[subego]

If I'm reading this right, the current bill allows the President to use the military to indefinitely detain anyone, anywhere. This would include US citizens on US soil.

I'm sure I'm missing some details, but I can't say this looks good. It's been noted they tried to give Truman this power in the McCarthy era, and he had the good sense to turn it down.

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah, I've heard of this, I think.

If there's one thing that seems to be defining the 21st Century, it's the total disregard of due process in the name of speed and efficiency. Side-effect of the internet age, I imagine.

[subego]

My understanding is it's been flying below the radar because Obama has been threatening to veto it.

Apparently, his problem wasn't crushing due process, it was that the bill didn't make it clear how it'd interact with law enforcement.

That's been addressed, so the veto threat's been withdrawn.

Ugh.

[The Final Dakar]

It's nice that with Bush we had the uncharacteristicly Democratic thumbing the nose at spending, and now with Obama we have the uncharacteristicly Republican thumbing the nose at civil liberties. Both parties are just merging into a big bowl of super diarrhea.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's nice that with Bush we had the uncharacteristicly Democratic thumbing the nose at spending, and now with Obama we have the uncharacteristicly Republican thumbing the nose at civil liberties. Both parties are just merging into a big bowl of super diarrhea.

couldn't have said it better myself.

[Doofy]

Ran this by a lawyer a few weeks back. No big deal, storm in a teacup, qualifies under #1 US export: "drama".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ran this by a lawyer a few weeks back. No big deal, storm in a teacup, qualifies under #1 US export: "drama".

Our #1 export is Freedom™, Mister.
See: Middle East, The
(please don't check that)

[Doofy]

:guffaw:

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

If I'm reading this right, the current bill allows the President to use the military to indefinitely detain anyone, anywhere. This would include US citizens on US soil.

I'm sure I'm missing some details, but I can't say this looks good. It's been noted they tried to give Truman this power in the McCarthy era, and he had the good sense to turn it down.

Sort of, but not really. It doesn't specifically limit the scope of this authority (which existed prior to this NDAA), but, as alluded to in the text, there is existing case law here (e.g. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) that already imposes limits on the authority.

[subego]

Sorry I've been slow on this one.

If my understanding is correct, those powers existed through broad interpretation of the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of 9/11. This bill makes indefinite detention explicit law, and broadens the scope of to whom it applies. As for the court limitations, I'm certainly glad they're there, but I'd rather have legislation which doesn't try to get right up on the line rather than hope the court of last resort does a good job imitating a backstop.

On that same note, looks to me like Obama had one of his campaign promises "go for a ride" with a pair of his CIA pals.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sorry I've been slow on this one.

If my understanding is correct, those powers existed through broad interpretation of the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of 9/11. This bill makes indefinite detention explicit law, and broadens the scope of to whom it applies. As for the court limitations, I'm certainly glad they're there, but I'd rather have legislation which doesn't try to get right up on the line rather than hope the court of last resort does a good job imitating a backstop.

You have it mostly right, but the line between "broad interpretation" and "explicit law" is mostly meaningless. Interpretation is law. The new NDAA makes explicit what had already been interpreted. The NDAA is also a yearly thing, specifying the annual budget for the Department of Defense. You can think of it like the implementation of agreed-upon authority into a specified budget for the year. If/when the authorization to use military force expires, you'll see a whole different set of political/legal pressures that would probably cause something like this to not pass muster.

To clarify, though, it's not like I'm a huge fan of this. It does make it slightly easier to abuse authority. But the doomsdaying on the other side is a little much.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You can think of it like the implementation of agreed-upon authority into a specified budget for the year. If/when the authorization to use military force expires, you'll see a whole different set of political/legal pressures that would probably cause something like this to not pass muster.

My feeling is 180° on this. This would have been the case if it remained linked to the 9/11 military authorizations, but now, it has a general applicability to the "War on Terror".

IOW, the duration of these powers are now legally tied to a bullshit marketing phrase.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You have it mostly right, but the line between "broad interpretation" and "explicit law" is mostly meaningless. Interpretation is law.

Oh the joys of Common Law.

-t