iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Indefinite Detention Targeted By GOP As House Committee Weighs Proposals To Revise Provision

Indefinite Detention Ndaa

DONNA CASSATA   03/30/12 09:22 AM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — Facing a conservative backlash, House Republicans are working to change a new law that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders.

Republicans and Democratic lawmakers said this week that the GOP majority on the House Armed Services Committee was weighing several proposals to revise the provision on indefinite detention that was part of the far-reaching defense bill that Congress passed in December and President Barack Obama signed into law.

Last year, Congress' approach to handling terror suspects divided Republicans and Democrats, pitted the White House against lawmakers and drew fierce opposition from civil liberties groups. The anger still lingers, and GOP leaders are under pressure from a number of rank-and-file members, tea partyers and libertarians to change the law.

"I intend to help put as much political pressure on this issue as possible," said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., whose staff has spoken to the Armed Services panel. "I intend to spend a lot of time – and I already have been doing so – making the public aware of this issue so we can get the change we need to address it."

Officials for the committee led by Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., had no comment on the possible changes to be included in a defense bill, which could be completed this summer. The discussions are preliminary, but one possibility is greater review for those detained indefinitely, said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the committee's top Democrat.

Conservatives fear that the detention provision could result in unfettered power for the federal government, allowing it to detain American citizens indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that's later linked to terrorism. They argue that would be a violation of long-held constitutional rights. Also disconcerting to the GOP is the reality that the current government is led by Democrat Obama.

Several Democrats also have criticized the provision as an example of government overreach and an unnecessary obstacle to the administration's war against terrorism, creating an unusual political coalition in Congress.

In the months since the bill became law, some Republicans who backed the legislation have been challenged at town halls and other meetings with constituents, a turn of events that unnerves the GOP.

"There clearly has been some blowback and that's what the Republicans are trying to address," Smith said.

The indefinite detention provision denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants. In hopes of quelling the furor, lawmakers added language that said nothing in the law may 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."

When Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31, he issued a statement saying he had serious reservations about provisions on the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Such signing statements are common and allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

In February, the Obama administration outlined new rules on when the FBI, rather than the military, could be allowed to retain custody of al-Qaida terrorism suspects who aren't U.S. citizens but are arrested by federal law enforcement officers. The new procedures spelled out seven circumstances in which the president could place a suspect in FBI, rather than military, custody, including a waiver when it could impede counterterrorism cooperation with another government or when it could interfere with efforts to secure an individual's cooperation or confession.

But that's not sufficient for some lawmakers.

Smith and Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., have introduced legislation that would repeal the provision on indefinite detention and reverse the mandatory military custody for foreign terrorist suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or attacking the United States.

"I will continue to push that bill," Smith said in an interview. "I know the majority is also putting together some ideas. They're very process-focused. ... I have not seen specifics of that proposal yet and we'll talk to them about it, but obviously I have a much stronger position on that and think that we don't need to have indefinite detention or military custody for the people in the U.S."

Amash is determined to change the law, using town halls in his district and the long reach of Facebook to get his message out. He said many Republicans voted for the defense bill in December after they were promised that legislation fixing the provision would be introduced after Christmas. He's still waiting.

"What I've seen from members of Armed Services Committee is basically an attempt to justify the language as it stands," Amash said. "And considering the extent to which they've dug in their heels on this issue, I'd be surprised if they're actually going to make a real and credible change to the language."

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Facing a conservative backlash, House Republicans are working to change a new law that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even U.S. citizens seized...
WASHINGTON — Facing a conservative backlash, House Republicans are working to change a new law that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even U.S. citizens seized...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 260
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
clarkesantacruz
sunshine daydreams
12:46 AM on 04/01/2012
end the gop in 2012
12:27 AM on 03/31/2012
Somebody keeps saying that Democrats introduced the provision in question into the Defense Authorization Bill, but I don't see anything in the article that says that. I was under the impression it was a Republican addition. That said, Obama signed it into law, which makes him complicit in stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights. I vote Democrat only because I feel they are the lesser of two evils and that a third party doesn't have a chance in hell of winning an election. But they are both corrupt and getting worse every day. The system is broken.
04:49 PM on 03/30/2012
What this article fails to mention is that it was the Obama administration that had the protections for American citizens removed from the bill. You all can point fingers and make excuses all you want but make no mistake about it, Obama signed the legislation and he did so only after our protections were removed. Here is a video clip of Carl Levin (Democrat) testifying to that fact on the house floor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAGyapIIYeM
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:46 PM on 03/30/2012
Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) Armed Services Committee Chairman had this to say, and you may look up this video. “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.” Understand? President Obama's Administration WANTED this to apply to U.S. citizens. That is a fact. Now, Progressive, or Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Independent, or "Other"...we can all agree that this should be repealed. This is a rare opportunity to band together for our collective liberty. Let's not squander it with petty childishness.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joe w2
Love is All, everything else is Commentary
01:55 AM on 03/31/2012
Absolutely! Now Is The Time for All Good Men & Women to come to the Defense of Our Nation. Politically I could be defined as the dreaded Lib.-Dem. But now is indeed the time to put
Personal Political leanings aside and support all efforts to Stop this dreadful assault on Personal Liberty and Freedom. ,
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:56 AM on 03/31/2012
Thank you, joe w2. I fully support your decision to be a Liberal! As you said, this is the time to band together. This "law" is terrible in so many ways, and does nothing to ensure our freedom. Thank you so much for your post.
Giftedroot
A forest from one root.
03:10 PM on 03/30/2012
"relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons..."

and habeus corpus began to fade into a quaint old notion before the ink was dry on that bill.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:04 PM on 03/30/2012
'bout time. They created this mess, only they can fix it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Juda Farmer
This is society?
04:29 PM on 03/30/2012
Excuse me? Are you daft or just so eager to please the Democrat crowd, that you ignore facts? This was a Democrat bill, signed into law by a Democrat President!! The DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATION explicitly wanted this section of the bill, to go through!!! It is right there in black and white. While your busy working on which Conservative to bash and blame, your OWN PRESIDENT, in the dark of night and ON A HOLIDAY!!! Signed this bill into law!! He added a little aside to it, but the LAW IS ENACTED ANYWAY!!!! "Oh I dont like the law, but what the heck I'll sign it anyway". Wonder how much money went to supporters through add-ons to it?

This "Liberal" Govt, will see you a slave and you will happily walk the path to it. Praising them for it, while blaming someone else for letting it happen!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:23 AM on 03/31/2012
your are short sighted with a selective memory apparently
01:14 AM on 04/01/2012
You are wrong. The Federal Registry contains every Bill introduced into Congress and every vote by Congress. The provision to allow detention was added by conservative Republicans in the House.

The bill was signed into law by Obama because it was part of the larger Defense Bill.
However, just 2 weeks after he signed the bill, Obama announced that his administration would NEVER retain a citizen of the USA without due process, but would retain the right to detain non-citizens.
photo
SaveTheMarshMouse
Disco Knockout
02:29 PM on 03/30/2012
but but but but but the gop is a feared of terrists - that why they insisted on putting it in there in the first place....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Juda Farmer
This is society?
04:32 PM on 03/30/2012
Did you not read the story? Its was the DEMS and the ADMINISTRATION that INSISTED IT BE IN THERE!!!! The story plainly say's the GOP wanted it removed!!

No wonder this country is so in the crapper. You people see these things and change them to fit your own one sided ideology!! Its right there in front of you and if you actually had a clue, you would have already known these things from when the law was signed over the New Years Holiday, while you weren't looking.
photo
SaveTheMarshMouse
Disco Knockout
06:35 PM on 03/30/2012
Regarding U.S. Citizens accused of supporting terrorism, senator Lindsey Graham has stated before the senate, "When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’"

– U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, 2011
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Powell
Accurate fact trumps loud emotion, always.
02:02 PM on 03/30/2012
How can this article claim something that isn't correct? Claiming the bill authorizes the capture and detention of US Citizens when nothing in the law may 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." That's in the bill, specifically stating that.

If this was so so true, why wouldn't it be taken to the Supreme Court!? Why not? A mandate for health care is important enough to take to the supreme court for them to review, but not the incorrect assumption that the bill Authorizes any American Citizen to be detained indefinitely?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:23 PM on 03/31/2012
The NDAA for 2012 is a huge problem because the US Fascist Act is the existing law. Understand?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Powell
Accurate fact trumps loud emotion, always.
12:08 AM on 04/03/2012
With your vague post, I'll assume you are referring to the AUMF. The Bill explicitly defines covered persons and expands on the AUMF in that aspect. It still doesn't authorized indefinite detention on US Citizens or residents in the 2001 bill, nor in this bill.
01:43 PM on 03/30/2012
Are you guys really surprised about this? U.S. Citizens have been stripped of rights and enslaved and shipped out to foreign countries ever since the term "terroist" came into this country. CIA Jackals have the ability to do anything "legally" even if it means detaining people for any reason. As this is well known, we have to stop it by stepping up and refusing. It's not just Republicans doing it; IT IS BOTH PARTIES of this corrupt system.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:16 PM on 03/30/2012
Agreed. Both parties are to blame. We should start with Campaign Finance Reform. Please consider researching Buddy Roemer's platform, central to this ideal. If our lawmakers aren't solely being paid by us taxpayers, then they aren't solely working for us. We have to stop the money-flow into Washington...then we can work on the rest.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Juda Farmer
This is society?
04:35 PM on 03/30/2012
Finally!! Someone with the wherewithall to not be so partisan, you ignore the reality.

Both parties are complicit. They are both in the same game, while we only think we're playing. All this talk of the 1%, when the real 1% runs the show no matter who holds a given office. Each side thinking these people are out for them, when both are out for themselves.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:25 PM on 03/31/2012
Both parties, yes, which means there is effectively only one party, at least on this issue.

Of course, the root of this problem is that election campaigns are privately financed.
Kappa51
TOWANDA....Righter of Wrongs
01:42 PM on 03/30/2012
WOW! Did the GOP just wake up and realize this bill can cut both ways???

A little concerned that some of their base could end up detained and unable to vote?

I don't know maybe like Pro-lifers that incite violence, the White supremists, the KKK, the neo-nazis....

I could go on all day, but I think you get my point.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:07 PM on 03/30/2012
"first they came for the anti-war activists but I was not an antiwar activist so I did not speak up
trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist so I did not speak up.
then they went after the teapartiers, and I realized they could come for me....."
Giftedroot
A forest from one root.
03:12 PM on 03/30/2012
They need votes and support.

Their sincerity and credibility are still in question.
watoos013
Minister of Truth
01:29 PM on 03/30/2012
and here I thought the GOP was against trying terrorists in America, or will they be transported to Guantanamo for trial?
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
01:10 PM on 03/30/2012
Didn't you hear? No wonder Republicans are worried. All of those huge, empty detention centers are supposed to hold Americans that Democrats have reported as being openly against health care reform. Indefinitely. Really, that is the kind of stuff that my tea party neighbor was taught at the 9/12 tea party rally. It is really beyond the pale, the exploitation that Republicans will engage in to try to manipulate the gullible and paranoid into voting for them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Juda Farmer
This is society?
04:41 PM on 03/30/2012
ITS A DEMOCRAT LAW!!!! Why are you still blaming the GOP?!! OBAMA SIGNED IT INTO LAW, but its still the GOPs fault?!!

Put down the cool aid and step away from the electric fence, you sad little sheep.
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
05:03 PM on 03/30/2012
Let me try again. She was told that if your neighbor reports that you're against reform, you'll end up in indefinite detention.
01:20 AM on 04/01/2012
Your micro statement says both Left and Right are wrong, but your vitriol proves you are nothing but a GOP Manchurian candidate.

It is NOT a democratic bill.

Republicans control the House of Representatives.

They voted overwhelmingly for this bill.

It also takes 60 votes for any bill to pass the Senate and democrats do NOT control 60 votes.

Lately, why do conservatives always insist on typing in all caps ?????
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sean Kruz
Virtuosity against all odds
08:44 AM on 04/01/2012
I have been in both political circles and I have NEVER heard the stupid assertion you just made. This is a non-partisan issue. It's an issue of the American people.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
forestlady
01:00 PM on 03/30/2012
What reason could anyone possibly have to detain ANYONE indefinitely? NONE. There are no good reasons for it. Everyone should have the opportunity to be heard in a court trial. Innocent until proven guilty is impossible to uphold without fair civilian court trials.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joe w2
Love is All, everything else is Commentary
02:31 AM on 03/31/2012
Man, Those were The Days My Friend....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
forestlady
09:11 AM on 03/31/2012
Unfortunately, yes. BTW, I like your byline very much.
photo
intotheabyss
Imperialism is a form of insanity.
12:49 PM on 03/30/2012
It hasn't been publicized in the establishment press, but there is a law suit to stop the NDAA from being implemented. It was first filed by Chris Hedges and then joined by Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky and others.

http://www.sparrowmedia.net/2012/03/ndaa-lawsuit-hedges-v-obama/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Powell
Accurate fact trumps loud emotion, always.
01:45 PM on 03/30/2012
You don't want to stop the NDAA from being implemented. The indef. detention provision, of course, but overall the bill is a bad or controversial bill. It authorizes pay and benefits for service members. It's just Republicans threw that deplorable bit of language into the historically very uncontroversial bill last minute so they could detain Terrorists indefinitely, knowing Obama wouldn't want to forgo pay/benefits for families and service members so congress could fight it out for days/weeks.
photo
intotheabyss
Imperialism is a form of insanity.
01:57 PM on 03/30/2012
Congress can pass emergency funding for the military any time it wants and frequently does so. This dangerous law needs to be struck down. Doing it through the courts will make it more difficult for them to try this sort of thing again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Juda Farmer
This is society?
04:44 PM on 03/30/2012
Did you not read the article? It plainly states that the Democrats added that particular provision. Thats why Obama signed it!! The administration insisted it stay in!!

Jeez, how many of you "Progressives" are going to ignore the facts? The only "Progressive" thing you do, is "progressively ignore facts, in deference to ideology".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nosybear
Liar, damn liar, statistician and brewer
12:44 PM on 03/30/2012
A cosmetic change for inclusion in political ads. A disappointment.