Fw: NDAA Response

From: RINO H.
Sent on: Thursday, June 5, 2014 1:42 PM

I had grave concerns when I heard through the media and from friends that an amendment to the NDAA (Military Annual Authorization Bill) was dismissed (Voted Down) that would remove indefinite detention and avert our citizens inalienable right to a trial by jury. I was informed that our Congressman David Jolly had voted against this amendment, so I spoke with him at length on the NDAA bill after the Memorial Day Ceremony at the Bay Pines VA facilities. He did not have an immediate answer but agreed with my statements and stated that he would certainly look into the matter and get back to me immediately. Nick called this morning and told me that no where in the NDAA does this apply to U.S. citizens and if we have information that differs from this to let him know and it will be addressed. This is the email that followed.

Dan Tucker
Pinellas County RPOF State Committeeman

On Thursday, June 5,[masked]:55 AM, "Catroppo, Nicholas" <[address removed]> wrote:

Here is the letter response from Rep. Jolly in regards to indefinite detention in the NDAA:
Thank you for expressing your concerns about indefinite detention of American citizens or resident aliens accused of crimes of terrorism against the American people.  As you may know, I have consistently stated that the fundamental issue related to detention of those who wish to cause harm to our nation is one of due process. 
I have asked those in our community to hold me accountable, and I believe I have honored my word on this issue.  We must ensure that each and every American, regardless of the charges against them, is afforded the due process provided by our constitution, and my votes reflect that.  This is non-negotiable.  We agree.
Regarding your specific concerns about federal legislation, there seems to be a misunderstanding on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as it relates to the indefinite detention of American citizens.  The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution clearly forbids indefinite detention of American citizens, lawful resident aliens or any other person captured or arrested in the United States without Due Process.  The NDAA reaffirms this law, and I agree.  You have my word that I will work to ensure this fundamental principle remains intact. 
The NDAA bills also address the detention of foreign terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  The 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) law addresses wartime detention policy, serving as the primary legal authority for U.S. operations against Al Qaeda and associated combatants.  The NDAA simply extends the existing AUMF prohibition on releasing detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the United States. 
Some confusion centers on the Smith/Brown amendment that would have eliminated indefinite detention of any person detained under AUMF authority and called for their immediate transfer to trial by a court.  This would not have affected law pertaining to any American.  This amendment, were it passed, would have mandated the release of terrorists held for wartime crimes at Guantanamo Bay.  It is my belief that foreign wartime criminals should be treated as such and that is why I voted against this amendment.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me and I hope you continue to do so.  It is my hope that you will keep me apprised of your interest in legislative issues important to you.  Lastly, please visit my website located at www.jolly.house.gov and consider signing up for my weekly e-newsletter, which provides updates on issues in Congress.

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy