OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Indefinite military detention for U.S. citizens now in the hands of a secretive conference committee

December 8, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

If Congress does not pass a Department of Defense Authorization bill that Obama will sign by the end of the year, almost all of the U.S. military’s activities around the world would be jeopardized. At this point, the House and Senate have both passed their versions of the bill (H.R.1540 and S.1867), but they have disagreement on several provisions, including a provision opposed by the Obama Administration that would require the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens living in the U.S., without charge or trial.

With the House having voted 406-17 to “close” portions of the meetings and avoid public scrutiny, members from both chambers and both parties are meeting in a secretive conference committee to work on reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. On the military detention provision, their main task is going to be to find a solution that can pass both chambers (again) and not draw a veto from President Obama.

Contrary to popular perception, the Obama Administration is not strongly opposed to the provisions in the bills that would authorize indefinite military detentions for U.S. citizens. Here’s what the Administration had to say in a Statement of Administrative Policy on the Senate bill:

Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.

In other words, they’ll take it and recommend that Congress passes clarifying legislation in the future, which, of course, will never happen. What they oppose is the provision that would mandate that power be used for all terrorism suspects besides U.S. citizens. From the same statement:

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects.

As you can read for yourself here, Section 1031, affirming the “authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons…” does not contain an exemption for U.S. citizens. Section 1032, mandating the military detention authority be used for terrorism suspects, does, but that is the section that the Obama Administration says must be removed or else he will veto. The Administration has been stressing the need for flexibility in their powers to collect information and incapacitate terrorists, which likely means that they want to retain the power to detain suspects outside the context of war and the Geneva Convention protections that would apply. The secretive conference committee may still be able to overcome Obama’s veto threat while also codifying the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without having to charge them or give them a trial.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
torture Torture Civil Liberties civil liberties military Guantanamo Bay War on Terror MILITARY military detention
 

Comments

Displaying 1-30 of 31 total comments.

  • Spam Comment

  • AdmThrawn 12/08/2011 7:31pm
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    According to the Library of Congress version, there is a amendment in Sec. 1031 in the most recent iteration that specifically precludes this law from affecting “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.”

    Ergo, while not a specific exemption from action as in section 1032, it does negate the idea that this creates a NEW threat to citizens, does it not?

    Or is that not sufficient for a reason I am missing?

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    captpjv 12/14/2011 5:22pm
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    This is NOT my America…I have the right under the 14th and 6th amendments…WHICH should not be changed until ratified by the majority vote of WE the people! The rest of this is hog wash.

  • Spam Comment

  • kxmas 12/08/2011 8:35pm
    Link Reply
    + 1
    ↓

    The Obama administration is talking out of both sides of their mouths. They asked for this! Fast forward to 4:43:29 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951

  • Comm_reply
    AmE 12/08/2011 9:05pm
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    I did watch it again, no they did not.

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Monsoon 12/10/2011 6:01pm
    Link Reply
    + 4
    ↓

    As an Executive Committee Member of the Pima County Republican Party, I call for the resignations of all politicians that voted to approve the NDAA.

    Jeff Bales
    Tucson, Arizona

    http://www.pr.com/press-release/375645

  • knarf61 12/11/2011 7:58am
    Link Reply
    + 1
    ↓

    Isn’t this how the Checka began? I hear 8 bells for the Republic.

  • snibbodmot 12/12/2011 12:07am
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    Section 1031, affirming the “authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons…” does not contain an exemption for U.S. citizens. Section 1032, mandating the military detention authority be used for terrorism suspects, does, but that is the section that the Obama Administration says must be removed or else he will veto. The Administration has been stressing the need for flexibility in their powers to collect information and incapacitate terrorists, which likely means that they want to retain the power to detain suspects outside the context of war and the Geneva Convention protections that would apply. The secretive conference committee may still be able to overcome Obama’s veto threat while also codifying the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without having to charge them or give them a trial.

  • Spam Comment

  • katsung47 12/12/2011 6:33pm
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    Petition to IMPEACH ALL Senators who Voted for “U.S. is a Battlefield” and to detain U.S. Citizens without trial

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/892/petition-to-impeach-all-senators-who-voted-for-us-is-a-battlefield-and-to-detain-us-citizens-without/

  • Tokishone 12/12/2011 7:46pm
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    I don’t know what to make of all of this anymore… I’m stressing out and having serious anxiety thanks to all this nonsense… I seriously hope that this bill fails, otherwise I don’t know what I’m going to do. America as we know it will be changed forever… I’m so scared… terrified actually…

  • amusedandannoyed 12/13/2011 12:34pm
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    Here is my worry:

    This section may mean that any person, including the First Lady, could be a suspected terrorist on the premise that they have a garden, keep any food longer than 7 days including ice cream and anything frozen… and then be held prisoner for something as simple as not handing over the television remote. This section turns people into slaves, I thought slavery had been abolished.

    Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • gregmarshall3 12/14/2011 9:19am
    Link Reply
    + 1
    ↓

    Reading and comprehending exactly what obama means in the ‘Statement of Administrative Policy’ does not require a genious. I’m not a genious, as you can tell by my spelling, but I can read, and if you havent read this statement mentioned above, then you are ignorant and dont know what your talking about, or completely deluded and incapable of accepting the fact that obama is specifically requiring that US citizens not be an exception to this detainee wording, in which case he promises to veto, if exceptions for US citizens are made.
    Dont worry. Your not alone. I thought he was a good guy too, when I first saw and heard him on Oprah. I see how gullible I am. I bet Oprah is pissed that he used her platform to launch his agenda….which apparently is not his alone, but even so, is very twisted and wrong. By the way, in my cheapo Websters dictionary, EVIL is defined as TWISTED and WRONG. Ignorant of Self.
    I was surprised to learn this as well.

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • tllampert 12/20/2011 1:05pm
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    If they were so worried about our safety, why has it taken them 9 years after September 11, 2001 to enact this? The timing of this is strange.

  • alissacordry 01/13/2012 1:54am
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    The Universal Dash Programmer handheld is powered OBD2 with 12 V by a 3,5 mm maniple (port 1). Please use an AC adapter with at
    sbb key programmer programming a detached odometer. When programming through gm candi interfacess the diagnostic port.

  • Xuesier 03/02/2012 11:33am
    Link Reply
    + 0
    ↓

    Yeah, totally, Stop SOPA!

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment


Get Blog Updates by Email

Delivered by FeedBurner

Demand Question Time!



Find us at

Want a simple way to stay on top of what's happening in Congress?

Subscribe to this blog!

Send Us a Tip

You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.

Submit a tip




Recent Posts

Archives

See All Archives

Blogroll


See our Twitter List

Congress Watchers

OpenCongress is a free and open-source project of the Participatory Politics Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with a mission to increase civic engagement. The non-profit Sunlight Foundation is the Founding and Primary Supporter of OpenCongress.