vs USA PATRIOT Act?


Edit: I have forwarded the message to Demand Progress.

[Soylent Joe]

I think that the Patriot Act has been/is currently worse but that the NDAA has the potential to be even worse (when the shit hits the fan).

[Brandenburg]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Neither, you don't have a government which makes people disappear (or torture them) simply because they are suspected communists, they said bad things about your regime in the press, etc.

lol.. ohh you would be surprised what goes on here in the great ole US of A..

[JC316]

They suck equally, but the NDAA is far scarier.

[theJesus]

Damn it. I thought this was a new thread . . . Looked at the poll results and saw Twilyth voted 'n' I got all excited

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by theJesus

saw Twilyth voted 'n' I got all excited

Maybe this will help get the excitement out.
http://tinyurl.com/2dtvacy

[Brandenburg]

Originally Posted by SK-1

Maybe this will help get the excitement out.
http://tinyurl.com/2dtvacy

you know he already has one of those

LOL

[theJesus]

Originally Posted by Brandenburg

you know he already has one of those

LOL

No, mine are different brands.

[FordGT90Concept]

Harkin finally replied:

Originally Posted by US Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.

As a Senator, I have no greater responsibility than to ensure our national security and to provide our military with the tools it needs to keep our country safe. That is why I supported the vast majority of the provisions in the NDAA. However, because I believed the bill infringed on critical Constitutional values, I opposed final passage.

My first concern with the bill pertained to the fact that the bill authorized the President to indefinitely detain a terrorism suspect without trial and failed to make clear that under no circumstances can an American citizen be detained indefinitely without due process of law. I simply do not believe that a person should be seized on American soil and detained without charges and without due process of law. That is why I, along with 22 of my colleagues, co-sponsored S. 2003, a bill to clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority does not authorize the detention of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States without charge or trial.

Second, it mandated, for the first time, that non-American suspects arrested in the United States be detained by the military, rather than civilian law enforcement. Throughout our history, there has been a clear divide between our military, which fights wars abroad, and law enforcement in the United States. That divide has worked. For example, since 9/11, over 400 terrorists have been successfully convicted in civilian, not military, courts.

Finally, the bill made it much more difficult to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. There simply is no compelling reason to keep the facility open and not to bring these detainees to maximum security facilities within the United States. The detention center is a recruiting tool for those who wish to cause us harm and has been a stain on our nation's honor. I agree with former Secretary of State Colin Powell who said "we have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keepingthe detention center at Guantanamo Bay open. We don't need it and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get for it."

Again, nothing is more important to me than the security of our country. However, I believe we can protect our national security without compromising our core Constitutional values and principles. Both are vital to our country and I believe that they can be accomplished simultaneously.

Thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.

[Screaming Beaver]

Trying to get the NDAA repealed would be a nice step this Senator could take

[FordGT90Concept]

Long story short, DemandProgress.org sent an email (NDAA 2013) to Grassley without my authorization. Grassley had no way to know that so he still replied. I'll post his response again. He's even more detailed than the last time:

Originally Posted by Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Thanks for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about parts of a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. I appreciate hearing from you. I apologize for the delay in a response.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual piece of legislation that authorizes expenditures for the Department of Defense. The legislation is over 1,000 pages long and includes funding for military programs and projects, including the annual salaries for soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. Additionally, the bill usually includes a number of different military policy pronouncements dealing with the conflict in Afghanistan and other operations around the globe.

Your letter expressed concerns with provisions in the NDAA that were originally included in the Fiscal Year 2012 version related to the detention of individuals who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that were modified in part by the language in the Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA. These provisions, found in Subtitle D of the bill titled, “Counterterrorism,” codify a number of existing policies and legal authorities that are the result of Presidential Executive Orders, previous laws passed by Congress, and decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States.

There have been a number of misconceptions about these provisions, especially their applicability to U.S. citizens. These provisions do not authorize the President to unilaterally detain U.S. citizens in military custody, they do not authorize or require the detention of any U.S. citizen at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and they do not erode any protections for U.S. citizens under the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Much of the debate has surrounded Section 1021 of the NDAA, which is titled “Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section does nothing more than reaffirm the current legal authority to detain al Qaeda and Taliban fighters under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. This includes reaffirming the President’s authority to detain a person “who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for the attacks.” It also includes “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.” Section 1021 also reaffirmed that this authorization allows the President to detain such a person for the duration of the conflict “pending the disposition under the law of war.” The avenues for a “disposition” under the 2001 AUMF include detention until the end of hostilities, trial by military commission, trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having jurisdiction, and transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin.

Congress passed the AUMF in 2001 and the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld upheld detention of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters and their supporters under the AUMF as “fundamental and accepted [as] an incident to war.” Further, the Court held in Hamdi that detention authorized under the AUMF is “for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured” and is for the purpose of removing and preventing such a person “from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again.” Thus, the detention authority authorized in Section 1021 merely reaffirms the authority already granted by Congress as part of the 2001 AUMF and recognized as constitutional by the Supreme Court in Hamdi. All of this follows the traditional laws of war.

Section 1022 of the NDAA has also raised concerns and has also been the subject of misrepresentations of the impact it has on U.S. citizens. Section 1022 is titled, “Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.” This section requires that the President detain any person covered by Section 1021—those affiliated with or supporting al-Qaeda...etc.—in military custody pending disposition under the law of war as outlined in Section 1021—that is, detention for the duration of hostilities, a trial by military commission, trial by an alternative court, or transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin. One major misconception has been that this provision would authorize and require the President to detain in military custody any U.S. citizen arrested for conspiring with al-Qaeda. By the express terms of Section 1022, U.S. citizens are excluded from the mandatory military custody provision.

Further, Section 1029 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 emphasizes that neither AUMF or NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 "shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws." This section makes very clear that anyone protected by the Constitution are not denied any of those protections under this bill.

While the express provisions in the NDAA clearly exclude U.S. citizens from any military detention requirement, there continues to be a number of misconceptions about what impact these provisions will have on U.S. citizens who are arrested for working with, on behalf of, or in substantial support of al-Qaeda terrorists. Simply put, the provisions do not impact the President’s authority under the law to detain U.S. citizens who engage in terrorist activity at home or abroad. This legal framework includes U.S. criminal laws and existing detention authority under the law of war as outlined by the Supreme Court.

More specifically, the NDAA does not amend the current Supreme Court precedent, first established in 1942, that during times of military conflict, the President has the authority to detain those who take up arms against the United States and try them via military commission instead of traditional criminal courts. In 1942, the Supreme Court, in Ex Parte Quirin, upheld President Roosevelt’s authority to detain an American citizen who was captured along with a number of German Nazi saboteurs. These individuals were sent to the United States to attack both military and civilian targets. They were captured and arrested and then tried by military commission. The Supreme Court heard an appeal of their conviction and held that the President was acting within the scope of his duties as Commander in Chief and that the detention and trial did not violate Quirin’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court also recently upheld the ruling in Ex Parte Quirin in the case called Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which was decided in 2004. In Hamdi, the Court held that a U.S. citizen who was captured and arrested on a foreign battlefield, in this case Afghanistan, could be detained in military custody and tried via a military commission under the AUMF provided that there was sufficient opportunity to challenge the detention. Finally, the Supreme Court has held in another recent case, Boumediene v. Bush, that individuals detained under the AUMF, including U.S. citizens, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court. While the NDAA expressly exempts U.S. citizens from the detention provisions, it is important to note that this Supreme Court precedent exists regardless of what Congress included in the NDAA. To be clear, a U.S. citizen always has the right to appeal to a federal judge to review his detention, and the NDAA does not change that.

Ensuring that those who take up arms against the United States are detained in a lawful manner is an important part of providing for the national defense as outlined in the Constitution. That job must ensure the security of our citizens from terrorists while balancing civil liberties of those who are American citizens. I take this job seriously and believe that the final version of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 with the addition of Section 1029 in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 strikes the careful balance between protecting the civil liberties of American citizens while ensuring we remove dangerous terrorists from society under a lawful detention authority.

In closing, I appreciate hearing your concerns; they are an important part of the two-way communication necessary for Congress to function. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Chuck

Like last time, I have no reason to believe he is incorrect. Name of US citizen that has been indefinitely detained, even at GITMO. Obama killed three but none were ever held without due process.