Featured Stories World News Commentary Money Watch Multimedia Prison Planet U.S. News Science And Technology

Greenwald: It Couldn’t Be Any Clearer That The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply To American Citizens

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Glen Greenwald
Salon
December 16, 2011

It is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.”  The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF  ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “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.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

Greenwald: It Couldnt Be Any Clearer That The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply To American Citizens bill

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by law (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.

Full story here.

This article was posted: Friday, December 16, 2011 at 7:22 am





Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article

Comments are closed.

Watch the News

FEATURED VIDEOS
Should Obama Be Impeached? See the rest on the Alex Jones YouTube channel.

Border Collapse: A Cold Blooded Political Takeover See the rest on the Alex Jones YouTube channel.

© 2013 PrisonPlanet.com is a Free Speech Systems, LLC company. All rights reserved. Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notice.