NDAA Bill Discussion Thread V1: "4th Amendment, we'll miss you. <3" - General

[B]H.R. 1540[/B] or [B]National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[/B] [url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:6:./temp/~c112M8lQqR::[/url] Is a bill that has House and Senate and is unlikely to be veto'd by the White House. Why is it so worry some? [B]BECAUSE, IT ENDS THE 4TH AMMENDMENT.[/B] It gives the U.S. Military the ability to hold [B]ANYONE, even U.S. Citizens, INDEFINITELY WITHOUT A TRIAL.[/B] Only 7 out of 100 representatives in the Senate opposed it. [img]http://i.imgur.com/9zvVe.png[/img] President Obama has GONE BACK on his promise to veto it: [url]http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9200-white-house-backs-off-ndaa-veto-threats[/url] This, gentlemen, is how the constitution dies. Welcome to 1984, enjoy the boot stomping on your face because you have to pay for it. [editline]15th December 2011[/editline] Jon Stewart on the bill- [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development[/url] [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development---one-way-train-to-gitmo[/url]

OH fuck has it passed yet?

From everything that's been going on it's like America is becoming a third world country and a dictatorship, man I'm lucky I don't live there.

Hang about, isn't it against the human rights to be held without a trial?

Hey Netherlands got a spot for another immigrant?

Well we got our change

[QUOTE=toaster468;33738524]Hey Netherlands got a spot for another immigrant?[/QUOTE] Go ahead! I wouldn't mind it if you came here.

Don't worry, this'll be put to the Supreme Court in no time.

[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;33738594]Don't worry, this'll be put to the Supreme Court in no time.[/QUOTE] Right, like the indefinite detentions that started a decade ago were put before the Supreme Court. If they can't have lawyers, they can't challenge their detention.

[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;33738594]Don't worry, this'll be put to the Supreme Court in no time.[/QUOTE] They apparently don't even give a shit about this bill. This country is going down the toilet. A public one in a high school.

Who wants to be arrested without trail! :D

Am i the only one who has looked at how immense HR 1540 is Until someone can tell me what section this supposed "end of the 4th amendment" is, then this is bullshit and a big conspiracy theory. Okay so i read the alleged articles, and they have [B]NOTHING[/B] to do with american citizens [B]UNLESS:[/B] they are al qaeda, taliban, similar terrorist forces, helped or harbored those involved in 9/11 attack, or have attacked america Here ill post sections 1031 and 1032 which are the supposed articles that "end the 4th amendment". Article 1033 and 1034 have to do with Guantanamo bay. [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 to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (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. (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) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. (f) 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).[/QUOTE] Section 1032 [QUOTE]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-- (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. (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) 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. (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] Everything you have heard about "ending the 4th amendment" has been a bunch of overhyped conspiracy theorist bull shit. It's amazing anyone believes any of that stuff. TL;DR: Bunch of BS, as long as you are not a terrorist, your fine.

Who determines what might be labeled as "a terrorist"? The fact that the definition of that word alone has wiggle-room means that the entire bill is up for interpretation.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;33741529]Who determines what might be labeled as "a terrorist"? The fact that the definition of that word alone has wiggle-room means that the entire bill is up for interpretation.[/QUOTE] The bill is either intentionally or incompetently written so that it leaves to much in the grey area as to whether U.S. citizens are covered or not, but terrorist has a pretty clear definition. If you commit acts of violence with the intent to create casualties and sow fear, then you are a terrorist. Theoretically, under this bill the military or government [I]could[/I] (note not [I]would[/I]) say that oh, an OWS protestor was a terrorist and violate his rights. Not that they can't already violate plenty of our rights under the Patriot Act.

[QUOTE=Spooter;33741777]The bill is either intentionally or incompetently written so that it leaves to much in the grey area as to whether U.S. citizens are covered or not, but terrorist has a pretty clear definition. If you commit acts of violence with the intent to create casualties and sow fear, then you are a terrorist. Theoretically, under this bill the military or government [I]could[/I] (note not [I]would[/I]) say that oh, an OWS protestor was a terrorist and violate his rights. Not that they can't already violate plenty of our rights under the Patriot Act.[/QUOTE] No, no dice. Department of Homeland Security actually list PROTESTING as low-level terrorism. Also, reasons to be considered a suspected torrist- A. Having more then 7 days of food in your home. B. Missing fingers C. Countless other things D. Being inconvenient to the US government, [B]AT ALL.[/B]

[QUOTE=Remscar;33740649]TL;DR: Bunch of BS, as long as you are not a terrorist, your fine.[/QUOTE] "First they came for..."

[QUOTE=Remscar;33740649]Am i the only one who has looked at how immense HR 1540 is Until someone can tell me what section this supposed "end of the 4th amendment" is, then this is bullshit and a big conspiracy theory. Okay so i read the alleged articles, and they have [B]NOTHING[/B] to do with american citizens [B]UNLESS:[/B] they are al qaeda, taliban, similar terrorist forces, helped or harbored those involved in 9/11 attack, or have attacked america Here ill post sections 1031 and 1032 which are the supposed articles that "end the 4th amendment". Article 1033 and 1034 have to do with Guantanamo bay. Section 1032 Everything you have heard about "ending the 4th amendment" has been a bunch of overhyped conspiracy theorist bull shit. It's amazing anyone believes any of that stuff. TL;DR: Bunch of BS, as long as you are not a terrorist, your fine.[/QUOTE] I don't care whether they are terrorists, or even whether they are American or not. All human beings have a right to a fair trial. No exceptions.

[QUOTE=RagerTrader;33742154]No, no dice. Department of Homeland Security actually list PROTESTING as low-level terrorism. Also, reasons to be considered a suspected torrist- A. Having more then 7 days of food in your home. B. Missing fingers C. Countless other things D. Being inconvenient to the US government, [B]AT ALL.[/B][/QUOTE] That was one question on an exam two years ago. I hardly think that it's still official policy. As well, the other examples you cited came from a speech by Rand Paul and I've yet to see them corroborated anywhere else. And you know what? If the U.S. government is in such a drastic rush to silence all opposition, why aren't they? The Patriot Act grants tremendous powers that tie down and rape the 4th amendment, yet they haven't been used. I'm not supporting it, but what I'm trying to say is that the U.S. government is in no rush to silence all opposition. After all, why the hell would we still be allowed to vote?

Once again proud to be an Oregonian, great to see who we elected representing us.

[QUOTE=Remscar;33740649]Am i the only one who has looked at how immense HR 1540 is Until someone can tell me what section this supposed "end of the 4th amendment" is, then this is bullshit and a big conspiracy theory. Okay so i read the alleged articles, and they have [B]NOTHING[/B] to do with american citizens [B]UNLESS:[/B] they are al qaeda, taliban, similar terrorist forces, helped or harbored those involved in 9/11 attack, or have attacked america Here ill post sections 1031 and 1032 which are the supposed articles that "end the 4th amendment". Article 1033 and 1034 have to do with Guantanamo bay. Section 1032 Everything you have heard about "ending the 4th amendment" has been a bunch of overhyped conspiracy theorist bull shit. It's amazing anyone believes any of that stuff. TL;DR: Bunch of BS, as long as you are not a terrorist, your fine.[/QUOTE] the thing it says that worries me is this line: [quote]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, [b]including any person who has committed a belligerent act[/b] or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.[/quote] bolded bit is rather ambiguous.

[QUOTE=Remscar;33740649]Am i the only one who has looked at how immense HR 1540 is Until someone can tell me what section this supposed "end of the 4th amendment" is, then this is bullshit and a big conspiracy theory. Okay so i read the alleged articles, and they have [B]NOTHING[/B] to do with american citizens [B]UNLESS:[/B] they are al qaeda, taliban, similar terrorist forces, helped or harbored those involved in 9/11 attack, or have attacked america Here ill post sections 1031 and 1032 which are the supposed articles that "end the 4th amendment". Article 1033 and 1034 have to do with Guantanamo bay. Section 1032 Everything you have heard about "ending the 4th amendment" has been a bunch of overhyped conspiracy theorist bull shit. It's amazing anyone believes any of that stuff. TL;DR: Bunch of BS, as long as you are not a terrorist, your fine.[/QUOTE] The ability of the DEA to raid homes without warning has been abused, hasn't it? The death penalty has too, right? Along with nearly every other law? I agree most laws are subject to abuse, so consider the consequences of this law being abused. Don't you want to prevent more abuse of government power?

"This bill does not apply to US citizens who are not terrorists. Also, we've redefined the definition of terrorist to include people who oppose us. Have a nice day!"

It will end the 4th Amendment! Yes the Supreme Court will let this happen no problem.

[QUOTE=Xed;33743850]bolded bit is rather ambiguous.[/QUOTE] That is the only issue I seem to have with the bill at all, since the definition of Belligerence is, 1. a warlike or aggressively hostile nature, condition, or attitude. 2. an act of carrying on war; warfare. Now, I don't see number 2's definition being somewhere to be hysterical over, since not a majority of Americans are carrying on war on themselves, but 1 is what worries me, because that is up to some form of interpretation, someone in the thread has previously stated that Occupy Wallstreet could be a POSSIBLE target for "terrorism" because it has been listed as a low-priority form of "terrorism", if the Bill wasn't so weirdly worded for me, I would possibly not be shaking in my boots over my personal safety. Also, everyone deserves a fair-trial, no matter what they've done.

It's just like the Red Scare. What should we call this? the Brown Scare?

I really, really wish I could trust in the Supreme Court to veto this. But then again, this is the same set of justices that made corporate lobbying and donations legal.

What's with all the shit bills lately?

[QUOTE=sa2fan;33745801]What's with all the shit bills lately?[/QUOTE] What's with all the shit posters lately? [sp]not implying you're a shit poser[/sp] It's the same logic. Things like this tend to flood in with peaks.

I'm gonna' stay in America to see the aftermath, build my own underground city in the process. Oh well, goodbye 4th amendment.

Re-post from the thread in the news section, but this sums it all up here. [quote](e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.[/quote] If this isn't the first thing that say Americans citizens and lawful resident aliens can't be detained I don't know what else it could mean. [quote](2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined-- (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.[/quote] That pretty much sums up who can be detained. [quote] 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.[/quote] And that pretty much puts the writing up on the wall. This whole bill pertains to the military, there's nothing about states holding people for any reason or anything. This bill ONLY affects those who are deemed enemy combatants that are not US citizens or lawful aliens. Now a much broader subject of people can be detained by the military indefinitely, though US citizens/legal aliens do not fall under that category.