Obama signs act to allow detention of citizens

[yvette]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/31/wi...n-of-citizens/

Is this legal? I'm asking y'all, before I start getting paranoid. Feedback please.

[IEDmagnet]

Guess it is now. I don't even have the energy to rant about this. Fuck Obuma. Oops, I'm a terror suspect now. See ya in thirty years.

[yvette]

Don't worry Mike, I'm gonna bust ya out.

[IEDmagnet]

Don't worry Mike, I'm gonna bust ya out.

Just another reason I like ya.

[Jeff82]

"Reservations" my arse!

[GERONIMO]

When the Military can detain Civilians without charge that is called a Dictitorial Government. In a free society there must be seperation of The Military and the Judicial System. AIRBORNE! GERONIMO!!

[bg]

Yvette, "legal" and "Constitutional" are two different concepts here, and this law is one of the clearest conflicts between the two.

[CharliePC]

Unless it changed, the Senate bill specifically exempted US Citizens and Legal residents.

Senate bill 1867 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf

From Section 1032 (4) (b) (see pages 362 and 363)

(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.

[Jeff82]

(from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf) To read this file first you have to have the FREE program Adobe Reader (X, although earlier versions will work too). Click the little binos on the left sidebar. In the box type "section 1022" then click "Search". Then click on the results until you find the one you want.

Section 1022 (b):
---
(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.
---

Now the debate begins with the wording: because of the use of "The requirement to detain... ...does not extend to citizens..." leaving the optional choice to detain available. And why the different wording for lawful resident aliens? Rest assured there is a legalistic reason for it.

[bg]

Sooooooo... a citizen can be held indefinitely in civilian custody?

The last version of this I read had language at the end of it which clearly conflicted with the citizen exemption.

[CharliePC]

Sooooooo... a citizen can be held indefinitely in civilian custody?

The last version of this I read had language at the end of it which clearly conflicted with the citizen exemption.

What/where is the conflict?
I would like to see it.

Additionally, I've heard that Obama wouldn't sign the bill until the exemption for US Citizens was taken out, but the exemption is in the bill as enacted.

[mrmixitup]

Has to be upheld by a court first.

[VoTrooper99]

Has to be upheld by a court first.

Not first, after. In order for suit to come, someone has to be unlawfully detained under this law. You need standing to bring suit and proffer a Constitutional challenge.

[bg]

What/where is the conflict?
I would like to see it.

I didn't save a copy, but the verbiage was around two sentences and basically contradicted the exemption identified earlier in the document. This was a few weeks ago and I know the language was tinkered with since then.

[Jeff82]

Not indefinite detention by civilian law enforcement, it (the new law)(arguably) provides for optional indefinite detention of American citizens by DoD.