Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Levin: It was Obama who required Indefinite Detainment Bill INCLUDE U.S. Citizens

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 12, 2011, 12:19 a.m. EST by newjustice22 (49)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

2 Comments

2 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 7 years ago

:::::Obama to sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law in a Few Days?:::::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8&feature=player_embedded

(by poiqweruadjfkewrijo) As soon as December 13, the President will sign NDAA Section 1031 into law, permitting citizen imprisonment without evidence or trial. The bill that passed Congress absolutely DOES NOT exempt citizens. The text of Section 1031 reads, "A covered person under this section" includes "any person who has committed a belligerent act". We only have to be ACCUSED, because we don't get a trial.

  • Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. He has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment -- in fact, it was requested by the Obama administration. Watch the video for proof.

  • The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) is dangerously misleading. Don't be fooled: In the text of 1031(e), "Nothing in this section shall be construed...", the only word that matters is "construed" because the Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe the law. The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) permits citizens to be imprisoned without evidence or a trial forever, if the Supreme Court does not EXPLICITLY repeal 1031.

  • Any time you hear the words, "requirement for military custody" this refers to 1032 NOT 1031. We MUST not confuse these two sections. In its statements, the Obama administration has actually contributed to the confusion about 1032's "requirement for military custody", which is COMPLETEY UNRELATED to Section 1031 citizen imprisonment without trial. These tricky, misleading words appear even in major news stories. Don't fall for it!

If we act urgently to tell our friends, family, and colleagues, we may still be able to prevent this. Here is what we can do:

1) Americans must know about this to stop it. Urgently pass this petiton as widely as possible: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-ndaa-section-1031-citizen-imprisonment-l...

2) To spread this C-SPAN video evidence, Thumbs Up and comment on this video. People deserve to watch this before he signs it.

3) Congress can still block the law before December 13. Write and call your Representative and Senator telling them to stop NDAA Section 1031 and the dangerously misleading Feinstein Amendment 1031(e). Contact your Representative: http://writerep.house.gov/writerep/ Contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

4) Write and call the White House to tell the President you won't sit by and watch NDAA Section 1031 and the dangerously misleading Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) become law: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

Excerpt property of C-SPAN. Fair Use: http://legacy.c-span.org/about/press/release.asp?code=video

[-] 1 points by drghs3 (9) 7 years ago

Levin has gone to the darkside.

I have spent alot of time analyzing NDAA Sections 1031 and 1032, reading the legislative history, and talking with people.

Some say that the addition of 1031(e) excludes Americans. That isn't true.

Section 1031(e) provides " Authorities- Nothing in this section shall 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."

Sounds good right? As Graham says, and reassures, "we aren't changing the law. Nothing in the bill is inconsistent with existing law."

Not so fast. Graham gave himself away. He claims this bill (which he contends allows indefinite detention of Americans for acts in the US) is consistent with the Supreme Court's Padilla decision. Hmmmmm.

But the Padilla decision is anethema to conservatives. The Bush administration grabbed American citizen Padilla (in the US) before the FBI could, and stuck him in a naval brig in South Carolina.

After three years in a naval brig (the first two with no access to a lawyer), Padilla got to the Supreme Court. The Court ordered that Padilla not be held in a military brig and tried in federal court. He was convicted in a jury trial.

But conservatives hate this decision. Which leads to the question - why does Graham contend that his bill is consistent with a Padilla decision that opened the legal door for Padillas release from the brig? They seem contradictory.

In Padilla, the court only ordered Padilla released because President Bush had not been authorized by Congress to have the military detain American citizens for acts away from a combat zone as enemy combatants. So the Padilla decision depends on the fact that no such Congressional approval for military detention was given. But it opens the door to such detention under a different set of facts.

NDAA and passage of 1031 will give Congressional approval to the President to have the military detain American citizens who committed act away from combat zones as enemy combatants (which closes the loophole that sprung Padilla).

But the bill goes further. Padilla engaged in conspiracy to commit terror. Under this bill, even "substantial support" for forces associated with terrorists can be detained by the military. That vaguely worded phrase is well short of conspiracy.

Worse still, those deciding what constitutes substantial would be military personnel. Not judges, not lawyers, maybe not even college grads.

This deprives American citizens of their Constitutional right to a jury trial for offenses committed within the US far from an actual combat zone when civilian courts are working perfectly well.