http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121544018945737.html

 

The US House of Representatives has voted in favour of controversial proposed legislation that would deny terror suspects, including US citizens, the right to trial and permit authorities to detain them indefinitely.

 

The proposed changes were included in a $662bn defence bill passed on Wednesday by the Republican-controlled House after White House officials withdrew a threat to block the bill over concerns it would undermine the US president's authority over counterterrorism activities.

 

In a statement, Jay Carney, a White House spokesman said "several important changes" had been made, which meant that presidential advisors would not recommend Barack Obama veto the bill.

 

The bill, which also endorsed tougher sanctions against Iran's central bank and freezing $700 million in aid to Pakistan, must still pass through the Senate, which is expected to vote on Thursday.

 

If approved, the bill would require the US military to take custody of terror suspects accused of involvement in plotting or committing attacks against the United States.

 

But in changes introduced under pressure from the White House, the bill was amended to say that the military cannot interfere with FBI and other civilian investigations and interrogations. The revisions also allow the president to sign a waiver moving a terror suspect from military to civilian prison.

 

Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

 

'Lack of clarity'

 

But some officials had some objections to the clause. FBI Director Robert Mueller criticised the provision for its lack of clarity on how the changes would be implemented at the time of arrest.

 

The White House said that some of those concerns remained.

 

"While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counter-terrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented," added Carney.

 

But the bill has also attracted criticism from civil rights campaigners.

 

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the bill was a "big deal".

 

"It would authorise the president to order the military to capture civilians and put them in indefinite detention without charge or trial, with no limitation based on either geography or citizenship," he told Al Jazeera.

 

"The military would have the authority to imprison persons far from any battlefield, including American citizens and including people picked up in the US."

 

Jesus [bleep]ing christ. There goes the Constitution. Add on that SOPA/PIPA bullshit, and I don't think I've ever wanted the entire government and all it's lobbyists murdered before. Not like this.

Hm, a more authoritative government. What a surprise.

We already have something like that implemented, so welcome to the club, I suppose.

We already have something like that implemented, so welcome to the club, I suppose.

I don't see the problem here ...

Delivering freedom to the middle east (lol) and taking away at home.

 

Nice.

 

Edit: 1000 props for AJE btw. Excellent, excellent stuff.

We already have something like that implemented, so welcome to the club, I suppose.

I don't see the problem here ...

I don't see the problem either. Was just pointing it out.

Is this stuff even constitutional?!?

 

I find this sort of legislation to be self-fulfilling.

 

After succeeding to pass into law, the bill will protect itself from removal by considering all opposition to it as "terrorism". So, through its own sanctions it will be able to use the U.S. Military to protect itself.

It's 4 am. Why am I awake?

 

goverment is being extra dumb? go figure. I'm moving to Britain...screw this place

And thus we find one of the largest problems of basing structural government on a binding document like the U.S. Constitution: interpretation.

I really want to move to Switzerland :/ or denmark. Scotland maybe. I'm a supporter of the u.s. military, but this is just ridiculous.

It's 4 am. Why am I awake?

 

goverment is being extra dumb? go figure. I'm moving to Britain...screw this place

Even here the police can detain a terror suspect for 21 days before charging them with an offence, when normally they have 24 hours.

It's 4 am. Why am I awake?

 

goverment is being extra dumb? go figure. I'm moving to Britain...screw this place

Even here the police can detain a terror suspect for 21 days before charging them with an offence, when normally they have 24 hours.

 

 

It used to be 28 days back in 2006, then (I think) it was allowed to lapse to 14 days this year. Apparently there has never been a need to detain anybody past 14 days since 2007, anyway.*

 

In any case, this completely pales in comparison to indefinite detainment. It's just shocking to say the least.

 

* http://www.thisislon...ion-to-lapse.do

It's partially glad why I live in Ireland, means we can hardly get screwed (unless they increase drink prices...)

So basically, the US military will be allowed to arrest any US citizen, regardless of geographical location, for any reason they decide to call "terrorism"? I always thought martial law was only declared in a state of emergency or instances of severe civil unrest, and only temporarily. It looks like if this bill passes then there will no longer be a need for local/state police and the FBI can just box up Hoover's old dresses and go home. "Don't worry boys, the Army's here to take the criminals away!"

 

I think this part worries me the most:

"If approved, the bill would require the US military to take custody of terror suspects accused of involvement in plotting or committing attacks against the United States."

 

Accused. Last I checked, you had to actually be charged with a crime to be arrested, not merely accused.

It's 4 am. Why am I awake?

 

goverment is being extra dumb? go figure. I'm moving to Britain...screw this place

Even here the police can detain a terror suspect for 21 days before charging them with an offence, when normally they have 24 hours.

 

I wish Britain would implement something like this. In Britain the lawyers crawl all over this preaching the human rights act looking for compensation. We also have very weak politically correct politicians who are just a waste of space. At least America protects its own interests. Give me that any day.

So basically, the US military will be allowed to arrest any US citizen, regardless of geographical location, for any reason they decide to call "terrorism"? I always thought martial law was only declared in a state of emergency or instances of severe civil unrest, and only temporarily. It looks like if this bill passes then there will no longer be a need for local/state police and the FBI can just box up Hoover's old dresses and go home. "Don't worry boys, the Army's here to take the criminals away!"

 

I think this part worries me the most:

"If approved, the bill would require the US military to take custody of terror suspects accused of involvement in plotting or committing attacks against the United States."

 

Accused. Last I checked, you had to actually be charged with a crime to be arrested, not merely accused.

 

A witch bill.

Wow, the U.S. is losing yet another right. Then there's the internet stuff going on today too I think.

I'm neutral on this bill until they actually start yanking people off of the street because that's the guy who inconvenienced him 6 years ago.

 

Why is it that every time one of these laws comes up people always jump to a 1984 or V for Vendetta dystopia situation?

Lame.

It's partially glad why I live in Ireland, means we can hardly get screwed (unless they increase drink prices...)

You are joking right?

Something similiar was implemented in Canada not too long ago except for police. These powers weren't even used in the 5 year timeframe (bills that infringe human rights expire every 5 years and need to be renewed then to be kept in force). It was amended after then. See this. So it may not be as bad as it seems.

It's 4 am. Why am I awake?

 

goverment is being extra dumb? go figure. I'm moving to Britain...screw this place

Even here the police can detain a terror suspect for 21 days before charging them with an offence, when normally they have 24 hours.

 

I wish Britain would implement something like this. In Britain the lawyers crawl all over this preaching the human rights act looking for compensation. We also have very weak politically correct politicians who are just a waste of space. At least America protects its own interests. Give me that any day.

 

Uh... what? Ginger_Warrior was referring to Britain when he said 'here'. As I said, we haven't had to detain for longer than 14 days since 2007, and the threat of terrorism is far smaller now than it was back then. There's no rational reason to detain for longer than 14 days now, let alone indefinitely. America's own interests includes not being hypocritical when it tries to criticise the human rights situation of another, because otherwise nobody will take them seriously. It's been bad enough with Guantanimo Bay and the repression of the Occupy protests, this is just making it even worse.

Countries in decline cannot afford to be as libertarian as they were when at their peak.

I expect the ACLU to challenge this law at the Supreme Court.

Anyhow, I blame the Republicans in Congress for passing such a steaming pile, and Obama for demanding it. Hopefully Harry Reid throws a hissy-fit and buries it in committee. Or maybe Rand Paul will step up and filibuster it.

Why is it that every time one of these laws comes up people always jump to a 1984 or V for Vendetta dystopia situation?

The internet has very small reference pools and a love of Guy Fawkes masks? :razz:

 

"Can" doesn't mean "Will". I'm waiting to see what they do with it, not what an army of Stalin clones could do with it.