by Charlie Savage (New York Times)
WASHINGTON — Defying the Obama administration’s threat of a veto, the Senate on Tuesday voted to increase the role of the military in imprisoning suspected members of Al Qaeda and its allies — including people arrested inside the United States.
By a vote of 61 to 37, the Senate turned back an effort to strip a major military bill of a set of disputed provisions affecting the handling of terrorism cases. While the legislation still has several steps to go, the vote makes it likely that Congress will eventually send to President Obama’s desk a bill that contains detainee-related provisions his national-security team has said are unacceptable.
The most disputed provision would require the government to place into military custody any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies. The provision would exempt American citizens, but would otherwise extend to arrests on United States soil. The executive branch could issue a waiver and keep such a prisoner in the civilian system.
A related provision would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens. It is intended to bolster the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which lawmakers enacted a decade ago.
The administration has strongly opposed the mandatory military custody provision, saying it “would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”
In recent days, several top national security officials — including the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta; the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper; and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, have voiced opposition to the proposal, as have several former counterterrorism officials from the Bush administration.
But among Republican senators, there was nearly unanimous support for keeping the detainee provisions in the bill: 44 Republicans voted for them, while two — Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rand Paul of Kentucky — voted to remove them.
By contrast, members of the Democratic caucus were deeply divided: 35 wanted to strip the detainee provisions from the bill, but 17 voted to keep them in it. About half of the Democrats who supported keeping the provisions were members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, whose chairman, Carl Levin of Michigan, shaped the package with Republicans.
“We are at war with Al Qaeda, and people who are determined to be part of Al Qaeda should be treated as people who are at war with us,” Mr. Levin said in the debate leading up to the vote.
Mr. Levin also said that he supported the use of civilian trials for some terrorism cases and said that the waiver in the bill would leave that option available to the administration. And he repeatedly quoted from a 2004 Supreme Court case approving the detention without trial of an American citizen captured in Afghanistan and accused of fighting with the Taliban.
Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat and a member of the Armed Services Committee who sponsored the unsuccessful proposal to strip the detainee proposals from the bill, warned that the provisions could “destabilize” counterterrorism efforts, “open the door to domestic military police powers and possibly deny U.S. citizens their due process rights.” He argued that lawmakers should slow down and revisit the issue later.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that the time had come for Congress to enact a statutory framework for how terrorism cases should be handled.
Mr. Graham also argued that detaining a terrorist for the purpose of interrogating him about planned attacks — even on domestic soil — should be viewed as a wartime act, not an exercise of “police” power that should raise any concerns about the military taking over law enforcement functions.
“I don’t believe fighting Al Qaeda is a law enforcement function,” Mr. Graham said. “I believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home or abroad.”
Another power grab by the Government in the name of anti-terrorism. WE THE PEOPLE have become slaves to this monstrous system. SHAME SHAME SHAME
Alex Collier –>>> http://youtu.be/kH3ylKMan6Y *** Sembra che siamo negli ultimi tempi , i Segni ci sono quasi tutti!!, il 2012 dovrà portare il pianeta terra e l’umanità nella 5-Dimensione, SPERIAMO!! per TUTTI, per le creature più indifese innocenti del Creato gli Animali, I Popoli si stanno ribbellando ai loro Governi, sono destinati a sparire !!!!! massoni ,i servi dei servi e Rettiliani, che hanno tirato le fila dietro il governo oscuro, ormai cn il tam-tam, c’è sempre più informazione!! e le masse hanno aperto gli occhi , chi realmente sono DENTRO ai Governi, Alieni- Rettiliani , con sembianze ”umane” loro sono in ogni dove!!! –>>> http://youtu.be/VU2iJWUwpOo *** http://youtu.be/MifkXvnG_04 *** Alex Collier Gennaio 2010 http://youtu.be/ZZLxykLafHg )))((( Cari Saluti Dr, Steven Best♥♥ Un Abbraccio mio fratello♥
It is long past time that we start indicting our elected representatives in the U.S. District Courts within the districts from which they have been elected.
The federal grand jury system is still in fact run and operated by people from local communities. All that is needed now is “local education” of these grand jurors, and encouragement for them to start issuing indictments.
And if you are questioning how this may be possible, folks, these traitorous fools have given themselves enough rope for the grand juries to hang ‘em. For example:
Title 18 § 2331. Definitions (United States Code – Criminal Provisions)
[READ THE DOMESTIC TERRORISM SECTION CAREFULLY – especially the part about violating the criminal laws “of any state”]
If your representatives no longer honor their oath to OBEY and protect the Constitution, they are in fact engaging in acts of treason.
FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE!
Read more at http://www.constitutionattacked.com/2012-national-defense-act-is-terrifying/
Good points, why am I thinking of Deputy Barney Fife, if you get the reference. I led the drive years ago to make El Paso the 300th city to declare the PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. Of course the whole system is irredeemable, but when the Constitition becomes so willfully perverted; every politician’s word comes out of the Orwellian Dictionary of Doublepseak; our national discourse includes terms like “extraordinary rendition” as it defends the right to torture anyone at anytime, and now works to extend this to any US citizen anywhere in the world; and the DHS is giving orders to unleash assault armies on peaceful demonstrators, with tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets, while the Israeli Border Police in training along side them, you know are near the endgame. Thanks
I posted this Tuesday night, but it doesn’t look like it went through, so I’m attempting to post it again, just in case:
Don’t be fooled: Obama will not veto the NDAA (by Madison Ruppert of End the Lie):
http://endthelie.com/2011/12/11/don%E2%80%99t-be-fooled-president-obama-will-not-veto-the-ndaa/
QUOTES FROM THE ARTICLE:
“The fact that Obama will not veto this legislation becomes painfully obvious when one realizes that Senator Carl Levin of Michigan actually revealed on the Senate floor that it was the Obama administration that requested that the language preventing section 1031 from being applied to U.S. citizens be removed.
“Let’s assume for a moment, despite the evidence to the contrary, that Obama would indeed veto the NDAA when it came across his desk. If this were to occur, which is about as likely as me waking up tomorrow morning to find that my cat has become a dog, it would be a purely ceremonial act, likely intended to get him some points for his 2012 campaign. This is because the support this atrocious legislation has in both the House and Senate is so widespread that they could easily override the President’s veto. All that a veto override requires is a two-thirds majority in both Chambers and seeing how S.1867 and H.R.1540 were both passed with a far greater majority than two-thirds, they could easily override a veto. The Senate voted 93% in favor of the NDAA and the House voted 74% in favor. For those who are not mathematically inclined, two-thirds is 66.6667%. Clearly they would have no problem pushing through this un-American legislation if the President were to veto it.
“It is now clear that this disturbing legislation is going to pass, regardless of the possibility of the President ceremonially vetoing it.”
Meh. Never mind. I guess I’m late with the news today. The White House has stated that Obama won’t be vetoing this bill (as was expected). And so it begins…as was planned.