Senate passes NDAA without indefinite detention ban, Sen. Paul calls it ‘abomination’ - Polidicks

[quote] The Senate voted 81-14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which lacks a ban on indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, and now President Obama must decide whether or not he will sign it, reported the Huffington Post. He had previously threatened a veto because it does not allow for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) railed against the lack of protections for Americans in a floor speech, claiming that the guarantee of a trial by jury for citizens was removed “because they want the ability to hold American citizens without trial in our country.” “Don’t let the wool be pulled over your eyes to think that you have protection and that you will get a trial by jury if accused of a crime,” he said. He counters claims that Americans will have a trial by jury if they get into an constitutional court by arguing that the decision to grant such aa court is “arbitrary.” He called the current NDAA an “abomination.” “Is our memory so short that we don’t understand the danger of allowing detention without trial? Is our memory so short that we don’t understand the havoc that bias and bigotry can do when unrestrained by law?” Paul said. While there was at one point an amendment to the NDAA banning the indefinite detention of American citizens, a House-Senate conference committee scrapped it.[/quote] [url]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/21/senate-passes-ndaa-without-indefinite-detention-ban-sen-paul-calls-it-abomination/[/url] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvuhVu0z9p4[/media]

This can't/couldn't possible get passed the supreme court. It's a violation of human rights.

[QUOTE=don818;38930147]This can't/couldn't possible get passed the supreme court. It's a violation of human rights.[/QUOTE] The United States have done lots of things that are against human rights and even international law, at the end of the day it is only money and power that matters to world leaders.

I gotta say, he's right that it's an abomination. This bill is absolutely undeniably unacceptable and needs to be stricken down.

[QUOTE=don818;38930147]This can't/couldn't possible get passed the supreme court. It's a violation of human rights.[/QUOTE] The supreme court doesn't get shit until someone challenges it legally

[QUOTE=don818;38930147]This can't/couldn't possible get passed the supreme court. It's a violation of human rights.[/QUOTE] I am not so sure, they ruled that corporations are considered people, and they didn't go against the old NDAA. Plus, isn't the NDAA part of the defense budget?

The NDAA is fucking terrible and is an obvious violation of human rights.

Say Hello to Orwell-Land!

Someone clarify what the NDAA does? doesn't say so in the OP.

fuck every senator that voted for this and fuck obama if he signs it

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;38930349]Someone clarify what the NDAA does? doesn't say so in the OP.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act[/url] [editline]21st December 2012[/editline] The current one: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012[/url]

Wait I'm confused, didn't the NDAA bullshit happen (and pass) months ago?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38930385]Wait I'm confused, didn't the NDAA bullshit happen (and pass) months ago?[/QUOTE] happened like a year ago and it's happening again this year because ndaa is a yearly bill [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] it sets military expenditure so it needs to be renewed every year otherwise the dod doesn't get any of it's monies

Things like this remind me why we have the Second Amendment here in the US. It's probably the only thing keeping the US Government from passing more laws like this (by this I mean indefinite detention). With the Second Amendment, we would at least have a fighting chance should the government step across the line.

basically they can put in all sorts of fun military stuff and since vetoing it is a very bad idea

[QUOTE=KigJow;38930419]Things like this remind me why we have the Second Amendment here in the US. It's probably the only thing keeping the US Government from passing more laws like this (by this I mean indefinite detention). With the Second Amendment, we would at least have a fighting chance should the government step across the line.[/QUOTE] not really a fighting chance but in theory it could create enough of a hassle for the federal government to say "fuck it". [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] there hasn't ever been an armed rebellion with a chance of succeeding in the usa so idk how effective the 2nd amendment is.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38930435]not really a fighting chance but in theory it could create enough of a hassle for the federal government to say "fuck it". [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] there hasn't ever been an armed rebellion with a chance of succeeding in the usa so idk how effective the 2nd amendment is.[/QUOTE] Problem with those rebellions is that they were small

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;38930503]Problem with those rebellions is that they were small[/QUOTE] not the rebellion that started in 1861.

[QUOTE=KigJow;38930419]Things like this remind me why we have the Second Amendment here in the US. It's probably the only thing keeping the US Government from passing more laws like this (by this I mean indefinite detention). With the Second Amendment, we would at least have a fighting chance should the government step across the line.[/QUOTE] yeah okay

So are we going to get freaked out and call out to one of the Pauls (Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, etc) for help every single year? It's been clear since the Patriot act and the Bush/Cheney Presidency (and arguably before that) that human rights don't matter to the US Government. This is not new.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38930515]not the rebellion that started in 1861.[/QUOTE] Which, even then ultimately failed and didn't push the government to concede to the rebels' position, however heinous that position was. [editline]21st December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;38930575]So are we going to get freaked out and call out to one of the Pauls (Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, etc) for help every single year? It's been clear since the Patriot act and the Bush/Cheney Presidency (and arguably before that) that human rights don't matter to the US Government. This is not new.[/QUOTE] And even so, it seems that vetoing this bill could cause a chain reaction. There may be some contingency plan I'm unaware of, but if you veto the bill that makes sure the Dept. of Defense gets funds, then that means it and everything under it fails to receive money until it's passed. You do that and you may well have a catastrophe on your hands as far as the military's concerned.

Also, the title should be "Senate passes anything ever, Paul calls it 'abomination'"

[QUOTE=Megafan;38930583]Which, even then ultimately failed and didn't push the government to concede to the rebels' position, however heinous that position was. [/QUOTE] actually im pretty sure the civil war pretty much set back the south's slavery agenda pretty far. i don't think lincoln would have outright banned slavery without the whole rebellion ordeal to legitimize the action.

[QUOTE=KigJow;38930419]Things like this remind me why we have the Second Amendment here in the US. It's probably the only thing keeping the US Government from passing more laws like this (by this I mean indefinite detention). With the Second Amendment, we would at least have a fighting chance should the government step across the line.[/QUOTE] Good luck taking on the strongest military in the world.

[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;38930651]Good luck taking on the strongest military in the world.[/QUOTE] Because the entire military is a single-minded, uninformed drone and will blindly follow any command, even those against citizens. People are people. The military strength won't be that impressive (or fully employed) if it's even partially divided. Not saying rednecks with guns could overthrow the government in a week, but it wouldn't be an instant, total-shutdown of pickups versus Abrams. :v:

[QUOTE=don818;38930147]This can't/couldn't possible get passed the supreme court. It's a violation of human rights.[/QUOTE] If Palestine were to do this they'd get nuked. But America is a superpower no one dares to touch and it repeatedly broke the international law as well as the declaration human rights.

They can't detain you indefinitely for the reason that it's a violation of basic human rights, therefor it is not recognized as law. They can write and sign all the crap they want, but it won't mean anything.

[QUOTE=Megafan;38930583]Which, even then ultimately failed and didn't push the government to concede to the rebels' position, however heinous that position was. [editline]21st December 2012[/editline] And even so, it seems that vetoing this bill could cause a chain reaction. There may be some contingency plan I'm unaware of, but if you veto the bill that makes sure the Dept. of Defense gets funds, then that means it and everything under it fails to receive money until it's passed. You do that and you may well have a catastrophe on your hands as far as the military's concerned.[/QUOTE] So the senate could pass whatever bullshit they wanted within this and the President would have no chance of vetoing it?

[QUOTE=Killuah;38931700]So the senate could pass whatever bullshit they wanted within this and the President would have no chance of vetoing it?[/QUOTE] riders have been an issue for a while things can be put in riders that few people agree on and that have little or nothing to do with the bill at hand but get through this little bit of bullshit

[QUOTE=KigJow;38930419]Things like this remind me why we have the Second Amendment here in the US. It's probably the only thing keeping the US Government from passing more laws like this (by this I mean indefinite detention). With the Second Amendment, we would at least have a fighting chance should the government step across the line.[/QUOTE] Which is why the southern states seceded, the 16th amendment was never passed, and the patriot act blocked.