-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Last night, the Senate voted 99 to 1 for a compromise on the nettlesome terror detention provision in the national defense authorization bill. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed a second amendment explicitly stating what supporters of the McCain-Levin language claimed to be true: that there was nothing in the bill that would change existing law for the detention of U.S. citizens and legal residents arrested in the United States.
The concern was that by giving so much leeway to the military to hold detainees unti the “end of hostilities” in a war as open-ended as the war on terror could lead to the indefinite detention of American citizens in violation of the Constitution. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was the sole dissenting vote against the compromise. He had voted for the original sweeping detention powers. It is not clear whether the Obama administration will veto.
View all comments (1) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/02/detention-compromise
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Obama’s Drone War
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Zbigniew Mazurak| 12.3.11 @ 10:25AM
This bill has been lied about so often, by so many ignorant people, including so many conservatives and libertarians, that I believe I need to step in and set the record straight.
NOTHING in S. 1867, repeat, NOTHING in S. 1867 applies to US citizens or to legal residents (with the caveat for non-citizen legal residents that they're protected to the extent permitted by the Constitution). If this bill becomes law, neither the military nor any other agency of the federal government will have any prerogative to detain ANY citizen or legal resident arbitrarily. Any claim to the contrary is a BLATANT LIE.
Read the bill, folks, before you comment on it.
Page 362 of the NDAA clearly states: "UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
Page 362 also says: "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."
The NDAA contains a national security waiver. This allows the Secretary of Defense to determine if certain situations necessitate a criminal/civil path, rather than a military one.
The bill deservedly passed the Congress by a bipartisan 93-6 margin. Only a few strident liberals (like Tom Harkin and Ron Wyden) and a few loony libertarians like Tom Coburn and Rand "America is a police state" Paul voted against it.