And the 2014 NDAA passes the House.So the amendments there that stand out to me;
Walorski Amendment #19: to prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any funds authorized to the department for the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen. 236-188 (225 Republicans in favor, 183 Democrats against).
That's a White House veto threat even over the standing veto threat. Currently there is a moratorium on sending detainees to Yemen, but it's purely an executive one. It's one area where Obama could genuinely work to remove prisoners from GTMO and the most likely action he could take to prove he is serious about closing it. Now the House want to block that option.
Radel Amendment #151: to require the Department of Defense to submit to the Congress a report every year containing: (1) the names of any U.S. citizens subject to military detention, (2) the legal justification for their continued detention, and (3) the steps the Executive Branch is taking to either provide them some judicial process, or release them. Requires that an unclassified version of the report be made available, and in addition, that the report must be made available to all members of Congress. Agreed to by voice vote.
Goodlatte amendment #150: to require the government, in habeas proceedings for United States citizens apprehended in the United States pursuant to the AUMF, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the citizen is an unprivileged enemy combatant and there is not presumption that the government’s evidence is accurate and authentic. 214-211 (211 Republicans in favor, 190 Democrats against).
These sound good, but I don't believe there has
ever been a piece of legislation that accepts US citizens can be held as enemy combatants. These amendments could potentially be used as a legal argument that Congress wants the military to be able to detain citizens. And while the first one of those two sounds like good precautions, I'd assume that the latter is the basic due process standard you would expect for any detention of any person under current court rulings. Again, limiting this to citizens could be used as an argument for denying non-citizens such access.
Broun Amendment #136: Prohibits the Department of Defense from using a drone to kill a citizen of the United States unless they are actively engaged in combat against the United States. Agreed en bloc by voice vote.
I'm betting the administration hold this standard would cover the citizens known to have been killed by drones in the past, given their current legal definitions, but would certainly open up challenges to such actions.
Also does limiting this to drones suggest that assassinations of American citizens by other means are somehow legal? Or that drone strikes were legal before this law in some manner that other killings weren't? Seems confused to me.