House Passes Funding Bill With World-Wide War and Detention Authority

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Fri May 27, 2011 at 11:38:07 AM EST
Tags: detainees, Guantanamo (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yesterday, the House passed its version of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (available here.) The roll call vote is here. The bill, which is a renewal of the 2001 authority for war, expands the authority world-wide. The bill passed by a vote of 322-96 and contains a $553 billion Pentagon base budget and $119 billion for overseas contingency operations.

It also blocks federal criminal trials of suspected terrorists who are not U.S. citizens. An amendment to strike the worldwide war provision failed. Obama has promised to veto the bill due to the world-wide war authority provision.

The bill also delays implementation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and provides that those considered for indefinite detention at Guantanamo may not be represented by legal counsel, only a military representative. It also prohibits the Guantanamo detainees from receiving family visits. [More...]

The ACLU says:

The worldwide war provision was added to the bill by the committee's chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), and goes much further than the current authorization of war. The new authorization would last as long as there are terrorism suspects anywhere in the world and would allow a president to use military force in any country around the world where there are terrorism suspects, even when there is no connection to the 9/11 attacks or any other specific harm or threat to the United States.

The world-wide war provision has no expiration date. It means the current and any future president can decide to go to war anywhere in the world without additional congressional authorization. There isn't even a requirement that the president show a threat to our national security.

The bill essentially mandates military detention for anyone who could possibly be considered an "unprivileged belligerent" (the new term for "unlawful enemy combatant").

On indefinite detention:

the President’s authority includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons ... until the termination of hostilities.

Also, if I'm reading the bill correctly (and I read it quickly), once put in military detention, the detainee can't transfer back to the civilian courts.

No individual who is eligible for detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) may be transferred or released to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions."

It also has huge restrictions on the transfer of non-U.S. suspects from Guantanamo back to their home countries or third-party countries, including this one:

The Secretary of Defense may not transfer any individual described in paragraph (5) to the custody or effective control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual described in paragraph (5) who was transferred to the foreign country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity.

And those Combatant Status Review Tribunals (also known as CSRTs)? Who makes the recommendation? A panel of "operations, intelligence, and counterterterrorism officials". The detainee can't have a lawyer.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to begin its markup of the bill on June 13.

< Friday Morning Open Thread | "Let Me Quote President Clinton" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

House Passes Funding Bill With World-Wide War and Detention Authority | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This provision (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 27, 2011 at 11:48:58 AM EST

"The bill [. . .] provides that those considered for indefinite detention at Guantanamo may not be represented by legal counsel, only a military representative."

violates the Geneva Convention and, in light of Rasul, the Constitution.

Although I agree with the veto, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by jeffinalabama on Fri May 27, 2011 at 11:51:15 AM EST

Is this the sort of situation a signing statement would be made if one supported it? such as, "these parts of this bill will not be enforced because the violate treaties and/or the constitution?"

Again, I am glad to read veto.


Veto is the only Constitutional course (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 27, 2011 at 11:54:57 AM EST

Recently, Presidents appear to act as if they have line item vetoes. They do not.

Further, the President could also veto on the grounds that the provision impinges on his powers as Commander in Chief (and it does.)

Finally, the President could, in theory, name attorneys at the military representatives (not seeing the language, I'm not sure if this would violate the provision.)


: Yeah. (none / 0) (#13)
by Mr Natural on Fri May 27, 2011 at 04:10:27 PM EST

Too bad Ro'll O'ver O'bama's our man in the white house, eh?

"Obama has promised to veto"? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Fri May 27, 2011 at 07:59:56 PM EST

What is his record on % promises kept?

We should (none / 0) (#4)
by cal1942 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:06:03 PM EST

expect this sort of thing from right-wing extremists. Another chink in the armor of democracy.

I believe this bill also forbids reducing the nuclear arsenal.

it's pretty pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by CST on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:25:12 PM EST

"The bill passed by a vote of 322-96"

I didn't see the roll call but I can do the math.

The vast majority of the house is constitutionally challenged. In any event - if it's vetoed, it won't actually be a chink. So there's that.


How many of the same 322... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by kdog on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:54:11 PM EST

are crying for spending cuts and fiscal responsibility?

Forget Constitution 101, they need to go back to 1st Grade math.


Serious question (none / 0) (#6)
by sj on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:43:34 PM EST

What are the actual chances that the bill would be vetoed?


I mean the question (none / 0) (#7)
by sj on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:45:32 PM EST

to be based on past history. Sorry, my thinking is a little muddled due to cold meds.

I hate summer colds.


well according to Jeralyn's post (none / 0) (#9)
by CST on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:49:20 PM EST

"Obama has promised to veto the bill due to the world-wide war authority provision."


According to post it (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by MO Blue on Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:50:44 PM EST

also delays implementation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (probably until the 2nd. Tuesday of the week). If Obama fails to veto, he will IMO lose votes from two segments of the base.


: Yes, it adds another nice step. (none / 0) (#14)
by KeysDan on Fri May 27, 2011 at 06:51:21 PM EST

The certification process is expanded from the current President, Secretary of Defense and Chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff to include sign offs from Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Air Force. Of course, if that certification process could have been "rushed" since the "repeal" in December of 2010, this would be moot.

oops (none / 0) (#16)
by sj on Fri May 27, 2011 at 08:53:33 PM EST

so it does


I'm not sure we will ever know (none / 0) (#8)
by ruffian on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:49:09 PM EST

I doubt the bill in its current form will make it through the Senate.


95 Democrats voted Aye (none / 0) (#11)
by MO Blue on Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:45:18 PM EST

on this monstrosity. Here is link

Russ Carnahan voted "aye" here in MO. We should take his "D" away for this vote.

As long as (none / 0) (#17)
by cal1942 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:06:51 PM EST

right-wing extremists have a power niche democracy is in danger.
