WASHINGTON -- Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.
The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 was added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but there was no similar language in the version of the bill that passed the House, and it was dumped from the final bill released Tuesday after a conference committee from both chambers worked out a unified measure.
It declared that "An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."
The provision sparked a heated debate in the Senate, but ultimately passed by a wide majority with both supporters and opponents of U.S. terrorist detention practices voting for it, citing differing interpretations. Feinstein offered the amendment to clarify a part of the 2012 NDAA that for the first time codified the ability of the military and White House to detain terrorism suspects.
Spokespeople for Senate committee leaders did not immediately answer why the amendment was stripped, but pointed to the language that replaced it:
Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.
The new provision appears to do little, because the Supreme Court has already declared that the writ of habeas corpus -- requiring that someone be presented to a judge -- applies to all people. The more difficult part of whether people deserve a trial remains unsettled, and the new provision does not appear to resolve it.
"This language doesn't do anything of substance," said Raha Wala, a lawyer in the law and national security program of Human Rights First. "It doesn't ban indefinite detention within the United States or change anything about existing law."
Feinstein said she was not pleased that her attempt to at least shield citizens and legal residents was stripped.
“I was saddened and disappointed that we could not take a step forward to ensure at the very least American citizens and legal residents could not be held in detention without charge or trial," Feinstein said. "To me that was a no-brainer.”
Nevertheless, many activists who oppose indefinite detention were not all that enamored with her amendment because some felt it asserted that Congress had the right to make laws requiring detention of citizens. Others believed it failed the test of constitutionality because the Constitution specifies its protections extend to all people, not just citizens. It also did not address terror suspects captured overseas.
The White House had threatened to veto both the House and Senate versions over numerous other provisions included in the legislation. Among them were restrictions on the executive's ability to transfer prisoners from the prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The White House did not immediately answer questions about whether the threats stood.
UPDATE: 5:25 p.m. -- Conservative Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R), slammed the change, singling out Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the process.
“The decision by the NDAA conference committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of the amendment that protects American citizens against indefinite detention now renders the entire NDAA unconstitutional,” Sen. Paul said.
“I voted against NDAA in 2011 because it did not contain the proper constitutional protections. When my Senate colleagues voted to include those protections in the 2012 NDAA through the Feinstein-Lee Amendment last month, I supported this act,” Sen. Paul continued. “But removing those protections now takes us back to square one and does as much violence to the Constitution as last year’s NDAA. When the government can arrest suspects without a warrant, hold them without trial, deny them access to counsel or admission of bail, we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity.
“Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus – the right to be presented before a judge – is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole.
“Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury.”
Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.
Also on HuffPost:
Interview A Member Of The Taliban
<strong>Scenario:</strong> As a foreign correspondent on assignment in Afghanistan, you successfully contact Taliban representatives who take you to meet a mullah. After you've completed your interview and fact-finding mission, U.S. officials arrest you under suspicion of terrorism. <strong>How:</strong> Section 1021 (2) of the National Defense Authorization Act <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf" target="_hplink">grants power</a> to indefinitely detain "a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." You're not sure if what you did was "substantial" or really "supported" anyone. It's quite possible that nobody does, as the text of the law doesn't define these words. This could take a while to sort out. In the recent hearing on a lawsuit challenging that section of the act, Judge Katherine Forrest asked an Obama lawyer if plaintiff Chris Hedges could be assured that he would not be subjected to detention under Section 1021, journalist Naomi Wolf <a href="http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/" target="_hplink">noted</a>. Hedges is a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who has worked extensively in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The administration attorney suggested that the specifics of Hedge's situation would make his detention unlikely, but responded, "I cannot say that today." While the Obama administration has said you're entitled to a trial as a U.S. citizen, this won't preclude you from a protracted journey through an encumbered court system charged with figuring out -- based on secret evidence -- why you were picked up. And if it this happens during a future administration, officials might not agree with Obama on your right to a trial.
Attend A Fundraiser
<strong>Scenario:</strong> A local civil liberties group holds a swanky fundraising event and you, a wealthy philanthropist, write a sizable check. Sometime later, the group is placed on a watch list, which results in authorities arriving at your door, hauling you away. <strong>How:</strong> It's possible a portion of your money somehow got funneled to al-Qaeda or a pro-Taliban group or that somehow you became an indirect material supporter of what the National Defense Authorization Act calls an "associated force." But just what are "associated forces"? That question appeared to stump Obama administration lawyers when pressed by Judge Katherine Forrest during a recent hearing. "I don't have specifics," an attorney told her. Answering a later question about whether WikiLeaks could be construed as an "associated force," an administration lawyer suggested that it couldn't, unless there were a connection to the Taliban or al-Qaeda. If someone happens to be wrong about your case, you might sit in detention until the courts figure it out. Or, according to the act, you'll be released when officials determine it is "the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
Write A Book
This hypothetical situation comes straight from this spring's hearing on a lawsuit challenging parts of the National Defense Authorization Act, as captured by <a href="http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/" target="_hplink">Naomi Wolf</a>: <blockquote>Bruce Afran, lawyer for the plaintiffs, presented the hypothetical of a book that did not say how to make a bomb but simply expressed support for the political goals of the Taliban, or that made the case that the Taliban's view that the US government overreaches in occupying other countries, has merit. He and Judge Forrest discussed the hypothetical that such a book could be a bestseller and be on a book tour, generating comment throughout the Middle East. Judge Forrest simplified the example to a hypothetical of a book with only one sentence, and whose only sentence read: "I support the political goals of the Taliban'. She asked the government lawyers if such a book could be read as providing 'material support' for 'associated forces" under the NDAA. They did not rule it out. Judge Forrest pushed: "You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA's Section] 1021?" Obama lawyers: "We can't say that."</blockquote>
Organize A Demonstration
<strong>Scenario:</strong> Some societal injustice is prompting you to start a movement in protest. Hours after a particularly well-attended and rambunctious rally, you're approached by men in black suits who flash their badges and toss you in the back of their unmarked SUV. <strong>How:</strong> It's possible that you or one of your loosely connected crew of associates did something to make you a suspect linked to an "associated force." Or perhaps, according to another part of National Defense Authorization Act's Section 1021 (2), your actions constituted "substantial support" to a "person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of [al-Qaeda or the Taliban]." Journalist and "Day of Rage" organizer Alexa O'Brien joined a recent lawsuit challenging sections of the act out of concern that she was being targeted as a potential terrorist threat. But at a hearing on the suit this spring, Obama administration officials did not alleviate such concerns, as <a href="http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/" target="_hplink">Naomi Wolf has documented</a>: <blockquote>O'Brien produced into evidence a [Department of Homeland Security] memo that sought to link US Day of Rage to their cyberterrorism initiative. The government lawyer was given a chance by Judge Forrest to dispute the memo as fraudulent and did not do so.</blockquote>
Help Out A Friend
<strong>Scenario:</strong> A good friend whom you've lost touch with contacts you, asking for help funding his around-the-world trip. You wire money and wait for him to return. Sometime later, there's a knock on your door. The people on the other side of it have questions about a sum of money you sent abroad to someone questionable. They ask you to come with them. <strong>How:</strong> You're finding it impossible to believe that your childhood friend became a terrorist or connected with al-Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces." But even if he did manage to get mixed up in some sketchy business, shouldn't there be an exception for you, his well-intentioned friend who was just helping someone in need? Not necessarily. At a recent hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest tried to get the Obama administration to <a href="http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/" target="_hplink">give an assurance that "unwitting" support</a> could be protected, noting that there was no direct reference to such language in the law. Obama's attorney was unable to provide such a safeguard, instead arguing that the new law possessed the same exemptions contained within the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which was passed by Congress after 9/11. The brief and broadly interpreted <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm" target="_hplink">authorization</a> makes no mention of the word "unwitting," though.
Accidentally Provide Missiles To Insurgents
<strong>Scenario:</strong> You're a flippant, billionaire playboy or -girl with a cool haircut and two Ph.D.s., one in nuclear fusion and the other in kicking ass. You get bored, so you decide to fight crime in Afghanistan and make a quick jaunt to Kandahar. In the process of taking on an encampment of Taliban insurgents, the firing mechanism for one of your missiles malfunctions, launching it thousands of feet into the air. It returns to Earth undetonated, only to be picked up by an enemy who uses it as the centerpiece of an improvised explosive device. When a U.S. mine-sweeping crew deactivates the makeshift bomb and finds your name emblazoned on the device, you're picked up. <strong>How:</strong> This appears to be a clear-cut case of "substantial support" to the Taliban or at least "associated forces" who wanted to do harm to U.S. troops. So much for your intentions of wanting to help out with a little vigilante justice. Any resulting court case could take ages.
Plan A Terrorist Attack
<strong>Scenario:</strong> You're a total jerk and not a very big fan of America, so you decide that the best course of action is to take out your anger with an act of destruction on a densely populated city. You do some planning and set up your device, but when it comes time to use it, it malfunctions, leaving you injured and going to jail on a stretcher. <strong>How:</strong> You're an American citizen, you'll get your constitutional guarantee of a trial, right? If President Barack Obama's promises are followed, yes. But that doesn't mean you can't undergo some form of indefinite detention while you await trial. During a hearing on the lawsuit challenging parts of the new National Defense Authorization Act, Obama's lawyers were unable to say for sure if the trial promised in his signing statement would be a civilian or military one. This could have a heavy bearing on the nature of your detention. And if you were to commit such actions under the administration of another president, there's no telling how a new commander in chief would interpret the act, making your fate even less certain.