• NDAA is Signed, Citizens and Legal Aliens NOT Affected
    154 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mattk50;33986508]If the bill hasnt been changed again since their last change, it still applies to citizens nomatter what lies they tell you.[/QUOTE] I would appreciate an unbiased source to back that up. PrisonPlanet, RawStory, AlterNet, and press releases from watchdog groups are not valid sources.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;33987047]Bullshit, all people need money[/QUOTE] if anyone needs it the least it's our military
Poor mexicans.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;33987073]I would appreciate an unbiased source to back that up. PrisonPlanet, RawStory, AlterNet, and press releases from watchdog groups are not valid sources.[/QUOTE] This article is saying that obama will "interpret it" to not apply to US citizens, when the bill itself very much dose. Its basically obama promising he wont use the worse parts of the bill, and its quite silly. I hardly expect they are going to announce it if they DO end up using it. [url=http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-law]here is the latest from the ACLU[/url] This is a watchdog group, it is a valid source, perhaps you would prefer fox news?
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;33987047]Bullshit, all people need money[/QUOTE] except people who have enough already?
[QUOTE=notxmania;33987233]except people who have enough already?[/QUOTE] yeah our defense and military budget are basically drains to piss our national budget down
[QUOTE=notxmania;33987233]except people who have enough already?[/QUOTE] Wow, "Enough money", seriously? You сlearly don't understand how greedy most people are.
[QUOTE=Liem;33986805]It should be SPA Lets Face it, Is there really people who pirate stuff offline[/QUOTE] yeah [img]http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/shanghailaine/somali_pirate.jpg[/img]
Regardless of whether this applies to U.S. citizens or not it's still a horrible bill that violates human rights. Everyone should be allowed a fair and just trial regardless of who it is.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;33987410]Regardless of whether this applies to U.S. citizens or not it's still a horrible bill that violates human rights. Everyone should be allowed a fair and just trial regardless of who it is.[/QUOTE] I agree. There's too much bloodlust coming from fucking idiots.
Watch as people continue shitting about US is becoming a 'huge police state'.
[QUOTE]Budget has been reduced to $662 billion, from Congress's requested $700 billion.[/QUOTE] America when will you grow up? It's been +$660 billion for like forever now.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33986977]Won't be surprised if they pass a law that allows them to string up people of certain ethnicities in the future.[/QUOTE] I sincerely doubt that tbh
[QUOTE=booster;33987635]America when will you grow up? It's been +$660 billion for like forever now.[/QUOTE] Hardly. 2012 FY budget calculations place it below 2011's. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png[/IMG] Military expenditures are only 10% of our GDP. While that is a bit high, it's proportional with China's military spending. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg/800px-Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg.png[/IMG] (Simplistically) Budget wise the main thing is we need to lower that, because % of GDP be damned, much of that money could be better spent elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;33985698]I know it's nothing new but it's still stupid and I don't feel any "safer" as a result of it's passing[/QUOTE] Why would you? You've never had the enemy knocking at your door let alone been in a combat zone.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;33988315]Why would you? You've never had the enemy knocking at your door let alone been in a combat zone.[/QUOTE] Which is why I'm not a fan of bills like these passing It's obvious that they're just trying to make Obama look bad, and throw more money at the military when really we aren't facing an impending threat
[QUOTE=Medevilae;33987777]Hardly. 2012 FY budget calculations place it below 2011's. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png[/IMG] Military expenditures are only 10% of our GDP. While that is a bit high, it's proportional with China's military spending. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg/800px-Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg.png[/IMG] (Simplistically) Budget wise the main thing is we need to lower that, because % of GDP be damned, much of that money could be better spent elsewhere.[/QUOTE] There is absolutely no way to justify the American defense budget. It is insanely overkill. $600 billion could be put to so much better use than the military.
[QUOTE=booster;33988676]There is absolutely no way to justify the American defense budget. It is insanely overkill. $600 billion could be put to so much better use than the military.[/QUOTE] In a country that is basically in a perpetual state of war, it couldn't because they're busy shoving troops around the world places they really shouldn't be in.
Doesn't affect legal aliens ? So who are they going to send against the illegal ones ? Will Smith ? :v:
[QUOTE=booster;33988676]There is absolutely no way to justify the American defense budget. It is insanely overkill. $600 billion could be put to so much better use than the military.[/QUOTE] Pfft, you call that overkill? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png[/img] During the Cold War the US was throwing over 70% of its federal budget into defense spending. Nowadays it's around 20%...
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33988777]Doesn't affect legal aliens ? So who are they going to send against the illegal ones ? Will Smith ? :v:[/QUOTE] They just send in the Men in Black to handle them.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;33988484]Which is why I'm not a fan of bills like these passing It's obvious that they're just trying to make Obama look bad, and throw more money at the military when really we aren't facing an impending threat[/QUOTE] Hell, it was a lose-lose situation. Sign it, people get pissed, feel betrayed, says nothing changed. Veto it, political suicide, dems pissed, repubs happy, Congress overrides the veto. Remember, 7 people in the Senate were AGAINST it, and you need 2/3rds to override a veto. Sure, the President could have done the veto before the bill expired/Congress left, but it may still be considered political suicide.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33986417]Okay, but we're still putting a law on the books that basically says the US military can kidnap, torture, and indefinitely imprison anyone, anywhere, for any reason they pull out of their ass.[/QUOTE] You. You sir. You're an idiot. You are a stupid person. You are ignorant. You are not intelligent. Let's break down this post. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33986417]Okay, but we're still putting a law on the books that basically says[/QUOTE] Wrong. This is not new. There was already a law on the books that gave the same amount if not more power to the president and military. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33986417]the US military can kidnap, torture,[/QUOTE] WRONG. INCORRECT. TRY AGAIN. I didn't see a word about torture or interrogation in that bill. So unless I'm [I]fucking illiterate[/I], I don't think the bill gives them that power at all. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33986417]and indefinitely imprison anyone, anywhere, for any reason they pull out of their ass.[/QUOTE] Except the military doesn't get to make that choice. The President gets to order them to. Is there a part of this post that isn't flagrantly wrong and ignorant?
We're going to need a regime change soon.
[QUOTE=booster;33988676]There is absolutely no way to justify the American defense budget. It is insanely overkill.[/QUOTE] The budget is 10% of the GDP, which is exactly what China is putting into it's military. Not to say it couldn't be used better elsewhere, I'm sure it could.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;33990446]The budget is 10% of the GDP, which is exactly what China is putting into it's military. Not to say it couldn't be used better elsewhere, I'm sure it could.[/QUOTE] all that means is that china's defense budget is also insanely overkill
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;33988315]Why would you? You've never had the enemy knocking at your door let alone been in a combat zone.[/QUOTE] Why would experience in either of those things have any effect? It's not this bill actually changes any kind of military practice, but merely codifies their existing (dubious) practices. [editline]1st January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Spooter;33989049] Wrong. This is not new. There was already a law on the books that gave the same amount if not more power to the president and military.[/quote] No, that's not correct. The powers did exist, but were not legislatively codified until the passing of NDAA 2012. [quote] WRONG. INCORRECT. TRY AGAIN. I didn't see a word about torture or interrogation in that bill. So unless I'm [I]fucking illiterate[/I], I don't think the bill gives them that power at all.[/quote] I suppose, by your own admission, you are '[I]fucking illiterate[/I]'. Perhaps you misspelled interrogation when you searched for it, or perhaps you are just making shit up and being an all-round shitposter. I would contend that [I]indefinite imprisonment with trial[/I] is a form of torture. [editline]1st January 2012[/editline] I also like this part [quote]Detainee access to military or civilian legal representation, or both, including any limitations on such access and the manner in which any applicable legal privileges [b]will be balanced with national security considerations.[/b][/quote] Because we all know that the federal government only ever uses the 'national security' line in very few matters of utmost importance.
[QUOTE=Contag;33990654] No, that's not correct. The powers did exist, but were not legislatively codified until the passing of NDAA 2012. [/QUOTE] Exactly. What I'm trying to say is that those powers [I]did[/I] exist and their being codified is absolutely nothing new. [QUOTE=Contag;33990654] I suppose, by your own admission, you are '[I]fucking illiterate[/I]'. Perhaps you misspelled interrogation when you searched for it, or perhaps you are just making shit up and being an all-round shitposter. I would contend that [I]indefinite imprisonment with trial[/I] is a form of torture.[/QUOTE] [I]What.[/I] So you would contend that to [U]detain[/U] [QUOTE=Merriam Webster] to hold or keep in or as if in custody [/QUOTE] is a form of [U]torture[/U]. [QUOTE=Merriam Webster] a : anguish of body or mind b : something that causes agony or pain[/QUOTE] And yes, I realize that being detained may cause anguish to mind. But then we'd have to arrest teachers for "torturing" kids by giving them detentions without trial. You're essentially contending that, if no one had to be tried, that the ENTIRETY OF ALL PRISONS AND/OR JAILS would be houses of torture! You're fucking stretching the definition of the word like it's fucking taffy! Detain != Torture! Because the word detain has been used so much in referring to Guantanamo Bay and other assorted topics, it's attained this weird pseudo definition that means it's worse than imprisonment or other words. When parents keep a child in his/her room as punishment, they are [I]detaining[/I] their child. So they are [I]torturing[/I] their child. When a high school teacher gives a student a detention, they are [I]detaining[/I] that student. So the teacher has [I]tortured[/I] their student. Do you have any idea how ludicrous that contention is?
Read the bill please, and please comprehend it before saying anything on this matter.
So does this apply to tourists? If so I'm never going to America.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.