House Passes NDAA 2013 with Indefinite Detention Intact

House Passes NDAA 2013 with Indefinite Detention Intact

Dees Illustration

Activist Post

Yesterday, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act which funds the Pentagon and military operations for 2013 to the tune of $633 billion.

The vote was 315-107, but the final draft must still be approved by the Senate.

The Senate version included an amendment that was supposed to protect
Americans against indefinite military detention. That amendment was
reportedly scrubbed from the final House version of the NDAA.

The Feinstein Amendment provided that:
<blockquote class="tr_bq">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 unless an act of Congress expressly
authorizes such detention.</blockquote>
Some have argued that the NDAA 2012 act of Congress negates this
amendment making it impotent to begin with. However, this amendment
apparently stated Americans' rights too clearly, so the House had to
rewrite it in legalese.

Spokespeople for the Senate said the amendment was replaced with the following language:
<blockquote class="tr_bq">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.</blockquote>
Some say this convoluted form does nothing to protect a right to trial for detained Americans.

"This language doesn't do anything of substance," said Raha Wala, a
lawyer at Human Rights First. "It doesn't ban indefinite detention
within the United States or change anything about existing law."

Senator Rand Paul, who has been outspoken against indefinite detention, eviscerated the new wording and blamed Senator McCain for the change:
<blockquote class="tr_bq">'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. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">'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. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">'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. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">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. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">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.' (Source)</blockquote>It's
unclear who pulled the amendment from the House version, but the White
House likely pressured Congress to change it. Immediately following the
passage of the amendment, the White House threatened to veto the bill citing it "limits his ability to pursue his defense strategy and trespasses on his power."

Other activist groups are encouraging the President to veto the bill over restrictions placed on dealing with Guantanamo detainees.

Now that the bill is back to being as tyrannical as it can be for the
American people, we can expect President Obama to once again sign it
into law under the cover of darkness like he did last year late New
Year's Eve.

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/12/house-passes-ndaa-2013-with-indefinite.html