The NDAA and why you hippies need some thorazine

You can get a look on the site of the United States House of representatives (http://www.house.gov/) shearching NDAA, from there, you’re directed on the site of the Armed Service Committee.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/ndaa-home?p=ndaa

One more click, and you got a huge .pdf of a bill (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/h-r-1540-bill-text-and-report). but you can have a html version on THOMAS, a base of legislative information from the Library of Congress.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

The part of the text we’re interested in is TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS, Subtitle D—Counterterrorism, Sec 1034.

It states : 

Congress affirms that-- (1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad; (2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note); (3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who-- (A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and (4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

To many people, "substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners"  is not really restrictive, it means that, if you’re accused (accused, not convicted) of being a terrorist, US citizen or not, you can be detained whithout trial, indefinitely (the termination of hostilities is not defined)

That was for the House of Representatives version of the law.

There’s a Senate version, a little more complex. On THOMAS, you have to find : H.R.1540 -- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)

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. (c) 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.

… 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(c), 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.  

So, if you’re not an american citizen or a lawful resident, you can rot in jail …But if you’re an american citizen or a lawful resident, will you be protected by Sec 1032 (b) ? will 1032 (b) be an exception to Sec 1031 ? why 2 sections ?

Anyway, the bill now moves on to a conference with the House, The House and the Senat have yet to agree on a final version.

Senator Udall did proposed an amendment - http://www.scribd.com/doc/73053672/Udall-Amendment-to-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Revising-detainee-provisions

This amendment would have lead to redefine the US detention legislation.

With this amendment, the initial NDAA bill would has passed, and a specific bill would have been taken later to state who deserved basic human rights such as a trial before being jailed for indefinite time, and who doesn’t.

"...would allow Congress to draft detention legislation that meets our national security needs and keeps faith with the guiding principles of our Constitution," according to Udall (http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=op_ed&id=1772)

The Udall amendment has been rejected.

And I'm fucking irritated that I blew a few hours of playing Skyrim to research this stupid thing. But I did it because of my last note on this, which you can read here - https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150407203421801

So yeah. And now you know...