New Links and Information added daily!
Added December 9, 2011: A Letter from Senator Ben Nelson explaining this law. (Best explanation I have read to date)
Scroll to the bottom...
Added December 13, 2011: Two recent links with comments about this bill.... Scroll to the bottom...
Added December 20, 2011: An excellent and final explanation written by two attorneys who are national security experts.
Senate Bill 1867, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill was passed by the Senate Thursday night, December 1st. A House version of the bill, HR 1540, was passed earlier. These bills have become very controversial due to the "detainee" provisions in section 1031 and 1032.
Added December 9, 2011: A Letter from Senator Ben Nelson explaining this law. (Best explanation I have read to date)
Scroll to the bottom...
Added December 13, 2011: Two recent links with comments about this bill.... Scroll to the bottom...
Added December 20, 2011: An excellent and final explanation written by two attorneys who are national security experts.
Senate Bill 1867, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill was passed by the Senate Thursday night, December 1st. A House version of the bill, HR 1540, was passed earlier. These bills have become very controversial due to the "detainee" provisions in section 1031 and 1032.
The two sections have similar functions: To provide for the detention of "terrorists" under the "law of war".
This bill is not yet law; let's get that straight. It needs to be reconciled with the House version of the same bill and sent to President Obama. Obama has threatened to veto the bill if he feels that the detainee provisions in the final submitted bill are not clear enough and/or strong enough to clarify the role of the Department of Defense in the detention of terrorists or terrorist subjects. Also, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies were not happy with the language of the bill without the amendments. Get that? The Department of Defense wanted amendments to clarify what powers and authority they did or did not have. (Picture below from reason.com )
I've read much back and forth about this bill, but few people seem to actually have read the controversial sections. So here is Section 1031 as amended and passed by the Senate: