how horrible this bill is. I still can’t believe it passed. It’s a sad day for America when we sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety.

for highlighting this atrocity against American citizens. Glad to see there is someone left in elected office who remembers we have a Constitution.

In an age where legal positivists,[legal nihilists] can read plain language coupled with decades of comprehensible practice into their political lusts, what could such suited thugs do with this? They don’t even need a a seam or opening. Could be dangerous given the level of power lust and volcanic hatred on the left, and with a corrupt and manipulatable fool in the WH.

In the House. Thanks for your analysis and obvious research into this bill. Your office must actually take your job of analyzing bills seriously.

I, for one, am always troubled when we accumulate power in the executive branch and its administrative lackeys. I trust government power in economic matters as much as I do in their police power restraint. If we have a president who defines terrorists along lines of the southern poverty law center then all the readers here are at risk.

Thank you Rep. Amash for your fine analysis. I spoke to my Congressman, Ander Crenshaw’s, (R-FL) office this week. He supports this bill. As an attorney I was prepared to challenge his staffer with specific language from the bill that so many find violative of the Constitution.

I expect to be sold out by the Left but I do not understand those on our side who support this type of legislation. I don’t want any President to have this much power, whether Republican or Democrat, it is just too dangerous.

Every Republican who supported this bill should face a primary challenge to force them to explain their vote. More likely it would expose them for being incompetent as I doubt they understand the full impact of this bill.

And only 93 dems.

Rep Amash, do I have those numbers correct? If so, can you explain why it broke down like that?

Numbers came from here:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

——

Andrew McCarthy addressed the absurdity of your claims at National Review in long detail.

that are economy will collapse and the political elite are passing a bill to all ow the military to arrest people to prevent citizens from going after these corrupt politicians

when will they start building the wall around washington

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285317/real-rules-detention-andrew-c-mccarthy

and don’t miss his previous columns utterly destroying Rand Paul and his ACLU/OBama/Holder friends.

Never in my life have I seen such insane out of control practices by the government of what was once the greatest country ever. Here is what is wrong with this bill and many others that have passed in the last two Congresses:

1) Bills with numerous pages that no one reads much less understands that incorporate passages that rape Americans of their freedom and liberty. Many of these passages may be unconstitutional turning over the power of determination to the courts. But insuring a long drawn out process of uncertainty about what it really means.

2) Bills rushed through Congress with little or no time for Congress much less the public understanding what is in the bill. The “Pass It Now” mentality of an out of control group.

3) Little to no media coverage of a HUGE thieft of freedom and liberty. Only Al Qaeda and Congress are happy about this provision – they have successfully passed a law that allows the President of the US to detain indefinately without trial any American he SUSPECTS as being a terrorist. I doubt 98% of Americans have any idea about this and if they do a large % of them would deny that it was any big deal. After all they are too busy watching X Factor apparently. This is why Obama runs around lying about things, he knows most Americans are clueless.

4) The after the fact promise of Congress to undo the latest rape of freedom and liberty. They never undo anything. These out of control idiots cannot even defund ObamaCare. ObamaCare roll back or repeal is never on the table.

5) Passing these sick disgusting bills around Christmas just before they skip out of town fot their numerous holidays. Remember Obama Kill the Old and Sick Care passing just before Christmas, the August “we have no intention of cutting spending” debt deal before the August break and now this piece of garbage.

Absolutely disgusting

The Most Dishonorable Presidential Candidate on the GOP stage, fully allied with the Most Progressive Lefitst in America.

This alone discredits him(and his Leftist friends lying about the facts of this bill and the last 10yrs of policy).

I will trust the Vast Majority of Republicans and Leaders like Jim Demint who Voted for S.1867 and against the LEftst(Rand Paul) Udall Amendment. Particularly in context of the many facts Andrew McCarthy wrote about the last couple weeks and did the duty of Exposing Rand Paul for being allied with the ACLU/Obama/Holder Left in Lying about the Detention Bill and the actual Procedures of Detention.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=167825509983295

Terrorist Detention: Support Every Conservative GOP U.S. Senator – Oppose Ron and Rand Paul, Obama And The ACLU

This week thousands of misguided conservatives were urging support for legislation backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Ron and Rand Paul, as well as Judge Andrew Napolitano. It was sponsored by liberal Senator Mark Udall (D-CO). A link to the ACLU message appears below, and the Udall amendment had the enthusiastic backing of the Obama administration.
Liberals were attempting to derail key sections (1031 and 1032) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and unfortunately some conservatives and libertarians were helping them. The Obama administration has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects, and that is why a revised NDAA was necessary.
The Udall amendment failed by a vote to 60 to 38. It originally was defeated with the support of 61 Senators, but Bob Menendez (D-NJ) later changed his vote.
Numerous conservative activists misrepresented the legislation. When the Udall amendment failed, Antoinette D. Walker said “This is a sad day for America and shows that the RIGHT wants big government and a taking away of our liberties too.” Jacqueline Puleo Callanan said we need to “Replace the traitors!”
Their confusion was understandable because organizations such as “Conservative Action Alerts” repeated the ACLU talking points, and were actively supporting the Obama administration viewpoint. They were really “Liberal Action Alerts,” and the video they posted was “Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment.” A widely circulated message was:
61 SENATORS BETRAYED “WE THE PEOPLE”
61 senators have betrayed you. They authorized, as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, the indefinite suspension of habeas corpus. We are now officially a police state. What is wrong with Jim DeMint?
There is nothing wrong with Jim DeMint, and he was joined by all but two GOP Senators. The Republican supporters of the Udall amendment were Rand Paul (KY) and Mark Kirk (IL). The ACLU is the same organization which has consistently lied about the Patriot Act and the War of Terror. Similar to Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), they believe the Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki raids were both wrong. They are now lying about military detention, and we are surprised so many conservatives are believing their nonsense.
Nothing has been done to suspend habeas corpus rights. The President cannot order the arrest of any one he desires. They have to meet the narrow definition of a “covered person” or enemy combatant (see below). Many terrorists do not meet this definition because they are not linked to al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attack.
The legislation does not allow for detention of American citizens indefinitely. In fact, the provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens.
They apply to foreign terrorists captured on American soil.
Even if you had a nuclear weapon and were plotting to destroy the U.S. government, you would still not qualify as an enemy combatant under sections 1031 and 1032, if you had no connection to al-Qaeda. During the past decade only four American citizens have been able to meet this strict definition of “enemy combatant.” The most infamous of these four is Jose Padilla, an Amerian citizen who changed his name and was also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir. He was plotting a radiological “dirty bomb” attack on Chicago.
He went to Afghanistan and Iraq and was trained by the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the construction of dirty bombs. President Bush ordered him held as an enemy combatant because he was “closely associated with al Qaeda.” After four years it was determined he no longer had any useful additional information on al-Qaeda, and his case was transferred to the fourth circuit court of appeals.
On August 16, 2007, Padilla was found guilty of conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. He had been held as an enemy combatant because he had officailly joined enemy forces. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) noted that when you do that “and present a military threat, your citizenship is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.”
The U.S. military is not arresting American citizens. Their role concerns detention of foreign terrorists and the four Americans who had been designated as enemy combatants. The 2001 9/11 authorization has never been misused. President Roosevelt had the same power during WW II in the Hans Haupt case. He was an American who grew up in Germany and was helping the Nazi’s. He was not given Miranda rights, and was held as an enemy combatant.
The NDAA allows for military detention and interrogation rather than letting terrorists remain silent, and immediately stopping any questions. It does take away Miranda rights for terrorists, and they have to appear in military rather than federal court.
The legislation requires mandatory military custody for those detained on any battlefield, which would greatly hinder ongoing operations.
This is about a war situation, not criminal activity.
The ACLU claims “any law-abiding American citizen” is at risk. This is an outrageous lie and the only people at risk are terrorists.
The ACLU “Fact Sheet” contains no link to text of the bill. They do not want people to read the legislation because it destroys their arguments.
Page 362 of the NDAA clearly states: “UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
Page 362 also says: “LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”
The NDAA contains a national security waiver. This allows the Secretary of Defense to determine if certain situations necessitate a criminal/civil path, rather than a military one.
The GOP conservatives were joined by 16 Democrats including Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) of the Armed Services Committee who said “We are at war with Al Qaeda, and people who are determined to be part of Al Qaeda should be treated as people who are at war with us. . . Should somebody when it’s been determined … to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? And the answer is yes.”
Who is a “covered person” according to the text of this legislation? “(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
“(2) 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
Since the 2001 post 9/11 authorization for the use of military force, the president has had the authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants. This was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (June 2004). The NDAA says nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.
The Senate also rejected a Rand Paul amendment that would have ended the authority for using force in Iraq. The vote was 67-30.
The ACLU message on the Udall amendment is: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

Laws such as this are typically passed because most members of congress presume that the executive branch will be measured and judicious in its application of this new power. Is this a reasonable expectation for the current administration and Attorney General? If they demonstrate almost no restraint with respect to drone attacks in which death is the end result, then is it that improbable for a tyrannical president to jail his political opponents under the guise of “significant terrorist association?” That congress would so blithely enact this provision now suggests that they have an expectation that it will be applied in short order, and they’re not too concerned about who gets swept up in the purge.

I was told by a friend who works on the Hill that, in its simplest terms, this provision means that if the Underwear Bomber, who was caught red handed trying to carry out an act of terrorism (war) against the United States was a full American citizen, the President has the authority to detain him, treat him as an enemy combatant (and not as a common civilian criminal), and ship him off to Gitmo or some other godforsaken place indefinitely.

That sounds great to me!

I understand the fear from those who think the government is inherently sinister and out to get law abiding citizens who piss the iluminati off, but for the life of me I just don’t see the controversy otherwise. How am I wrong?

The statement: “Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial.” is simply not true!

Let’s start with the War Between (sic) the States, or whatever you wish to call the 1861-65 altercation. The Union did not recognize the authority of the Confederacy, so everyone in the South was an “American citizen”. Those captured on the battlefield or while giving “substantial support” to the rebels were “detained indefinitely” without individual “charge or trial”.

More recently, The German forces of WWII had numerous “American citizens” by our definition. Those rounded up from the battlefield were not given special attention. Those who donned US uniforms and infiltrated during the Battle of the Bulge were summarily shot along with their German friends.

War is hell, fellows. Let’s not get too sissified to fight it.

with this diary. After witnessing the massive overreach of Obama & Co., you can now count me as someone who is very uncomfortable with the ambiguity of this bill.

I appreciate the fact that we have some people in Congress who are actually thinking about whether this item in the bill is constitutional or not. It is something we should ask regarding every bill that comes up in Congress.

With Obama, the list of suspected “terrorists” includes peacefully protesting pro-life citizens. Who is to say he may not use this law to indefinitely detain innocently protesting pro-life Americans, casting us into the FEMA camps suddenly springing up all over the nation and leave us there for the rest of our lives without legal recourse? Something needs to be done about stopping the unconstitutional overreaches of this administration!

with them. It seems pretty clear to me that the bill was written to be purposely ambiguous. For those that have the “nothing to see here” attitude I would say are being blind on purpose. History has examples of how “substantial” support can be defined. It does not have to be monetary or materially supportive. Speaking or writing in any way not condemning certain acts or groups can and has been defined as being substantially supportive. You can check out McCarthy era commie hunts to see how far it can be abused. I used that as an easy reference on how hysteria can muddle ones judgement. After the 9/11 attacks the Palestinians had a party celebrating the acts. According to this bill that gives substantive support to the terrorists. If you support the Palestinians you too would be counted as giving substantive support and liable even if a citizen of the U.S. CAIR is a group that has been tied to Hezbollah and thereby terrorism. Should you support CAIR and Hezbollah commits any act of terrorism you would fall under the “substantive support” provision.
The most telling of the intent of this law would be the defeat of the Feinstein amendment. Keep in mind I do not like that lady by any stretch. With the defeat of her amendment it cemented the intent to indefinitely detain American citizens natural or otherwise even if on U.S. soil. I did check the roll call vote and found that Sen. Reid voted for the amendment while Sen. Heller voted against. If Reid is Obama’s waterboy why would he vote to not allow the detention of citizens while Heller a so called conservative vote to allow this travesty?
In closing when it comes to law it should be specific. With the vagueries of definitions in this bill there is too much latitude given to the government. That latitude can only lead to confusion and abuse.

They won’t be able to waterboard detainees! Right?

I consider myself fortunate to have Buck as my congressma. He is an honest and ethical person and has always represented the interests of the people in his district. I sent him an email recently expressing the opinion of many who have commented on this bill and the confusion it has caused related to our rights under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments.

I suggested that since there was such a level of confusion and suspicion that Congress could solve those fears very easily by attaching an amendment guaranteering that the provisions of the bill would be expresly forbidden from application to American citizens. I have not recieved a reply but it has only been a few days.
Everyone should email their congress person and demand that such an amendment be attached.