iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Indefinite Military Detention Measure Passes On Bill Of Rights Day

Indefinite Detention

First Posted: 12/15/11 05:24 PM ET Updated: 12/15/11 08:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The Senate passed a defense bill Thursday that authorizes indefinite detentions of American terrorism suspects, coincidentally acting on the controversial measure on the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, passed 86 to 13 and is expected to be signed quickly by President Obama, who withdrew a veto threat against the bill Wednesday. Six Democrats, six Republicans and one independent opposed the bill.

Though the legislation passed overwhelmingly, several senators argued that it was threatening fundamental provisions of the Bill of Rights, which is celebrated every Dec. 15.

"We as Americans have a right to a speedy trial, not indefinite detention," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). "We as Americans have a right to a jury of our peers, which I would argue is ... not enlisted or military personnel sitting in a jury. You cannot search our businesses or place of business or our homes without probable cause under the Bill of Rights."

"You cannot be deprived of your freedom or your property without due process of law, and that, I would say, is not indefinite detention," added Kirk, who voted for the bill. "I would actually argue that no statute and no Senate and no House can take these rights away from you."

The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

Supporters of the bill argued that current U.S. law is a combination of rulings and precedents that already allow indefinite detention of Americans. But they say that granting the military explicit authority to investigate and detain terrorism suspects -- including Americans -- is vital to ensuring the nation can keep up with an adaptable and changing enemy threat.

They point to court rulings that have found detentions of citizens to be proper. But opponents say the issue of grabbing up Americans on U.S. soil and putting them in military detention without trial has never actually been tested by the Supreme Court.

"This provision would for the first time in American history require our military to take custody of certain terrorism suspects in the United States," said Durbin, who was especially concerned with two sections of the bill -- 1021 and 1022 -- and voted "no."

He argued -- citing FBI Director Robert Mueller's opposition to the provisions -- that there was no reason to mess with a system that has worked well since Sept. 11, 2001.

"Since 9/11 our counterterrorism professionals have prevented another attack on the United States, and more than 400 terrorists have successfully been prosecuted and convicted -- prosecuted and convicted -- in federal court," Durbin said. "Why do we want to change this system when it's working so well to keep America safe? The fact that these detainee provisions have caused so many disagreements and such heated debate demonstrates the danger of enacting them into law."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who added an amendment to the bill that specifies the resulting measure would not affect current law regarding citizens, argued that her provision provides protection for Americans.

Nevertheless, in voting for the bill, she also proposed a new bill that she, Durbin, Kirk and others intend to pursue later in hopes of making her interpretation the law.

"I strongly believe that constitutional due process requires that United States citizens apprehended in the United States should never be held in indefinite detention," Feinstein said. "That is what this legislation would accomplish."

Feinstein offered a similar amendment during earlier debate over the $662 billion defense bill, and it failed. It was not clear that this measure would do any better, although she noted that it built on a law signed in 1971 by President Nixon meant to curb abuses such as the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II.

The bill requires military treatment for foreign terrorism suspects. Defenders of the bill have pointed to one part of the provisions that say U.S. citizens are "exempted" from the requirement to be detained by the military, but legal scholars note that even though that detention is not required, it is allowed.

President Obama had threatened to veto the measure. But after provisions were added that gave him the final say over which suspects stay in military custody, he relented. Those provisions also ensured that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would still be permitted to investigate and interrogate terrorist suspects. Mueller has called the provisions insufficient, warning that they will create bureaucratic roadblocks in the midst of vital investigations.

Obama could sign sign the bill as soon as Friday.

Civil liberties groups were infuriated that Obama retreated from the veto threat, and called on him to reconsider.

"The NDAA enshrines the war paradigm that has eroded the United States' human rights record and served it so poorly over the past decade as the country's primary counterterrorism tool," said Tom Parker, policy director of Amnesty International USA. "In doing so, the NDAA provides a framework for 'normalizing' indefinite detention and making Guantanamo a permanent feature of American life," he said, referring to a restriction in the measure on closing the Cuba prison for terror suspects.

"By withdrawing his threat to veto the NDAA, President Obama has abandoned yet another principled position with little or nothing to show for it," Parker said. "Amnesty International is appalled -- but regrettably not surprised."

Michael McAuliff covers politics and Congress for the Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

CORRECTION: This article originally stated that Ben Cardin is a senator from Delaware. It has been fixed to reflect that he is in fact a senator from Maryland.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The Senate passed a defense bill Thursday that authorizes indefinite detentions of American terrorism suspects, coincidentally acting on the controversial measure on the 220th anniversar...
WASHINGTON -- The Senate passed a defense bill Thursday that authorizes indefinite detentions of American terrorism suspects, coincidentally acting on the controversial measure on the 220th anniversar...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,702
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (100 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
ResearchtheFacts 07:33 PM on 12/15/2011
I'm convinced congress members don't like people and only see us as something to be used as stepping stones to further their interest. Nothing in this legislation says I have a connection to or have a like of people. How do you get this jaded in your thinking of other human beings?

It was bad enough that we were responsible for over 100k people in Iraq losing their lives and never stopped as a nation  Read More...
02:21 AM on 02/16/2012
I am truly thankful that i have no rights thanks to the PATRIOT act and NDAA.I look forward to black rape vans an helicopters snatching up "terrorists".
MediaWatchDawg
We're all different & we're all the same
11:04 PM on 01/10/2012
Even Hitler would have gotten a trial.
photo
one1byke
Easy no Man.
09:35 AM on 01/17/2012
read some "watchdog"

Operation Foxley.
09:03 PM on 01/07/2012
Here's Fourteen Characteristics By Dr. Lawrence Britt, please tell me if you realize any similarities.
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OOOOOMY
03:36 AM on 01/01/2012
Steamboater...Good points all
Remember this as well...The presidents silence, when his VP publically declared 'The Taliban is not our enemy' I find this puzzling as we all saw him laughing and wishing all good cheer while attending Military basis on Hawaii in memory of all who have died and were maimed in defending Freedom for all.
Even now in the contemplation of releasing a Taliban murderer of thousands held at Gitmo....only to return and plot further you think against us?....and all for the political vote. against military commander advice on the ground
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OOOOOMY
03:29 AM on 01/01/2012
SeekTruthCT...Good question...Look it up yourselves Copy and Paste:

National Defense Authorization Act

'EVEN' The ACLU Is Against This Now Law Of The land.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OOOOOMY
03:21 AM on 01/01/2012
President Barack Obama signed into law The National Defense Authorization Act, which states how the military will be funded but the indefinite military detention of Americans. He states with serious reservations.
I Have Serious Reservations.
This I find troubling considering what has been observed by this presidents actions so far. For example, his use of Executive Privilege, more than any other existing president in ramming through his wishes thereby bypassing Congress role in a vetting process.
Also seen in his appointments example of which the National Labor Relation Board, Union friendly Attorney, Becker, who's term is about to expire.
The use of controversial issues placed in control of EPA to advance presidents goal by using the EPA to enforce law.
The appointments, of more CZARS, with enormous powers that answer to no one except the president himself.
The presidents socialistic'fascist takeovers ObamaCare, auto companies, banks, student loans, among others, and ever expanding government control and oversight.
You take all the above and now this action, is truly frightening, as now it is not only our Constitution and our Bill of Rights under assault, but taken away....
Even if you protesting anything ...You are Suspicious­, as such you are considered a terrorist, a threat to government­. This could well be used to silence anyone...P­olitical proponents­, dissenters etc.
Under the National Defense Authorization­ion Act:
No longer a right to legal representation­.
Held without being charged for any crime
No trial by jury

Tyranny?
04:51 PM on 01/28/2012
We must get this news out over and over until every single American understands what this vote has done and how urgent it is to vote out of office everyone who signed on to it. This is truly un-American!
08:07 PM on 12/30/2011
I seriously wonder if it's a coincidence. Our government is seriously ill.
10:15 AM on 12/28/2011
Has anyone read enough of the bill linked in this article to understand it? From what I read in the first few pages it specifically exempts American citizens from this measure. Granted, there could be more further in, and I am no expert on legalese, but the text of the bill seems contrary to what is causing outrage here. Can anyone better at deciphering this weigh in?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sleepers Awake
Google this: "Fighting for peace is like" ...
11:37 PM on 12/26/2011
All members of the House, Senate, and the Oval Office take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The greatest threat to our freedom is now coming from our own government, from DC "Representatives" who supported this bill. Only 13 Senators rose to the occasion to oppose this bill.

This bill should serve as a litmus test, that anyone having voted for the passage of the bill should never receive another vote for any federal office.

This is a terrible legacy we are leaving future generations.
pnut166
Proud member of the party of free thinkers
12:24 AM on 12/23/2011
Obama has no sack.
pnut166
Proud member of the party of free thinkers
12:07 AM on 12/23/2011
The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" And according to the DoD : "Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political." So, the unlawful use of force - to detain citizens, and keep them imprisoned indefinitely, qualifies as terrorism by their own definition. As well, acts such as voting something like this into law - the power to imprison citizens and stripping their Constitutional rights, is political in nature, and therefore, every Senator who voted for this implied that they themselves committed an act of terrorism. This law nullifies itself.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eptjevi
06:44 PM on 12/21/2011
Vote Potus, and all of congress our of office next year if this law is passed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eptjevi
06:43 PM on 12/21/2011
Battlefield USA, citizens are the enemy..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eptjevi
06:43 PM on 12/21/2011
Hope dashed.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eptjevi
06:42 PM on 12/21/2011
if Barrack sign this into law, i will vote Ron Paul, and advise all Americans to do the same..
pnut166
Proud member of the party of free thinkers
11:50 PM on 12/22/2011
To paraphrase a line from "Star Wars" - "He is our only hope"