Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

melonkali

(114 posts)
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:34 PM Dec 2011

The NDAA 2012 -- could there more to it than gouges the eyes?

I'm completely befuddled by Obama's actions, and Biden's support, and the Democrats in Congress (whose inexplicable behavior assured an over-ride of any Presidential veto). The short non-debate. None of this makes any sense.

UNLESS there's more to it. What that might be, I haven't a clue. It would allow military detention and PROTECTION of any American citizens who were involved with 9/11 and knew something about "bigger fish" involved in 9/11?? Is that even plausible as a wild speculation?? If so, then the Cheney-ites surely would have gotten wind and killed the bill, don't you think?

I'm lost. Anyone have a speculative idea along the "there's more to this" line?

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The NDAA 2012 -- could there more to it than gouges the eyes? (Original Post) melonkali Dec 2011 OP
Can you help me understand this, pls? dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #1
The Bill is Passed and Signed melonkali Dec 2011 #2
Obama may have signed it by now. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #3
Arrghhhhh dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #4

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
1. Can you help me understand this, pls?
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:00 PM
Dec 2011

Has the bill passed the House and the Senate?

If so, where in the bill is the section that you are currently referring to?

 

melonkali

(114 posts)
2. The Bill is Passed and Signed
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:43 PM
Dec 2011

The contentious unlimited detention sections are 1031 and 1032 --

While 1032 seems to offer some questionable protection for U.S. citizens from unlimited military detention, by giving precedence, in at least some cases, to civilian law authorities, there is some question about the term "not required" as meaning "still an option",

Section 1031, paragraph (e), the Feinstein addition, which exempted American Citizens on American soil from military arrest and unlimited military detention, including the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques", without official charges or notification, or any other public acknowledgement or civil recourse -- that paragraph was eliminated in the "reconciliation version" of the bill which Obama finally signed on Dec. 15. Apparently it was Obama who insisted on its elimination, saying that no one should be exempt from the law.

These sections fall under military laws of war, and such measures as unlimited detention can remain in effect until "the end of hostilities" which, considering the nature of the "war on terror" would seem indefinite indeed.

People can be picked up and detained without evidence, the criteria being that the President OR the military suspects them of belligerent acts (not defined) or association with or supporting others who are suspected of engaging in belligerent acts against the U.S. or its coalition members.

Can of worms, eh?

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
3. Obama may have signed it by now.
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:45 PM
Dec 2011

Here's Adam Serwer on the NDAA detention policies.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

The conference report (latest version, the one the President will sign if he hasn't already) is here:

http://democrats.rules.house.gov/112/text/112_hr1540conf_txt.pdf

Page 654 of that PDF is where the sections start, 1021-1023 in this final numbering.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»The NDAA 2012 -- could th...