Nowhere in this herculean piece of legislation do we find any concrete criterion clearly establishing the definition of "'substantial support' or "associated forces.' The fact that this bill was written by Carl Levin, an acknowleged civil rights attorney, with language so vague, constitutes what can only be described as premeditated fraud--and serves as poignant testimony to the cowardly and treasonous nature of the US Senate in 2011.
It is ironic that the majority of senators are attorneys who would never sign on to the flimsy and vague criterion they have imposed on everyone else.
Section 1033-35 forces new restrictions on the government's "right' to transfer "detainees' out of Gitmo to another site.
Section 1032 is the most vile change of all--it mandates that every person accused of "terrorism' or "terrorist sympathies' or substantially supports' "associated forces' will be indefinitely imprisoned by the militaryy as opposed to the civilian criminal justice system.
So, it appears that Bradley Manning during his Gitmo days would have had plenty of civilian room mates compliments of the US Senate. All of this power will now be concentrated in the president's hands.
The Semantic Trap of NDAA...
Now Senator Levin's office has vehemently denied that American citizens would be included in these new provisions regarding military detention , explaining that..."Section 1032 does not mandate military custody and it does not tie the Administration's hands, because it includes a national security waiver which expressly allows any suspect to be held in civilian custody.
Nothing would be automatic: the Administration would have the discretion to waive military detention and hold a detainee in civilian custody if it decided to do so."
Senator Levin's reassurances are not only disingenuous--they are patently absurd as constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald points out.
..."The Levin-McCain bill would require that all accused terrorists be held in military detention and not be charged in a civilian court--including those apprehended on US soil --with two caveats: (1) it exempts US citizens and legal residents from this mandate, for whom military detention would still be optional (ie., in the discretion of the executive branch), and (2) it allows the Executive Branch to issue a waiver if it wants to charge an accused terrorist in the civilian system."
"Like many dirty deals, the devil is in the details. Notice how the President would still have the prerogative to place American citizens in military detention -- it does not forbid the placement of American citizens into military detention. Subsequently, the vague reassurances of Senator Levin's ring hollow. The quote of Sen. Levin's defense was taken from a speech referenced by his press secretary Tara Landringa.
Frankly, I fail to see the legitimacy of Levin's claim -- it's reminiscent of Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech or Bill Clinton's tortuous explanation of the meaning of the word "is' --is.
Yet, the entire US Senate voted to retain these unconstitutional and amoral provisions which allow for a military/presidential dictatorship. Only seven senators voted against this bill, namely Senators Coburn, Harkin, Lee, Merkley, Paul, Sanders and Wyden. These seven senators are to be thanked--with the rest of the senate impeached and criminally prosecuted for Treason.
Obama administration weighs in...
President Obama has been threatening a veto of this bill--but only since the story leaked out. White House spokesman Jay Carney issued a statement which articulated the president's concerns.
Notice, there is no concern about the revokation of due process rights or the establishment of the military policing our civilian communities. Where is the "constitutional scholar' Obama claimed to be? While it is a bit reassuring that the president states he will veto this bill--he is doing so for the wrong reasons. Not once has he denounced the illegitimacy of the entire enterprise.
NDAA heads back to the House of Representatives and companion bill H.R. 1540
Little does the public know that this entire vicious circle began with the companion bill in the House of Representatives, introduced this past May, namely HR 1540, sponsored by Congressman Howard McKeon, a close personal friend of Speaker Boehner's. The House version of the NDAA was actually the initial volley into codifying presidentially ordered indefinite war, minus any expiration date via the subterfuge of a "Sleeper Provision'.
Section 1034 of HR 1540--granting presidential power to wage indefinite war...
Section 1034 of the House National Defense Authority bill is that very "sleeper provision,' granting any president the right to wage indefinite war. The wording is intentionally vague which allows great latitude in interpretation. Here is the sentence in question from Section 1034:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
