Permanent Detention (U.S. citizens included) - Maybe

Got 'cha ... (maybe)

Updated (December 31, 2011) -- As promised, and regarding President Obama's "signing statement" attached to the DOD spending bill regarding the following subject. The whole story is here. Key pieces of that statement are ...

1. The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

2. The president said, in part: "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

3. Despite the changes, [some] officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

Original two updates follow:

#1: Verbatim from President Obama to issue "signing statement" re: Detention of Detainees Including U.S. Citizens from TPMMuckraker.TalkingPointsMemo.com here.

Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed speculation Wednesday that President Barack Obama would issue a signing statement when he makes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its controversial detention provisions law. “We made really substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the administration to something with which we still have problems,” Holder said in response to a question from the Wall Street Journal’s Evan Perez. “But I think through these procedures, with these regulations we will be crafting, we can minimize the problems that will actually affect us in an operational way.”

Holder said the language of the NDAA had been moved in a “substantial way” from some of the original language which led the president to issue a veto threat. “So we are in a better place, I think the regulations, procedures that will help, and we’ll also have a signing statement from the president” which will help clarify how they view the law, Holder said.

#2: From Salon.com and Glenn Greenwald here.

"For that reason, 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)." (emphasis is mine).

As part of the defense spending bill, rules for detention of suspected and/or alleged terrorist have changed - dramatically.

Original Post: News stories are following this kind of headline (from HuffingtonPost.com):

WASHINGTON -- Congress would give the president ultimate authority to detain American citizens indefinitely in military custody under the final version of a defense bill expected to pass this week. The National Defense Authorization Act was facing the threat of a presidential veto after the White House complained that it restricted the administration's ability to fight terrorism and raised "serious and unsettled legal questions." The conference committee working out the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill added and amended several provisions in an attempt to produce legislation that would pass muster with President Barack Obama, who appealed personally for fixes.

But the version released Monday night still contains the authority to indefinitely imprison suspects linked to al Qaeda or associated groups, including citizens captured in the United States.

"We have [in the bill] the authority to detain without charge or trial terrorism suspects. There aren't any material changes to the indefinite detention provision," says Raha Wala, a lawyer with the Law and Security Program of the group Human Rights First in a recent conference call. On the Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC.MSN.com) a sharp lawyer from the ACLU (Mr. Jameel Jaffer) has an easy explanation of the long term impact of this, if it stands, vis-a-vis the United States vs. the World. That short 7-minute clip can be seen here - it is worth watching.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com offers his review of this issue, which he has written about extensively. I post it here from his latest post: "In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote about the primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

"The ACLU said last night (on the Maddow Show) that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."

More at the Salon.com link.

So, have we now made Gitmo forever, even for American citizens suspected but not given their full rights to prove otherwise? Is the military now taking over law enforcement and if so, how can that be legal (possibly under Posse Comitatus)? Far too many questions remain unanswered. The USSC needs to weigh in, but will they? That remains to be seen.

This a very complex issue in very complex times, however, there is a growing concern, and rightly so that we are treading on thin ice here and the long-term impact will be irreversible regarding loss our guaranteed civil rights.

Stay tuned. There will certainly will be more following this signing statement.