The Section Preventing Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial Removed from Final NDAA Bill

Michael Krieger
While the Feinstein-Lee Amendment wasn’t perfect, it was a small step forward as I outlined in my piece:  My Thoughts on the Feinstein-Lee Amendment to the NDAA.  Amazingly, this small victory has been stripped out of the final bill by our “representatives.”  If this doesn’t prove without a shadow of a doubt that this government is criminal and wants the power to lock up citizens without trial I don’t know what will.

From the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — 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. Read more >>

Why You Should Be Outraged About The Ruling To Keep The NDAA Indefinite Detention Clause

On Tuesday a federal appeals court ruled the government can indefinitely detain anyone, at least until the courts decide whether to permanently block or confirm the indefinite detention clause (i.e. §1021) of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

That the NDAA is fully enforceable right now is scary enough, but the details of the ruling are truly bothersome to those that have been following the rulings in the case.

First, a recap why §1021 was ruled unconstitutional and how the government reacted. Journalists and activists sued to stop the provisions, which allow the government to indefinitely detain anyone who provides "substantial support" to the Taliban, al-Qaeda or "associated forces," including "any person who has committed a belligerent act" in the aid of such enemy forces. Read more >>

Obama appeals NDAA indefinite detention ban

A federal judge blocked the government from enforcing a statute that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects. That means a victory for journalists and the activists fighting the law who could be arrested because their jobs sometimes require them to interact with suspect on the government's radar, but it could be a victory short-lived.

Only one day after a judge granted a permanent injunction on the NDAA provision, the White House asked for an appeal. Tangerine Bolen, the founder of Revolution Truth and a plaintiff in the case, joins RTs Liz Wahl for more.

Amendment to NDAA To Give Military Clandestine Operation Powers Online

The existing version of the NDAA does grant the Defense Department the ability to conduct military activities in cyberspace, but only "upon direction by the President" and if the purpose is to "defend our Nation, Allies and interests," subject to existing laws.

Here's the existing text:

SEC. 954. MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE.

Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to—

(1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and


(2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

However, the House Armed Services Committee is getting ready to do a markup on the NDAA that includes a change to that section (section 954), which expands the powers of the Defense Department, and basically gives it broad powers to conduct any military actions online -- with it specifically calling out clandestine operations online. More...

Occupy Tampa to march on Obama office to protest National Defense Authorization Act

By Cooper Levey-Baker

Occupy Tampa protesters plan to march to Obama’s Ybor City campaign office today to protest the president’s decision to support the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that authorizes the “indefinite detention of terrorist suspects” — including American citizens — “without trial.”

In a statement given to Obama’s office yesterday, Occupy Tampa protesters wrote:

In your newly stated support for the provisions that allow for the indefinite detainment of American citizens, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, you have betrayed the trust of those who have put you into office and the trust of the citizens that your office was created to serve.

If you fail to veto this bill in its entirety due to these provisions, you can expect members of occupations all over the country to dedicate ourselves to act against your political interests in the 2012 election and beyond.

This bill threatens the first amendment.

This bill explicitly violates Art. III, Sec. 3 of the constitution which states, “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court”. The removal of the rights of citizenship without due process of law allows for the destruction of the rights and liberties that we, the citizens, have, for generations, fought and bled for.

This bill violates the Fourth amendment, and the founding principles of due process that stands as the basis for justice in our country.

This bill further eliminates the protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment right to make use of due process of law.

This bill violates the Sixth amendment of the Constitution, as it denies citizens to the basic protection of a guaranteed trial by jury.

For the first time in legislative history the government of the United States has, through legislative fiat, designated the entire planet upon which we live a war zone and every citizen a potential enemy of the state.

This bill goes against everything that you have said previously, everything you have purported to stand for, and what has distinguished this nation as the founder of the free world.

We expect you to veto this assault on the American way of life.

The NDAA has drawn fierce criticism from civil liberties advocates. The executive director of Human Rights Watch said that by deciding to support the bill, Obama “will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.” An ACLU representative said that “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.”