Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 6 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 8 (14 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   4 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Combating the Distortions Over NDAA Military Detentions, Does This Mean You? You'd Better Believe It

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 4   Well Said 4   Supported 3  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 12/30/11

Perhaps the only thing more worrisome than the recently passed NDAA provisions for the indefinite military detention of American citizens is the extent and sophistication of the efforts to distort their true meaning in order to lead people to believe that American citizens are excluded.  Rep. Justin Amash took a rare bare-knuckled swipe in this most collegial of institutions to say that the NDAA was "carefully crafted to mislead the public."

That's the equivalent of calling some pretty powerful people whom you work with liars, on whose good graces passing your legislation may depend.  It's not done in this place unless it is something you feel very strongly about.  

The deceptions in the language of the NDAA, intended to allow defenders to argue that the provisions do not apply to American citizens, center around Sections 1021 and 1022.  Section 1021 says in substance:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ...to detain...A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda...or associated forces...including any person who has...directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces...The disposition of a person...may include...Detention under the law of war...without trial until the end of the hostilities..."

This is how a court must read it when the words are parred down to their true meaning, without inoperative subordinate clauses.  You can see the full text below.  This is taken straight from the final House-Senate Conference Committee report (HR 1540 Conference), which is the language that was passed by the Senate after being passed by the House, on Dec. 15, Bill of Rights Day in an 86 - 14 vote of the Senate which sent it to the president's desk.

20 SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
21 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
22 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-
23 THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

24 (a) IN GENERAL.--Congress affirms that the author-
25 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
1 force
pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
2 Force (Public Law 107--40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes
3 the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States
4 to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b))
5 pending disposition under the law of war.

6 (b) COVERED PERSONS.--A covered person under
7 this section is any person as follows:

8 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
9 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
10 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
11 sible for those attacks.

12 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
13 supported al-Qaeda,
the Taliban, or associated forces
14 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
15 States or its coalition partners, including any person
16 who has
committed a belligerent act or has directly
17 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
18 forces.

19 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.--The dis-
20 position of a person
under the law of war as described
21 in subsection (a) may include the following:

22 (1) Detention under the law of war without
23 trial until the end of the hostilities
authorized by the
24 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor saying it:

specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with "substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any "associated forces'" -- whatever that means.

Would "substantial support" of an "associated force," mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don't know.

"Substantial support" of an "associated force" may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities.  Direct support of such hostilities in aid of enemy forces may be construed as free speech opposition to U.S. government policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Stop Senate bill allowing military detention of American citizens!

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Ralph Lopez majored in Economics and Political Science at Yale University. He writes for Truth Out, Alternet, Consortium News, Op-Ed News, and other Internet media. He reported from Afghanistan in 2009 and produced a short documentary film on the (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Wikileaks Soldier Reveals Orders for "360 Rotational Fire" Against Civilians in Iraq

Why Obama Will Not Veto NDAA Military Detention of Americans: He Requested It.

McChrystal Trying to Tell Us Something? "We're F%^*king Losing This Thing"

BoA Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On Taxpayers, Super Committee Looks Away. Seize BoA Now.

Arrests at White House Over NDAA Military Detention of Americans, Occupy Wall Street Joins Fight.

Obama Lied: Taliban Did Not Refuse to Hand Over Bin Laden

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

'KILL.'   And you can bet they will.  ... by Ned Lud on Friday, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:56:56 AM
Police used to have to use informants to make fals... by Steven G. Erickson on Saturday, Dec 31, 2011 at 8:12:41 AM
Without anger there will not be sufficient courage... by Paul Repstock on Sunday, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:42:53 AM
This article is ridiculous and inaccurate. The log... by CeeJay Louis on Sunday, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:29:49 PM