I can't say that this makes me feel secure at all:
Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was
Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.
The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 was added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but there was no similar language in the version of the bill that passed the House, and it was dumped from the final bill released Tuesday after a conference committee from both chambers worked out a unified measure.
It declared that "An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."[..]
Spokespeople for Senate committee leaders did immediately answer why the amendment was stripped, but pointed to the language that replaced it:
Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) 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.
The new provision appears to do little, because the Supreme Court has already declared that the writ of habeas corpus -- requiring that someone be presented to a judge -- applies to all people. The more difficult part of whether people deserve a trial remains unsettled, and the new provision does not appear to resolve it.
I don't want to be doomsaying about this, and I've had some unsettling conversations about the NDAA with other liberals, who tend to want to believe that it's not as bad as it seems. But I can't be that sanguine. It's a clear violation of the principles upon which we founded this country. And for as generous as we want to believe this particular administration, this is toothpaste that will be difficult to put back in the tube and we have no such guarantees that future administrations will have our trust.
Calling it an act of Congress that infringed on constitutional rights, a New York federal judge blocks NDAA, the bill that allows Americans to be held indefinitely on vague grounds. Yes, we still have some principled judges left:
A federal Read more...
Full message from the video:
Dear brothers and sisters. Now is the time to open your eyes!
In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Read more...
Attorneys for Bradley Manning, the soldier found guilty of turning over 700,000 classified U.S. files to WikiLeaks, called on a military judge on Monday to sentence him to a term that "doesn't rob him of his youth," rather than the 60 years urged by prosecutors. Read more...
In his New Rules segment this Friday, Bill Maher took a shot at all of the "gun nuts" out there who are so worried about their 2nd Amendment rights being stripped away, but who, along with a lot of liberals, haven't said anything about the National Read more...