Indefinite Detention, A Round-Up

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed The National Defense Authorization Act (S 1867), to the tune of $662 billion. Authored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the bill first passed in the Senate (93-7) on Dec. 1. The House passed the bill Wednesday on a 283-136 vote. Thursday’s Senate vote was 86-13.

There hasn’t been a lot of mainstream reporting on a provision relating to indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, including U.S. citizens. Ironically, this bill passed on the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. According to the ACLU, “The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.”

From Donna Cassata, AP, with a Friday dateline:

The second provision would deny suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants. The provision includes a Senate-passed compromise that says nothing in the legislation may be “construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Conservative Republicans, Democrats and civil rights groups have warned that the provision would allow the government to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely. Such incarceration is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s a wrap-up of news, commentary and editorial opposition. I haven’t seen editorials in support. (I haven’t seen many editorials):

Here’s the best thing that can be said about the new detention powers the Senate has tucked into next year’s defense bill: They don’t force the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial. They just let the military do that. And even though the leaders of the military and the spy community have said they want no such power, the Senate is poised to pass its bill as early as tonight…. and because the Senate is using the bill that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it’s pretty likely to pass.

Analysis, Wired, Thursday 1 December

Buried in the 680-page Senate version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act are two provisions that expand the president’s detention powers and rigidly throw certain individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism into military custody…. These provisions undermine basic U.S. liberties and our capability to respond flexibly in dealing with suspected terrorists.

Oppositional op-ed, Friday 9 December: sacbee.com

The act, quite plainly and simply, would allow American citizens in the United States suspected of terrorism to be detained indefinitely without being charged or tried for a crime.

Oppositional op-ed, Monday 12 December: journalstar.com

The version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that emerged from a House-Senate conference meeting Tuesday morning contains many of the same provisions that administration officials and national security experts have warned would harm national security…

Under the latest version of the law, someone like underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab could still go from interrogation to trial without ever passing through military hands—and without the need for a national security waiver…

Civil liberties and human rights advocates were less convinced that the bill’s mandatory detention provisions could be so easily circumvented. A coalition of human rights, civil liberties advocates and national security experts held a conference call on Tuesday morning to warn that the NDAA still carves out a hypothetical role for the military to enforce the law on American soil. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) comment that “the homeland… is that battlefield”—made during the December 1 debate after which the Senate approved its version of the NDAA—applies equally now, said Raha Wala, a lawyer at Human Rights First. And ACLU legislative counsel Chris Anders argued that the NDAA could set up a jurisdictional conflict between the military and the FBI similar to those that exist between state and federal level law enforcement authorities.

Analysis, MotherJones, Tuesday 13 December

Despite some pretty serious-sounding threats, the White House told reporters on Wednesday that President Obama would not be vetoing a controversial defense spending bill. You might not have heard of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which includes some language about how the United States deals with political prisoners.

News, Atlantic Wire, Wednesday 14 December

Exactly 220 years to the date after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Senate today voted 86 to 13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, allowing the indefinite detention and torture of Americans.

Analysis, Thursday 15 December: rt.com

The US Congress has approved a controversial defence bill that would deny terror suspects, including US citizens, the right to trial, permit authorities to detain them indefinitely and require the US military to handle terror-suspected foreign nationals.

The Senate approved the $662bn defence bill in an 86-13 vote on Thursday a day after the bill was passed by the House of Representatives after the White House withdrew a threat to block the proposed legislation over concerns it would undermine the president’s authority over counterterrorism activities.

News, Thursday, 15 December: aljazeera.com

First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist…. With a couple of exceptions, this bill just “clarifies” — and codifies — the powers President Obama has already claimed, seized and exercised…. there are real dangers to codifying these powers in law with bipartisan Congressional support as opposed to having the President unilaterally seize them and have some lower courts recognize them. Instead, it’s a reflection of how horrible the civil liberties status quo has become under the Bush and Obama administrations.

[...]

Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The White House’s complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make.

Analysis, Salon, Thursday 15 December

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial
Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

News: Thursday 15 December: guardian.co.uk

Sometimes, even as the editorial writers for the most popular newspaper in Northern Nevada, it’s easy to feel like a voice in the desert talking to scorpions and rattlesnakes. Launching a diatribe at Washington, D.C., is about as effective as demanding that a rock do the tango.

But there are some actions on the part of our federal representatives that are so reprehensible that the very contemplation of them is beyond the ken. [The National Defense Authorization Act is one of them.]

Oppositional editorial, (Reno) NewsReview, Thursday 15 December

The White House said this week that President Obama will sign a controversial $662-billion defense authorization that permits indefinite detention without trial for some terrorism suspects and broadens the authorization for the use of force against people and groups “associated” with Al Qaeda anywhere in the world. It’s the wrong choice.

Oppositional editorial: LATimes.com, Friday 16 December

No mention of indefinite detention in these news reports about the passage of the defense bill:

• NYT, Friday, 16 December
• Radio Free Europe, Friday 16 December

Image via ACLU

Updated periodically as I read new stories.