National Defense Authorization Act Discussion Thread - Polidicks

Several threads have been posted about this bill, so I'm consolidating them all into one megathread. This way, we can keep all of the discussion in one place. Please read the bill itself before you make any comments. I've taken the liberty of bolding the important bits: [quote]SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States [B]to detain covered persons[/B] (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. [B](b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, 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.[/B] (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2). SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined-- [B](A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. [/B] (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. [B](b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement 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 place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.[/B] (c) Implementation Procedures- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section. (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows: (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States. (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session. (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country. (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished. (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.[/quote] Source: [URL]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf[/URL] (search for SEC. 1031.) Several sources from the previous threads, if you would still like access to them: [URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/senate-passes-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-americans-considers-bill-authorizing-mo[/URL] [URL]http://newsvoice.se/2011/12/02/us-senate-declares-the-entire-usa-to-be-a-battleground/[/URL] [URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/national-defense-authorization-act_b_1126762.html[/URL]

Move to Canada as soon as you can people! [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] Switzerland would even be better. You can legally pirate for personal use, and the scenery is wonderful.

[QUOTE=seano12;33564307]Move to Canada as soon as you can people! [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] Switzerland would even be better. You can legally pirate for personal use, and the scenery is wonderful.[/QUOTE] We're off to a great start!

Start a riot.

I always knew America was going back to dark ages

[i]Welp.[/i]

I can see a lot of innocent people suffering because of this, like a witch hunt.

I'm pretty much figuring at this point that I'm just going to move out of this country if things go down this way. I'm poor, but poor enough for college benefits.

Thin end of the wedge, all I gots to say on it.

boy canada sure is nice

At this point I don't even know what's going on anymore. So many "it passed" and "omg no it didnt" coupled with "it does/n't affect us!" that it makes my head spin. Apparently the version posted in the OP didn't pass and I'm just confused as fuck. No one seems to be making sense of this, no matter what the source.

[QUOTE=Vaught;33566015]At this point I don't even know what's going on anymore. So many "it passed" and "omg no it didnt" coupled with "it does/n't affect us!" that it makes my head spin. Apparently the version posted in the OP didn't pass and I'm just confused as fuck. No one seems to be making sense of this, no matter what the source.[/QUOTE] You need to understand the US law process. A bill needs to be "passed" by congress (the senate and the house), and then the president needs to sign it into law. As far as I'm aware, this bill passed congress but it hasn't been signed into law yet, which means it might never see the day of light if Obama vetos (rejects) it.

How do I go about applying for Norwegian citizenship? Will they mind if I am brown-skinned but speak only english and spanish? With my beautiful American accent of course.

On a slightly brighter note, it seems that unless you have ties to Al-Qaeda or a domestic terrorist group, and you're a US Citizen or legal alien, then this doesn't apply to you. I can't say that even if you are a terrorist, that this is really fair, though.

Any true American senator would have never voted for this. It's completely unconstitutional, wrong and against everything we stand for as a country. This really only confirms my fears that the US Government is absolutely nuts.

[h2](1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.[/h2] Are you guys like... illiterate and dumb or something?

[QUOTE=J!NX;33566142][h2](1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.[/h2] Are you guys like... illiterate and dumb or something?[/QUOTE] This is not true.

[QUOTE=itak365;33566117]On a slightly brighter note, it seems that unless you have ties to Al-Qaeda or a domestic terrorist group, and you're a US Citizen or legal alien, then this doesn't apply to you. I can't say that even if you are a terrorist, that this is really fair, though.[/QUOTE] The law could be easily applied to any dissidents in the future. It's sickening that we're sacrificing what we stand for in order to beat Al-Qaeda. If this persists, we're going to stray away from every single aspect that makes us who we are, and that's much worse than any physical attack they could have ever used against us.

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;33566218]This is not true.[/QUOTE] It says it [B]right on the bill in the OP in BOLD[/B]. How dumb do you have to be... This is only for serious, non-citizen cases.

[QUOTE=J!NX;33566235]It says it [B]right on the bill in the OP in BOLD[/B]. How dumb do you have to be... This is only for serious, non-citizen cases.[/QUOTE] It was changed, bills change during process, don't be a jackass.

I don't see a problem with this. It states that anybody involved in the 9/11 attacks will be detained. I don't even see the point of this bill since I'm pretty sure people have been getting detained already in the past over that.

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;33566304]It was changed, bills change during process, don't be a jackass.[/QUOTE] Then can you show us the modified bill then where that section changed?

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;33566304]It was changed, bills change during process, don't be a jackass.[/QUOTE] Don't be a jackass, show us where and how it was edited. I'm actually reading the OP. and are you seriously saying they would actually take away our rights? just like that? Are you reading anything that isn't sensationalized to all hell and hyper-liberal/hyper-conservative? The government KNOWS that if they passed something as serious as how SH is putting it, the people would be in an uproar, and riots would be happening everywhere.

[QUOTE=J!NX;33566382]Don't be a jackass, show us where and how it was edited. I'm actually reading the OP. and are you seriously saying they would actually take away our rights? just like that? Are you reading anything that isn't sensationalized to all hell and hyper-liberal/hyper-conservative? The government KNOWS that if they passed something as serious as how SH is putting it, the people would be in an uproar, and riots would be happening everywhere.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1144664?p=33532281&viewfull=1#post33532281[/url]

[QUOTE=itak365;33566117]On a slightly brighter note, it seems that unless you have ties to Al-Qaeda or a domestic terrorist group, and you're a US Citizen or legal alien, then this doesn't apply to you. I can't say that even if you are a terrorist, that this is really fair, though.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is the fact that the wording in this is just vague enough that it can technically apply to [I][B]Natural American Citizens[/B][/I] as well, given the circumstances.

I hate how I would day dream of raising my future children in a nice neighborhood in America and how now it's being shut down and making my concept of my future gloomy and depressing.

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;33567142]I hate how I would day dream of raising my future children in a nice neighborhood in America and how now it's being shut down and making my concept of my future gloomy and depressing.[/QUOTE] Don't worry, the torch of freedom always prevails. Everything will be alright.

Thought megathreads were not allowed. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Reporting a moderator. Really smart move." - Swebonny))[/highlight]

Wait, no, I meant to say that everything isn't going to be alright. We're pretty much boned.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33567178]Wait, no, I meant to say that everything isn't going to be alright. We're pretty much boned.[/QUOTE] I mean, China is great and all. But they run over kids.