Why is Carl Levin doing this??

[KonaKane]

Incredible. All I can do so far is read this and shake my head. Why on earth does a Democratic Senator have a hand in drafting a piece of shit like this? Is he high?

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

.......

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

More here, if you have the stomach for it....

[sandnsea]

Could you post a link to the bill itself - so we can see what it actually says and not just what the ACLU says it says. It's not usually the same thing.

[KonaKane]

It's SB 1867 (the entire thing is easily Google-able online) and it's very looooong. The area of concern is section 1032, which I am happy to report the Obama Administration is strongly opposed to:

"The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...111117.pdf



There, see? Not the eeeeeeeeevil ACLU making it all up.

[sandnsea]

(11-25-2011 09:37 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  It's SB 1867 (the entire thing is easily Google-able online) and it's very looooong. The area of concern is section 1032, which I am happy to report the Obama Administration is strongly opposed to:

"The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...111117.pdf



There, see? Not the eeeeeeeeevil ACLU making it all up.

LOOK, just because I KNOW that the ACLU, of which I'm a member, doesn't always report the entirety of legislation - doesn't mean I'm a right wing nut job who thinks everything left of Joe Lieberman is eeeeeeeeevil.

You say you want discussion and introspection, but every time I've ever tried to have an honest discussion with you, all I've gotten in return is snark.

And I STILL don't have a link to a copy of the bill. I don't care how loooooong it is, I'm perfectly capable of spending the time necessary to understand the purpose of the bill and the intent of the objectionable sections.

I'm also capable of googling it up - but if you really want to discuss it, it seems to me you'd bring the bill to the table.

[KonaKane]

(11-26-2011 12:04 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  ....
And I STILL don't have a link to a copy of the bill. I don't care how loooooong it is, I'm perfectly capable of spending the time necessary to understand the purpose of the bill and the intent of the objectionable sections.

I'm also capable of googling it up - but if you really want to discuss it, it seems to me you'd bring the bill to the table.

If you are capable of Googling it (I even provided the bill number) then please do so. I even cited the particular section of grievance for you. Don't send me on a wild goose chase to do your simple homework, please.

[Blue_Roses]

There has to be more to this. It almost seems like a practical joke. I can't even see John McCain serious about this. Are they both senile?

[Julie]

I read the article and only saw Carl's name in the "tags" but not in the article. What am I missing?

Julie

[KonaKane]

(11-26-2011 09:36 AM)Julie Wrote:  I read the article and only saw Carl's name in the "tags" but not in the article. What am I missing?

Julie

The bill was sponsored by Carl Levin and John McCain.

[OptimistesMaddie]

Across the board this bill is wrong...

But think about this because Levin isn't...if this were enacted President Obama would protect American citizens. If a Repug comes into power we the Liberals, Gays, Women and anti-Repuglican would be captured and held as enemy combatants. I am not joking...these laws have unintended consequences.....

What the hell is Levin thinking..

[Proud Liberal Dem]

This sounds like essentially enshrining the Bush/Cheney/Addington post-9/11 anti-terrorism policies into law much like how the Military Commissions Act enshrined their detention policies into law. I'm glad to hear that President Obama intends to veto it but with bipartisan support, not to mention the past history of the Dems' NIMBY cowardice on closing Gitmo, this could very well become law anyway, particularly when you have creeps like Lieberman (presumably) supporting it. Obama is probably going to catch a lot of flak from the right if he refuses to sign the Defense re-authorization bill, particularly since he refuses to sign any legislation undoing the sequestration of the defense cuts (that the Republicans agreed to but now pretend to be upset about), and I'm afraid that a lot of Dems in the Senate are NOT going to get his back on this and will probably join in on the attack. Unless a lot of people get up in arms about this, I'm afraid that this is probably how it's going to go down, unfortunately. I sure hope I'm wrong.

[Treestar]

Could there be something "technical" about the sponsorship of the bill? I remember times Harry Reid "had" to vote seemingly wrongly for procedural reasons.

Congressional procedures are this weird, dull area I am only a little familiar with.

[KonaKane]

After a bit of a search, I cannot find anything which suggests Levin is only sponsoring this bill on technical grounds. It seems to be a typical "bipartisan" effort on some issue they both think is important. If you come up with any commentary by Levin as to why he is really backing this bill, please post because I am as intrigued as you are.

[RoyGBiv]

Link to the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867.PCS:/

One can always find pending legislation by bill number by going to thomas.loc.gov and entering it in the search box.

I'm not sure if this link is permanent or temporary. I've had some trouble linking to LOC documents I find through their search engine. So, if the link fails when you try it, just enter SB 1867 in the search box on the thomas.loc.gov home page.

[sandnsea]

(11-26-2011 03:27 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Link to the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867.PCS:/

One can always find pending legislation by bill number by going to thomas.loc.gov and entering it in the search box.

I'm not sure if this link is permanent or temporary. I've had some trouble linking to LOC documents I find through their search engine. So, if the link fails when you try it, just enter SB 1867 in the search box on the thomas.loc.gov home page.

Of course. And if one really wants to discuss the details of a bill, one should bring the actual bill and not a partisan group's interpretation of the bill.

[KonaKane]

(11-26-2011 04:13 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Of course. And if one really wants to discuss the details of a bill, one should bring the actual bill and not a partisan group's interpretation of the bill.

Oh for the love of God, sandnsea, you've had access to the entire bill since this started, and even to the offending section. Why can't you just address this issue instead of whining incessantly about the failure to post the whole goddamned thing here at the top of the thread?

[sandnsea]

(11-26-2011 04:24 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-26-2011 04:13 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Of course. And if one really wants to discuss the details of a bill, one should bring the actual bill and not a partisan group's interpretation of the bill.

Oh for the love of God, sandnsea, you've had access to the entire bill since this started, and even to the offending section. Why can't you just address this issue instead of whining incessantly about the failure to post the whole goddamned thing here at the top of the thread?

Because I was addressing the issue of people who claim to have a monopoly on "truth" using slanted opinions to justify their claims rather than the original source. Use the source and make your own claims. Is that too difficult for you? Personally, I've got more problems with the section that disallows closing Guantanmo, and Section 1031, than I do with 1032. I don't think 1032 says that US citizens can be detained for any random criminal act if someone decides to call it terrorism. I think it says the opposite. I think that because I have the actual Section in front of me. Now others can make their own conclusions based on what's written.

Since YOU are the one who has decided to take the entire site to task for never questioning this administration or having any instrospection - I decided YOU should be taken to task for not having the ability to look in the damn mirror.

[KonaKane]

(11-26-2011 04:39 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Since YOU are the one who has decided to take the entire site to task for never questioning this administration or having any instrospection - I decided YOU should be taken to task for not having the ability to look in the damn mirror.

Thank you for finally being dragged to address the topic. Not without a personal attack or three, but hey....baby steps.

And for the record, again, it looks like the Obama administration is among those opposing the horrific possibilities enabled in section 1032.

[sandnsea]

(11-26-2011 05:17 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-26-2011 04:39 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Since YOU are the one who has decided to take the entire site to task for never questioning this administration or having any instrospection - I decided YOU should be taken to task for not having the ability to look in the damn mirror.

Thank you for finally being dragged to address the topic. Not without a personal attack or three, but hey....baby steps.

And for the record, again, it looks like the Obama administration is among those opposing the horrific possibilities enabled in section 1032.

For completely different reasons than the ACLU, but hey, whatever works in a pinch I guess. And if you don't think you were slinging personal attacks at me, well, then I guess whatever works for you there too.

[KonaKane]

(11-27-2011 02:32 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(11-26-2011 05:17 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Thank you for finally being dragged to address the topic. Not without a personal attack or three, but hey....baby steps.

And for the record, again, it looks like the Obama administration is among those opposing the horrific possibilities enabled in section 1032.

For completely different reasons than the ACLU,

Actually they are in agreement on the most basic concern of passing S 1867 - that it will make legal (not just lawful) the indefinite detention of Americans without due process.

I still want to know what Carl Levin was thinking (or not) when he decided to ride this horse into session. It's pretty much agreed neither he nor McCain actually wrote the bill (they almost never do), so that question is up in the air too. Crap like this will surely be thrown at us in the upcoming election fight.

[sandnsea]

(11-27-2011 01:58 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-27-2011 02:32 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  For completely different reasons than the ACLU,

Actually they are in agreement on the most basic concern of passing S 1867 - that it will make legal (not just lawful) the indefinite detention of Americans without due process.

I still want to know what Carl Levin was thinking (or not) when he decided to ride this horse into session. It's pretty much agreed neither he nor McCain actually wrote the bill (they almost never do), so that question is up in the air too. Crap like this will surely be thrown at us in the upcoming election fight.

No, not at all. The concern of the President's office is making detention of anybody "mandatory", thereby removing the opportunity to gain intelligence by allowing someone to be a snitch, for lack of a better word.

That section referenes US Citizens and mandatory detention by the military, and specifically states it doesn't apply.

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

[KonaKane]

(11-28-2011 04:30 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  No, not at all. The concern of the President's office is making detention of anybody "mandatory", thereby removing the opportunity to gain intelligence by allowing someone to be a snitch, for lack of a better word.

That section referenes US Citizens and mandatory detention by the military, and specifically states it doesn't apply.

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

You left out the other half of the official opposition to section 1032. to wit:

"Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index....z1f1gYkeUh


A fairly clunky way of putting it, but obviously a concern about fundamental rights and the quagmire it could cause in the courts.

[sandnsea]

(11-28-2011 12:32 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 04:30 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  No, not at all. The concern of the President's office is making detention of anybody "mandatory", thereby removing the opportunity to gain intelligence by allowing someone to be a snitch, for lack of a better word.

That section referenes US Citizens and mandatory detention by the military, and specifically states it doesn't apply.

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

You left out the other half of the official opposition to section 1032. to wit:

"Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index....z1f1gYkeUh


A fairly clunky way of putting it, but obviously a concern about fundamental rights and the quagmire it could cause in the courts.

"as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention,"

Just because some members of Congress suggest an intention, doesn't mean that this law actually allows what they want. OR that some (left) members of Congress suggest the intention of the law is to let the military patrol US streets, when that's the furthest thing from anybody's intent because the law specifically says section 1032 doesn't pertain to US citizens. Just because the White House addressed that concern, in a manner that says "some Members", doesn't mean they actually believe it's true. It just means they're addressing it, possibly just to appease the ACLU.

[KonaKane]

(11-28-2011 02:25 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  "as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention,"

Just because some members of Congress suggest an intention, doesn't mean that this law actually allows what they want. OR that some (left) members of Congress suggest the intention of the law is to let the military patrol US streets, when that's the furthest thing from anybody's intent because the law specifically says section 1032 doesn't pertain to US citizens. Just because the White House addressed that concern, in a manner that says "some Members", doesn't mean they actually believe it's true. It just means they're addressing it, possibly just to appease the ACLU.

You're nuancing this beyond all recognition to make a square peg fit in a round hole. If the Obama admin did not have obviously legal and basic rights violations as a concern in mind, they would not have said so.

Carl Levin needs to be ashamed for agreeing to cosponsor this piece of shit. He knows better, and is yet another example of my concern over many in the Democratic eclave of Congress.

[sandnsea]

(11-28-2011 02:29 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 02:25 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  "as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention,"

Just because some members of Congress suggest an intention, doesn't mean that this law actually allows what they want. OR that some (left) members of Congress suggest the intention of the law is to let the military patrol US streets, when that's the furthest thing from anybody's intent because the law specifically says section 1032 doesn't pertain to US citizens. Just because the White House addressed that concern, in a manner that says "some Members", doesn't mean they actually believe it's true. It just means they're addressing it, possibly just to appease the ACLU.

You're nuancing this beyond all recognition to make a square peg fit in a round hole. If the Obama admin did not have obviously legal and basic rights violations as a concern in mind, they would not have said so.

Carl Levin needs to be ashamed for agreeing to cosponsor this piece of shit. He knows better, and is yet another example of my concern over many in the Democratic eclave of Congress.

No, I'm really not. I'm repeating the Administration's objections. Quite specifically. They also, quite specifically, raise that objection. The objection to detaining US Citizens is not that specific, no matter how much you personally attack me in pointing it out. That's why I wanted the actual words brought here. There may be concerning language in sec 1031, but I don't see it in regards to US Citizens in sec 1032. It's a fact, Kona, the left DOES overreact and distort just as much as the right does. The only difference, and it's important, is that the left usually overreacts to the benefit of people. The problem is that when you call wolf too many times, you lose credibility. And that's the biggest problem the left has.

"The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals."

[KonaKane]

(11-29-2011 12:46 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  It's a fact, Kona, the left DOES overreact and distort just as much as the right does.

Anyone who actually believes that, with their eyes politically open over the last 30 years, is pretty much beyond communication on the point.

[sandnsea]

(11-29-2011 12:07 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 12:46 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  It's a fact, Kona, the left DOES overreact and distort just as much as the right does.

Anyone who actually believes that, with their eyes politically open over the last 30 years, is pretty much beyond communication on the point.

Amnesty gets it right, the biggest civil liberties problem is in 1031, not 1032, like I said above. 1032 has problems, but not to US Citizens. It's quite clear.

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/s...tion-bill/

[KonaKane]

Thanks Roy.

[sandnsea]

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(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.

© Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031©, except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(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.

(2) 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.

© Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

© Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.

(a) Certification Required Prior to Transfer-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.

(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--

(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or

(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Certification- A certification described in this subsection is a written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that the government of the foreign country or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--

(1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization;

(2) maintains control over each detention facility in which the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;

(3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual;

(4) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;

(5) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity; and

(6) has agreed to share with the United States any information that--

(A) is related to the individual or any associates of the individual; and

(B) could affect the security of the United States, its citizens, or its allies.

© Prohibition in Cases of Prior Confirmed Recidivism-

(1) PROHIBITION- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual who was detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after September 11, 2001, who was transferred to such foreign country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity.

(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--

(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or

(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) National Security Waiver-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement specified in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) or the prohibition in subsection © if the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, determines that--

(A) alternative actions will be taken to address the underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be waived;

(B) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with regard to the individual to be transferred;

© in the case of a waiver of subsection ©, the Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an individual who was transferred to the country subsequently engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism with regard to the individual to be transferred; and

(D) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

(2) REPORTS- Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:

(A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.

(B) A statement of the basis for the determination, including--

(i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States; and

(ii) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), an explanation why it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated.

© A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived.

(e) Definitions- In this section:

(1) The term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

(2) The term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--

(A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(B) is--

(i) in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense; or

(ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

(3) The term `foreign terrorist organization' means any organization so designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).

(f) Repeal of Superseded Authority- Section 1033 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4351) is repealed.

SEC. 1034. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

(a) In General- No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.

(b) Exception- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

© Individual Detained at Guantanamo Defined- In this section, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' has the meaning given that term in section 1033(e)(2).

(d) Repeal of Superseded Authority- Section 1034 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4353) is amended by striking subsections (a), (b), and ©.

SEC. 1035. PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC DETENTION REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

(a) Procedures Required- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth procedures for implementing the periodic review process required by Executive Order No. 13567 for individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).

(b) Covered Matters- The procedures submitted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum--

(1) clarify that the purpose of the periodic review process is not to determine the legality of any detainee's law of war detention, but to make discretionary determinations whether or not a detainee represents a continuing threat to the security of the United States;

(2) clarify that the Secretary of Defense is responsible for any final decision to release or transfer an individual detained in military custody at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Executive Order referred to in subsection (a), and that in making such a final decision, the Secretary shall consider the recommendation of a periodic review board or review committee established pursuant to such Executive Order, but shall not be bound by any such recommendation; and

(3) ensure that appropriate consideration is given to factors addressing the need for continued detention of the detainee, including--

(A) the likelihood the detainee will resume terrorist activity if transferred or released;

(B) the likelihood the detainee will reestablish ties with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners if transferred or released;

© the likelihood of family, tribal, or government rehabilitation or support for the detainee if transferred or released;

(D) the likelihood the detainee may be subject to trial by military commission; and

(E) any law enforcement interest in the detainee.

© Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) for purposes of section 1031.

(b) Elements of Procedures- The procedures required by this section shall provide for the following in the case of any unprivileged enemy belligerent who will be held in long-term detention under the law of war pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force:

(1) A military judge shall preside at proceedings for the determination of status of an unprivileged enemy belligerent.

(2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at the election of the belligerent, be represented by military counsel at proceedings for the determination of status of the belligerent.

© Report on Modification of Procedures- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under this section. The report on any such modification shall be so submitted not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 1037. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT TO PLEAD GUILTY IN TRIAL OF CAPITAL OFFENSE BY MILITARY COMMISSION.

(a) Clarification of Right- Section 949m(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subparagraph ©, by inserting before the semicolon the following: `, or a guilty plea was accepted and not withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence in accordance with section 949i(b) of this title'; and

(2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting `on the sentence' after `vote was taken'.

(b) Pre-trial Agreements- Section 949i of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`© Pre-trial Agreements- (1) A plea of guilty made by the accused that is accepted by a military judge under subsection (b) and not withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence may form the basis for an agreement reducing the maximum sentence approved by the convening authority, including the reduction of a sentence of death to a lesser punishment, or that the case will be referred to a military commission under this chapter without seeking the penalty of death. Such an agreement may provide for terms and conditions in addition to a guilty plea by the accused in order to be effective.

`(2) A plea agreement under this subsection may not provide for a sentence of death imposed by a military judge alone. A sentence of death may only be imposed by the unanimous vote of all members of a military commission concurring in the sentence of death as provided in section 949m(b)(2)(D) of this title.'.

[RoyGBiv]

This is an extension of the ongoing fight a certain contingent in Congress has been having with the Justice Department ever since Obama took office. The most notable manifestation of the argument revolves around Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and I am inclined to believe that he is still what this is about.

To look for motivation, one has to extend their search beyond the simple text of this particular bill, which is really rather generic as far as these things go. The National Defense Authorization Act is re-written and reenacted every year, and some (a lot, really) of the previous law's language will end up in the next bill if Congress still considers it pertinent. The provision for military tribunals in one form or another extends back to the Bush administration, and one version of the language included in the NDAA after the Democrats took the Senate was authored by ... drum roll ... Carl Levin. We might also recall that Senator Levin was one of two Senators in 2007 who witnessed a military hearing at Guantanamo via closed circuit television of ... second drum roll ... Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

None of that specifically answers the question, but it might help us move on to the more substantive issues. This isn't new. It's just the latest round, and apparently some people like Senator Udall and the Obama administration itself are pushing back harder than they have been.

[KonaKane]

Actually it's both sections that produce civil rights issues. The general bill is a stinker and needs to be redone.

[sandnsea]

(11-29-2011 01:54 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Actually it's both sections that produce civil rights issues. The general bill is a stinker and needs to be redone.

You came here with a very specific argument, and in fact, attacked me because I wanted the actual legislation. You attacked Carl Levin for this pile of shit, on and on. All based on an ACLU statement. We were supposed to come to our senses about the evil Democrats in our midst and find some common cause to rally against them or our site would be worthless! What better rallying point than the ACLU, nobody could disagree with them!!

Well it didn't work. Deal with it. This piece of legislation needs some tweaks and it will probably get them. The more rational and credible the objections, the more likely the tweaks will happen. Brandishing Carl Levin as a traitor to the Dem Party will get you nowhere. He has more credibility and political power in his pinkie toe than the far left combined.

[KonaKane]

And my argument stands - it's a stinky bill, the ACLU's grievances with it are sound, the Obama admin doesn't like it anymore than the ACLU does. Levin never should have attached his name to this pile of crap, and is an example of what is often wrong with "our" contingent in Congress. You can also bet your bottom dollar this will be raised against us in the election as more examples of how we don't know whether we are coming or going, and can't get our act together.

You can deal with THAT.

[sandnsea]

(11-29-2011 02:53 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  And my argument stands - it's a stinky bill, the ACLU's grievances with it are sound, the Obama admin doesn't like it anymore than the ACLU does. Levin never should have attached his name to this pile of crap, and is an example of what is often wrong with "our" contingent in Congress. You can also bet your bottom dollar this will be raised against us in the election as more examples of how we don't know whether we are coming or going, and can't get our act together.

You can deal with THAT.

Udall Amendment was about 1031 and 1033. Maybe if the ACLU had focused on the real problems with the legislation, we'd have gotten the necessary changes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r1...7:e129150:

And whatever, go after Levin, HELP craete the impression that we can't get our act together instead of the OBVIOUS - this is how the goddamn Congress works. Committee Chairs always put their names on legislation that contains crap. I'm sure there's far worse crap in the Defense Reauthorization than this.

[cannae1]

I have read 1031 and 1032.
I have problems with both 1031 and 1032.

Neither section should be law.

[sandnsea]

(11-29-2011 02:54 PM)cannae1 Wrote:  I have read 1031 and 1032.
I have problems with both 1031 and 1032.

Neither section should be law.

Yeah I had problems with 1031 and 1033. So did Udall. Go argue with him.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r1...7:e129150:

[cannae1]

I expect that the thing is full of problems.

[KonaKane]

Meanwhile, Carl Levin has handed the GOP a marvelous opportunity for this talking point in the election:

"Democrats want a dictatorial government to hold Americans indefinitely without trial."

Bullshit or not, you know that's going to be coming up.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

(11-29-2011 04:03 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Meanwhile, Carl Levin has handed the GOP a marvelous opportunity for this talking point in the election:

"Democrats want a dictatorial government to hold Americans indefinitely without trial."

Bullshit or not, you know that's going to be coming up.

Yeah but isn't this mostly being pushed by Republicans? After all, these kind of *policies* were implemented by Bush/Cheney/Addington post-9/11. This legislation, as I see it, merely makes it law. It's not good policy and I don't want to see it become law but if it becomes law, it will be considered "bipartisan" so it's not like this is solely a Democratic initiative. Obama is also on record opposing it and has threatened a veto of the bill with this measure.

[KonaKane]

(11-30-2011 10:41 AM)Proud Liberal Dem Wrote:  Yeah but isn't this mostly being pushed by Republicans? After all, these kind of *policies* were implemented by Bush/Cheney/Addington post-9/11. This legislation, as I see it, merely makes it law. It's not good policy and I don't want to see it become law but if it becomes law, it will be considered "bipartisan" so it's not like this is solely a Democratic initiative. Obama is also on record opposing it and has threatened a veto of the bill with this measure.

You're right, but I'm sure you're also painfully aware of how deftly the republican/teabagger noise machine can make even casual Democratic association with anything turn into an example of how the Democrats own this stinker. Neither Levin nor any other Democrat should have gotten within a rifle shot of this bill.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

(11-30-2011 11:39 AM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 10:41 AM)Proud Liberal Dem Wrote:  Yeah but isn't this mostly being pushed by Republicans? After all, these kind of *policies* were implemented by Bush/Cheney/Addington post-9/11. This legislation, as I see it, merely makes it law. It's not good policy and I don't want to see it become law but if it becomes law, it will be considered "bipartisan" so it's not like this is solely a Democratic initiative. Obama is also on record opposing it and has threatened a veto of the bill with this measure.

You're right, but I'm sure you're also painfully aware of how deftly the republican/teabagger noise machine can make even casual Democratic association with anything turn into an example of how the Democrats own this stinker. Neither Levin nor any other Democrat should have gotten within a rifle shot of this bill.

I agree. You do have a good point too about the Republican/teabagger noise machine, particularly given how they ran around last year accusing Democrats of "Medicare cuts" because of ACA. Of course, I still think that it's going to be harder for them to pin this on Democrats given Lindsey Graham and John McCain's strong advocacy for this measure. I would just like to see this killed/vetoed. I'm heartened that President Obama plans to veto it if it makes it to his desk. Has this made it out of the House yet too?

[cannae1]

If it is passed, I think that PBO should veto it.

[KonaKane]

(11-30-2011 11:06 AM)cannae1 Wrote:  If it is passed, I think that PBO should veto it.

He said he would.

[rogueafterall]

I'm one who has always assumed, and still assume, the Israelis are 5% at fault in
their region due to indications of arrogance, 95% not at fault based on rank
scapegoating by the Palestinians, with the Israelis unable to trust in any further
manner--having returned from the '67 and '73 wars more in terms of concessions
for little more than a promise of good will, more than their security in fact permits--
any promise the breaking of which is potentially existentially threatening.

So they can understandably say we know these neighbors only care to clobber us
and we don't just want to sit and take it.

But there's ample evidence that the tactics used by cops in NYC, Oakland, etc. were
Israeli taught, commercially.

Michael Bloomberg has flat out turned depraved dog-cops (not to be confused with
great one--Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek creator) was once LAPD, the 9/11 respondents
simply gave all for their dedicated effort to try to save persons' lives) on persons
peacefully exercising the Right of Assembly, Carl Levin has, with John McCain, no
less fascist in this, sneaked through Congress a law essentially eliminating habeas
corpus in the U.S., and Barbara Boxer's SOPA is way overreaching into censorship.

So, clearly, this is a world of good and bad, and good and bad everywhere.
And if these anti-democratic tactics are being exported, and they are an affront
to persons' dignity here, then that is hardly less offensive than the spreading of
weapons of mass destruction by rogue states, and I now restrained myself from
saying "other" rogue states. To wit:

http://pages.citebite.com/t1y4t0w0i4bgi

I restrained myself despite these exported tactics being used to defend demagogues and frauds
on our domestic scene. If support of tactics whose purpose is denying us replacing
hypocritical fraudulent supporters of free enterprise who go around calling everyone not
engaging in folly socialist does not stop, then it will be looking like it's the U.S. middle
class that is sharing with the Palestinians the receiving end of state of siege tactics
despite their presenting no threat to Israel's existence.

As it is divide and conquer, demonizing and associating with the demonized, that creates
the diversionary opportunity for the demagogues, I would NOT want any of this to create
an opportunity for division in the OWS movement. But, it's not fun being on the receiving
end of fascist tactics and legal maneuvering, and that simply has to be noted.