Bill could modify NDAA; Utah weighs in with resolution

The act allowed indefinite detention of members of terrorist groups. But critics said it would also allow U.S. citizens, suspected of terrorist ties, from being detailed without trial or put in front of military commissions.

A bill, recently sponsored by U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, and U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., would prohibit anyone detained in the U.S. from being tried by a military commission or held indefinitely without trial. Aides said the bill would ensure that U.S. citizens are afforded their constitutional rights to a trial.

“Current law gives the executive branch too much power,” the lawmakers said.

In addition, lawmakers in Utah this month expressed their opposition to the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA.

The intent of the resolution was to “express disapproval” of the NDAA, specifically the provisions permitting the indefinite detention of American citizens and the suspension of habeas corpus. The bill calls on members of Congress to uphold their oath of office and “to protect the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution.”

Klobuchar

Sen. Amy Klobuchar voted for the NDAA.

“I voted for the Defense Authorization Act because I would not leave our troops out in the field on the front lines of battle without funding, equipment, and health care for themselves and their families,” she said in a statement. “Eighty-five of the 100 senators, both Democrats and Republicans, joined me in making the same decision. I also liked that the bill reduced our military spending by more than $42 billion dollars compared to the amount enacted last year, due in part to the fact that we brought our troops home from Iraq.”

“As for the detention provisions, I supported Sen. Udall’s amendment to take these provisions out of the bill and I am supporting Sen. (Dianne) Feinstein’s Due Process Guarantee Act to help ensure that all U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents apprehended in the United States are granted speedy access to a fair and just trial.”

Franken

Sen. Al Franken voted against the NDAA and, according to a spokesman, “is looking at (Udall’s bill) closely and so far it seems very much in the spirit of what he has supported.”

Franken spoke Feb. 29 at a Judiciary Committee hearing on The Due Process Guarantee Act: Banning the Indefinite Detention of Americans.

Franken filed two amendments that would have stripped two of the detention provisions from the NDAA, but was not able to get votes on his amendments. “And despite our best efforts, Congress ended up passing a bill that will radically alter how we investigate, arrest, and detain individuals suspected of terrorism. This is, in my mind, a complete mistake,” he testified.

“The idea that we could arrest and detain U.S. citizens and other persons living in the U.S. indefinitely — without charge, without trial by a jury of their peers, and without having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt- — is, in my opinion, a denigration of the Bill of Rights. It is a denigration of what our Founders created when they established a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes they commit on U.S. soil. I think it is a mistake for the military to be authorized to detain anyone here in the U.S. — regardless of whether they are a citizen or not.”

Cravaack

Congressman Chip Cravaack voted for the NDAA. In a statement, he said there is much “inaccurate information and misunderstanding” about the final version of the NDAA, which passed the House on Dec. 14.

“The bill provides pay and benefits for our troops, buys the weapons and equipment they need, and funds research to help meet future threats,” he said. “It is an important bill to pass because it helps carry out the first job of the federal government — our national defense.”

Cravaack said within the bill there have been some misunderstandings related to two provisions involving the detention of Al Qaeda terrorists.

“Over the past decade, the United States has detained members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups when they have been captured on the battlefield. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have detained those individuals who are members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups, and the courts have affirmed the ability to do so under the U.S. Constitution. But, the specific authorization for detention was inferred from the Authorization to Use Military Force; it was not explicitly stated in statute.”

The NDAA states that authority in law, on the same terms as the courts have recognized it with one exception, he said.

“The bill adds explicit protections for American citizens — even American citizens who have joined Al Qaeda to take up arms against the United States,” he said. “Some people have argued that these provisions allow a president to detain American citizens within the United States indefinitely if he brands them a terrorist. That is not true.”