déc 15, 2011
#superdemocracy
Un remarquable projet de loi budgétaire en cours autorise le gouvernement, le monde entier ayant été déclaré zone de guerre, à capturer n’importe quel citoyen de n’importe quel pays pour le maintenir en détention illimitée n’importe où dans le monde, sans procès et sous juridiction militaire.
Chine ? Russie ? Iran ? Israël ? Corée du Nord ? Birmanie ? … vous n’y êtes pas (relisez donc Give Me Liberty de Miller et Gibbons).
La Chambre des représentants américaine a adopté mercredi un projet de loi de finances du Pentagone comprenant des dispositions gelant l’aide au Pakistan, imposant des sanctions contre la Banque centrale d’Iran et autorisant la détention illimitée de suspects de terrorisme.
Le texte, un compromis entre les versions du Sénat et de la Chambre, impose que les suspects affiliés à Al-Qaïda, qui complotent ou conduisent des attentats contre les États-Unis, soient déférés devant le justice militaire et non de droit commun. Le président des États-Unis dispose toutefois de la possibilité de déroger à cette disposition.
Cette mesure ne concerne pas les citoyens américains, mais laisse à la Cour Suprême ou aux futurs présidents le soin de décider si les Américains qui ont eu des activités liées à Al-Qaïda peuvent être détenus indéfiniment sans procès ou non.
A person can be detained « under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities» , the bill states. The hostility in question here is the « war on terror» , and at the moment, it seems to have no end.
The bill defines the world -the entire world -as a war zone, meaning that anyone can be detained anywhere in the world and they can be said to be on the battlefield of the « war on terror» .
« The bill is a big deal,» said Christopher Anders, the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel.
« It would authorise the president to order the military to capture civilians and put them in indefinite detention without charge or trial, with no limitation based on either geography or citizenship. The military would have the authority to imprison persons far from any battlefield, including American citizens and including people picked up in the US.«
Cette loi concerne-t-elle les citoyens américains,
à l’étranger comme sur le sol national?
Aux États-Unis, les débats sur internet portent sur le fait de savoir si les citoyens américains sont concernés, comme ici :
IAmNotAPerson6
I’m sorry that this isn’t answering the question but I need some help as well. I’ve heard that the indefinite detention does AND does not apply to U.S. citizens. Can someone just give a clear cut answer to this? Yes or no, with supporting sources, please?
Metallio
Previous versions of the act specifically applied to US citizens. The current version does not specifically state that it applies to US citizens but only references them in a paragraph removing the requirement that they be detained indefinitely. This leaves open quite a bit of grey area and isn’t exactly something I personally find acceptable. Look at sections 1031 and 1032 at least in the [National Defense Authorization Act for 2012](National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012) pdf by the way. Last discussion I saw on reddit was here referencing this article.oddSpace 1 point2 points3 points 21 heures de ça
There are two bits of it people object to. IANAL, but here’s what they say:
Section 1031 is the main problem. It does not appear to cover US citizens- it says:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
The bill addresses two specific groups of people
(1) A person who planned, authorized, com- mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
And nobody else.
Section 1032 talks more about the specifics of implementing the NDAA. It has a disclaimer like 1031, saying
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this sec- tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) L AWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require- ment 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 422 place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
However, it also says
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Sec- retary of Defense may, in consultation with the Sec- retary of State and the Director of National Intel- ligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writ- ing that such a waiver is in the national security in- terests of the United States.
Which would appear to mean that the secretary of defence can ignore the explicit exclusion of US citizens if they choose to do so. That means that it’s now legally possible for the US government to arrest and detain without trial anyone for the crimes mentioned.
Mais il semble bien que oui, finalement :
The lie is in the wording. They say that the “requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
The key word here is “requirement”. If it is a foreign national, they are required to detain them in this manner. If it is an American citizen, they simply retain the option, without being required.
The provision begins on page 359 of the bill, linked below. This version of the bill was slightly amended to avoid veto by President Obama and was passed by a Senate vote of 93-7. The amendment replaced the term “require” with “have to”. So they are saying the exact same thing. The military does not have to indefinitely detain citizens. But they retain the power to do so.
La question à 1$
Could a military contractor open a prison overseas to house such detainees?
« Well, Guantanamo is not that huge, and there’s a timetable to get out of Afghanistan, so you wouldn’t have Baghram [airbase and prison] available. The idea that you would have contractors building prisons overseas - somebody somewhere is going to start pitching that to the Pentagon over the next few weeks.»
Et nous, alors ?
Quelques phrases sans lien précis avec ce texte, lues ici :
« Parfois, j’ai l’impression que l’Amérique ne veut pas d’alliés mais qu’elle veut des vassaux»
Vladimir Poutine – Russie
et là, cette semaine :
« The overpowering sense from Lake’s dispatch is of course how the US doesn’t hesitate to degrade the state structures of even its allies if American interests are involved.»
M K Bhadrakumar – Inde
•••••
The National Defense Authorization Act (full text pdf)
USA: la Chambre s’en prend à l’aide au Pakistan, sanctionne l’Iran
US Congress to vote on indefinite detention
Commentaires récents