Obama to Sign Indefinite Detention Bill

[Gaspar]

http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/

I thought he was against this before he was for it?

Here's the text of the bill:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540pp/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540pp.pdf

[nathanm]

I thought he was against this before he was for it?

The claim is that the original version of the bill required, under all circumstances, criminals accused of terrorism to be held in military custody. Supposedly the latest version, which Obama's advisors have said he won't veto, includes certain exceptions for US citizens and allows the President to choose not to enforce that aspect of the law at his discretion. Still a bad bill, but I see why Obama wouldn't sacrifice military industrial complex stimulus given the changes.

You should be happy he's going to sign it, you've been calling for terrorist heads on pikes for some time now.

By the way, you may want to note where this turd originated. It probably won't have any effect on your views of the Teahadist element in your party, but it should.

[Gaspar]

You should be happy he's going to sign it, you've been calling for terrorist heads on pikes for some time now.

No, I do not believe in indefinite incarceration, nor do I believe that those captured engaging in acts of war against this country are eligible for civilian trials.

. . . and the application of this law to American Citizens was a point that the administration demanded but was denied by congress.

[nathanm]

No, I do not believe in indefinite incarceration, nor do I believe that those captured engaging in acts of war against this country are eligible for civilian trials.

Coulda fooled me, what with your Guantanamo support and your constant derision of those who have been arguing for trials.

. . . and the application of this law to American Citizens was a point that the administration demanded but was denied by congress.

I think you need to get some better sources:

The Obama administration "strongly objects" to the military custody provision, the White House said in a statement Friday. "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."

[nathanm]

All that said, I think citizens should never be subject to military detention if they are arrested in the US, and when captured in foreign countries only where they can be proven to civilian court to have been actively engaging in hostilities at the time of their capture.

As a practical matter, I think it's better to not use military detention at all when it comes to terrorist types. Our criminal justice system works. Padilla was convicted, McVeigh was convicted. The first WTC bombers were convicted. Why is a civilian trial such a problem? If they're acting like a foreign military and engaging our soldiers on the field of battle, they're soldiers and not criminals. If they're sneaking into the country and blowing up our buildings, they're criminals and not soldiers.

[Gaspar]

Coulda fooled me, what with your Guantanamo support and your constant derision of those who have been arguing for trials.

I think you need to get some better sources:

That was after the administration made the request that the language making the law not applicable to American Citizens be removed!  That request angered Democrats AND Republicans (and anyone who is not a Fascist I would assume)!!  So congress refused to remove the clause protecting american citizens.

[nathanm]

You dolt. Levin said the administration requested language precluding the application of 1031 to US citizens. 1031 is the section that allows for indefinite detention. (if I'm reading right, 1032 may be the indefinite part, 1031 might be the part about requiring the military take custody, either way the analysis is the same)

[Gaspar]

You dolt. Levin said the administration requested language precluding the application of 1031 to US citizens. 1031 is the section that allows for indefinite detention. (if I'm reading right, 1032 may be the indefinite part, 1031 might be the part about requiring the military take custody, either way the analysis is the same)

No that video was made before the decision to add the language back was made.  Watch it again.  The argument was being made as to why that language was left out of the bill when presented to the Senate.  Levin demanded that the protection be put back in place.

[Gaspar]

Now, in all fairness, as sponsors Lindsey Grahm and John McCain agreed with the administrations recommendation that American Citizens be applicable to indefinite detention, but they failed to convince the rest of congress.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens.html

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/undefinedsingleton/

[nathanm]

Now, in all fairness, as sponsors Lindsey Grahm and John McCain agreed with the administrations recommendation that American Citizens be applicable to indefinite detention, but they failed to convince the rest of congress.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens.html

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/undefinedsingleton/

In all fairness, so did Carl Levin and 58 other senators who refused to pass the Udall Amendment. Excuse me if I don't believe Levin for a second. (I can't actually watch more than about 10 seconds of Flash video on this effing computer, so I have to take your word for what he said in the video) Have I mentioned how much I hate having crap like this attached to appropriations?

[nathanm]

Also, for what it's worth, section 1032 (which is the mandatory military detention section) is not applicable to US Citizens captured in the US.

The sad thing is that for all the arguing, we're both missing that this just codifies present practice under the AUMF Congress passed after 9/11, with minor additional protections for US Citizens.

Edited to add: Sad that only two Republicans thought going against the flow here was a good idea. Also sad that so many Democrats decided that civil liberties don't matter.

Edited again to add: Thinking further about it, why am I even arguing with you about this. Clearly both parties think this is a good idea and both of us think it's utterly dangerous. We should be working together on these things we agree on, not arguing against each other.

[Conan71]

We should be working together on these things we agree on, not arguing against each other.

I seem to recall a conversation along those lines yesterday.  I think there's far too much focus on differences rather than similarities.  The media and career politicians are banking on us to keep focusing on the differences as it keeps them relevant and makes them all a lot of money.

[nathanm]

I seem to recall a conversation along those lines yesterday.  I think there's far too much focus on differences rather than similarities.  The media and career politicians are banking on us to keep focusing on the differences as it keeps them relevant and makes them all a lot of money.

I agree. Even knowing that, it can be hard to not fall into the trap of arguing about the details. That's probably why it's such a successful strategy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We are fast approaching a point where 1031.c.1 should start to kick in.  Applying to detainees gathered up in Iraq during the hostilities.  Not sure how many or if there are any, but since that action ends in a couple weeks, this should apply.  Wonder if the end of hostilities could have been construed to mean when end of hostilities was declared with the removal of combat troops from Iraq many months ago?

Or when "Mission Accomplished" was declared many years ago?

[Conan71]

Couldn't resist: