Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bringing the Battlefield To USA - Complete with non-judicial permanent imprisonment, even death.
AMY GOODMAN: The Senate could vote as early as Wednesday on a Pentagon spending bill that could usher in a radical expansion of indefinite detention under the U.S. government. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act would authorize the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial. The measure would effectively extend the definition of what's considered the U.S. military's battlefield to anywhere in the world, even the United States. The measure's authors, Democratic Carl Levin of Michigan and Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, have been campaigning for its passage in a bipartisan effort. But, the White House has issued a veto threat with backing from top officials including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James clapper, an FBI Director Robert Mueller. The measure was inserted into the full military spending bill after the Armed Services Committee quietly approved it without a single public hearing. Now Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has set Wednesday as a procedural vote day to advance the legislation. For more we're joined by Daphne Eviatar, Senior Associate with the Law and Security Program at Human Rights First. On Monday, Human Rights First released a letter from 26 retired military leaders urging the Senate to vote against the measure as well as against a separate provision that would repeal the executive order banning torture. Daphne Eviatar joins us in the studio today. Welcome to Democracy Now!. Explain exactly what this legislation is about.

DAPHNE EVIATAR: OK, first of all, the legislation is 680 pages long, and so one reason this has been able to get through so quietly is that the controversial provisions are just three or four provisions within this huge package. The ones that we're particularly concerned about, are for-specifically the one you mentioned about creating a system of indefinite military detention within the United States by statute. This would be the first time since the McCarthy era that the United States Congress has tried to do this. In the 1950's, that was actually repealed before it was ever used. In this case have seen the administration very eagerly hold people without trial for 10 plus years in military detention, so there's no reason to believe they wouldn't continue to do that here. So we're talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents as well as of people abroad.

AMY GOODMAN: Here in this country. U.S. citizens abroad as well as others abroad and others abroad in this country as well as U.S. citizens.


AMY GOODMAN: So, you're picked up off the street and you have no trial.

AMY GOODMAN: And it could be for things you've done here in this country. If you communicate with Al Qaeda, you're suspected of being even a supporter of Al Qaeda in some way or of Al Qaeda's associated forces. And the U.S. gets to decide who they think is associated with Al Qaeda, and that list grows longer almost every day.

AMY GOODMAN: Now again, suspected. This is not that you've been convicted.

DAPHNE EVIATAR: Suspected. And this is military custody without trial. So, this is for example what we have in Guantanamo Bay and at Bagram only you're now expanding the battlefield, as you said, to the United States. And, explicitly, some members of congress have said recently, yes, the battlefield now is the United States as well and the U.S. military ought to be able to operate here as well. And one other point, another very controversial provision in the bill and what the administration has particularly objected to, is the mandatory military custody provision which would say anyone suspected of terrorism in any way connected to Al Qaeda would have to be put into military custody. So, the government wouldn't even have the option. So, all these FBI investigations that are thwarting terrorist attacks and local police investigations, immediately that would have to be turned over to the U.S. military, and that would become a military action here in the United States, on U.S. soil.

AMY GOODMAN: How is this constitutional?

DAPHNE EVIATAR: That's a good question. It could be challenged, constitutionally, but, by the time something like this gets to the Supreme Court and we get a decision, it could be years.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, this is a bipartisan bill. You've got McCain, Arizona, you've got Michigan's Carl Levin. What are their motivations in this?

DAPHNE EVIATAR: It's very hard to know. McCain generally is always very interested in getting the military and-he's obviously very pro-military, he has a military background-but it's odd to me because so many people within the military have said this is a terrible idea. So, it makes him look very tough on terrorism, and I think there's a lot of politics here about looking tough on terrorism. Levin was able to soften the bill in various ways, and that was-so, they cut this deal behind closed doors, as you mentioned earlier. But, they haven't softened it in any substantive way. It still allows for this indefinite military detention.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the Udall Amendment?

DAPHNE EVIATAR: The Udall Amendment would basically table this. It would say, OK, let's let the NDAA, which is the defense authorization, the spending bill go forward, we can...

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this is spending bill. It's supposed to be about spending.

DAPHNE EVIATAR: Yeah. It's about what the government-what Congress authorizes the government to spend for the military. So, it's everything. It's weapons systems, it's everything. Let that go forward and something like creating a whole new system of indefinite detention without trial. Let's stop and think about that more. Let's have hearings. Let's really study what the implications are before we pass it. That's what the Udall Amendment would do.

AMY GOODMAN: Who are the military leaders who have signed on to the letter that you released this week?

DAPHNE EVIATAR: Those are retired generals and admirals, very senior people. Many of the same people who stood behind President Obama when he signed an executive order on his second day in office banning the use of torture and closing the CIA's secret prisons. So many of those same people are saying, you know what, this is not a good idea. This would disrupt ongoing criminal investigations of terrorism. We shouldn't have mandatory military custody.

AMY GOODMAN: If this bill passes, does a person who's been detained have any recourse?

DAPHNE EVIATAR: Again, it's not clear. There's still the right of habeas corpus. But, what we've seen is in the courts, the D.C. Circuit has really gutted that right. They've essentially said in their most recent cases, and this is the court right below the Supreme Court, has said you have to presume that the government's evidence in these cases involving secret intelligence is true. You basically have to give the government presumption their evidence is true. Which means the can get away with almost anything because you can't test secret intelligence information. So that whole right of habeas corpus, which is also not the equivalent of a criminal trial, it's a civil proceeding, really has become gutted.

AMY GOODMAN: Will President Obama veto this if it is incorporated into the bill?

DAPHNE EVIATAR: He has said he will. Whether he will is a difficult question because, politically, it's difficult to veto a defense spending bill that 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs. We hope he will. He has said he will. He very strongly opposes it. But, we'll see.

AMY GOODMAN: And how are you organizing against it? How is Human Rights First organizing against it?

DAPHNE EVIATAR: We're working a lot with members of the Senate and in Congress, urging them to vote against it. Some senators, even, who in the past suggested they would support this bill, are starting to waver and saying maybe they won't support it. They're starting to understand. We're really working with these retired military leaders to go out there and explain to people in the Senate, look, this is a bad idea and here's why.

AMY GOODMAN: What does this mean for Guantanamo?

DAPHNE EVIATAR: Means-the third provision, which I didn't have a chance to talk about is just that it extends the transfer restrictions. It means you can't transfer anyone out of Guantanamo. And the worst thing, and this is also something very few people have realized, but, Secretary Panetta mentioned this recently, is it would prevent the transfer of detainees out of Bagram and Afghanistan. So, we have about 3000 detainees being detained indefinitely in Afghanistan at the Bagram Air Base. Now, the U.S. wants to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. This would make it almost impossible to do that, because you wouldn't be able to transfer these detainees to Afghanistan because Afghanistan could never meet the conditions that are set out in the bill to accept detainees from the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Daphne Eviatar, thank you very much for being with us. Senior Associate at Human Rights First Law and Security program.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Full Spectrum Dominance

[size=12]Google it or search the archives here......
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Lynne Stewart: A Classic Case of Judicial Abuse & the [in]justice system in the USA Peter Lemkin 1 9,908 16-03-2017, 06:09 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Two Benghazi parents sue Hillary Clinton for wrongful death, defamation Drew Phipps 1 7,260 10-08-2016, 05:15 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Prosecutors drop charges in 2001 death of Washington intern Drew Phipps 0 6,544 29-07-2016, 12:32 AM
Last Post: Drew Phipps
  Two Of America’s Richest Men Secretly Tried To Sway Montana’s Judicial Elections Drew Phipps 0 3,226 14-05-2016, 10:30 PM
Last Post: Drew Phipps
  FBI uses thinly masked death threats to turn people into informers......Justice?! Peter Lemkin 0 2,180 02-05-2014, 08:02 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Racism, Not Evidence, Led To 30 Years Falsely On Death Row - Man Just Released Peter Lemkin 1 3,495 12-03-2014, 10:36 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Court Rules Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Death Sentence is Unconstitutional, Grants New Sentencing Hearing Magda Hassan 2 4,618 06-03-2014, 10:27 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Extra-Judicial Murder of American by America in Yemen - Anwar al-Awlaki Peter Lemkin 41 54,033 17-10-2012, 09:14 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Rachel Corrie's family bring civil suit over human shield's death in Gaza David Guyatt 8 9,762 14-04-2012, 05:52 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  High Court to revisit death of David Kelly Magda Hassan 1 3,421 03-11-2011, 09:33 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)