3 ms·
In Sec. 1021 (the one about indefinite detention power), it clearly states: (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law
by morpher 15y ago
In Sec. 1021 (the one about indefinite detention power), it clearly states:
(e) 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.
So, how does this give the president the supposed power to detain US citizens? (The oft quoted 'slippery' line about not requiring detention Americans is from the NEXT section, which is specifically about requiring detentions in some cases.
- rcthompson 15y agoBecause the president says so. Seems to be the justification for a lot of things.
- pingswept 15y agoIf this applies as you say, what's the purpose of Obama's signing statement? It seems like it would be unnecessary. (You're right that this is in the bill, as I just verified here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-11...)
- morpher 15y agoOk. I see now how this can be abused. Is it saying: (A) United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or (any other persons who are caputred or arrested in the US) OR B) (United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or any other persons) who are caputred or arrested in the US If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed.
- jonhendry 15y ago"If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed." Seems like they already are.
- adamtaylor 15y agoHow much do these provisions of the NDAA really matter? They are still trumped by the Bill of Rights, which clearly forbids indefinite detention of citizens without trial. (The Sixth Amendment, in particular.) And the Bill of Rights can't be superceded except by a new amendment to the constitution. I still wish these provisions weren't there, because they seem insane to me, but I'm wondering if they're really of very much practical consequence.
- morpher 15y agoI agree that the bill of rights supersedes and I also think that the court would most likely assume that the intended interpretation of the clause above is (A). But, I feel bad for the guy waiting in jail while the case runs through the court system...