• David Seaman of Business Insider writes: "NDAA Set To Become Law: The Terror Is Nearer Than Ever"
    53 replies, posted
Here's hoping the next administration reverses it, if it does pass.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;33729265]Here's hoping the next administration reverses it, if it does pass.[/QUOTE] If Obama loses it won't be to Ron Paul because the Republicans will never nominate him - which means it wouldn't likely to be reversed if it passes now.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33729166]If he doesn't veto it I think most liberals will agree with you[/QUOTE] They should, considering this act is much worse than the Patriot Act.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33727865]Way to pre-emptively lose an election, bumblefuck[/QUOTE] With a source like this, I doubt it.
[QUOTE=abananapeel;33728224]But now who do we vote for?![/QUOTE] This might be the first time in history that both the Presidential Incumbent and his opponent both desire and are actively attempting to destroy the country they're trying to rule, although each in their own ways.
[QUOTE=Swilly;33729367]With a source like this, I doubt it.[/QUOTE] This. Forgive me if I'm having trouble believing the most interesting journalist in the world saying that he isn't going to veto it without actual citation. That and it doesn't make sense, considering he came out and issued such a bold statement against it earlier. [QUOTE=Madman_Andre;33729381]This might be the first time in history that both the Presidential Incumbent and his opponent both desire and are actively attempting to destroy the country they're trying to rule, although each in their own ways.[/QUOTE] Yeah. It's never happened before. And isn't happening now, you nitwit.
[QUOTE=abananapeel;33728224]But now who do we vote for?![/QUOTE] Pedro
[QUOTE=Spooter;33729396]This. Forgive me if I'm having trouble believing the most interesting journalist in the world saying that he isn't going to veto it without actual citation. That and it doesn't make sense, considering he came out and issued such a bold statement against it earlier. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/us/politics/obama-wont-veto-military-authorization-bill.html?_r=1[/url]
[QUOTE=Lazor;33729517][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/us/politics/obama-wont-veto-military-authorization-bill.html?_r=1[/url][/QUOTE] Ah, ok. Wow, the bill that the senate is voting on is a shitload better than the house version, it sounds. Seems like they actually did strip out a lot of bad stuff. The whole bill is bad, but I can sort of see why Obama has dropped the threat. I don't agree with it, but I can see why.
[QUOTE=Lazor;33728140][url]http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being[/url] hmmmm who am i going to trust a legal organization and the sponsor of the bill or some random facepunch posters hmmmm[/QUOTE] I'm going to trust the bill itself over the ACLU or you. [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) 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-- (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] American citizens cannot be indefinitely detained, period. In fact, they can't even be touched by the NDAA. What does affect them is the Patriot Act, which the NDAA is an extension to (and it is an extension, as well, to the AUMF). The point of it is to develop a system of processing and detaining terrorist suspects. Legal resident aliens and non-citizens are, however, have cause for concern. Non-citizens are granted no protection whatsoever from it; legal resident aliens have some protection. Fearmonger more, why don't you.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33729674]I'm going to trust the bill itself over the ACLU or you. American citizens cannot be indefinitely detained, period. In fact, they can't even be touched by the NDAA. What does affect them is the Patriot Act, which the NDAA is an extension to (and it is an extension, as well, to the AUMF). The point of it is to develop a system of processing and detaining terrorist suspects. Legal resident aliens and non-citizens are, however, have cause for concern. Non-citizens are granted no protection whatsoever from it; legal resident aliens have some protection. Fearmonger more, why don't you.[/QUOTE] That exception only applies to section 1032, not 1031 One of the bill's sponsors has confirmed this
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33730426]That exception only applies to section 1032, not 1031 One of the bill's sponsors has confirmed this[/QUOTE] Takes guts to admit you are behind this.
[QUOTE=Ridge;33730481]Takes guts to admit you are behind this.[/QUOTE] Or a lot of money
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33730426]That exception only applies to section 1032, not 1031 One of the bill's sponsors has confirmed this[/QUOTE] Carl Levin confirmed it applies to both (he's still against it, FYI). Read it again. The entire controversy is centered around that one section, who the president has the ability to detain using the military. If provisions found in Section 1031 of the bill were left as they were, then it [i]would[/i] provide the President full power to detain citizens of the United States without due process indefinitely should they be deemed a "covered person". However, because of Section 1032's little piece... [i](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.[/i] ...he cannot detain citizens of the United States using the military.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33730638]Carl Levin confirmed it applies to both (he's still against it, FYI). Read it again. The entire controversy is centered around that one section, who the president has the ability to detain using the military. If provisions found in Section 1031 of the bill were left as they were, then it [i]would[/i] provide the President full power to detain citizens of the United States without due process indefinitely should they be deemed a "covered person". However, because of Section 1032's little piece... [i](1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody [b][highlight]under this section[/b][/highlight] does not extend to citizens of the United States.[/i] ...he cannot detain citizens of the United States using the military.[/QUOTE] read the red piece the bill you quoted has two sections
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33730691]read the red piece the bill has two sections[/QUOTE] The red piece states "under this section". SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. You cannot be detained if you are an American citizen (and/or, to an extent, a legal resident alien). I don't know how to phrase it to make it simpler. [b]Sections 1031 and 1032 directly correlate with each other. Section 1031 covers who can be detained and what they can be detained for, Section 1032 covers where detainment is applicable and where it is not.[/b]
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33730711]SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. You cannot be detained if you are an American citizen (and/or, to an extent, a legal resident alien). I don't know how to phrase it to make it simpler. Sections 1031 and 1032 directly correlate with each other. Section 1031 covers who can be detained and what they can be detained for, Section 1032 covers where detainment is applicable and where it is not.[/QUOTE] Except section 1031 contains provisions for detainment as well, and that exception you're pointing to [i]explicitly says[/i] it only applies to section 1032
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33730730]Except section 1031 contains provisions for detainment as well, and that exception you're pointing to [i]explicitly says[/i] it only applies to section 1032[/QUOTE] It does not "explicitly say" it only applies to Section 1032. Section 1031 tells who can be detained and what they can be detained for. Section 1032, which directly correlates with 1031, tells where detainment is applicable and where it is not. The "under this section" part just means that it covers the requirements of where custody is applicable and where it is not. Detainment is not applicable to United States citizens... and legal resident aliens "except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States". Detainment is applicable to legal resident aliens who don't fit that last part and non-citizens.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33730782]It does not "explicitly say" it only applies to Section 1032. Section 1031 tells who can be detained and what they can be detained for. Section 1032, which directly correlates with 1031, tells where detainment is applicable and where it is not. The "under this section" part just means that it covers the requirements of where custody is applicable and where it is not. Detainment is not applicable to United States citizens... and legal resident aliens "except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States". Detainment is applicable to legal resident aliens who don't fit that last part and non-citizens.[/QUOTE] I'm going to trust the lawyers working at the ACLU over you, sorry.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33730813]I'm going to trust the lawyers working at the ACLU over you, sorry.[/QUOTE] Ok. Cool. Easiest way to tell who's right in all this now anyway is to wait and see if citizens are being arrested under it or not.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33730826]Ok. Cool.[/QUOTE] You should too. They're lawyers.
The fact that you two are arguing over this means that there's a level of interpretation to the bill, which alone is [B]extraordinarily[/B] worrying. The bill isn't seal-tight and, from what I've read, is easy to take advantage of. Hell, you two have proven that alone.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33730851]The fact that you two are arguing over this means that there's a level of interpretation to the bill, which alone is [B]extraordinarily[/B] worrying. The bill isn't seal-tight and, from what I've read, is easy to take advantage of. Hell, you two have proven that alone.[/QUOTE] The issue is over misinterpretation, really. It's a pretty straightforward bill. Albeit one I'm not particularly fond of anyway and seems really unnecessary. The important thing to bear in mind is nothing is going to happen to us. We're not going to transform into a jackboot-wearing police state as soon as it's implemented and start sending anybody and everybody to concentration camps. It's just sensationalism and fearmongering. We've had... five or six threads on this issue now I think?
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33730912]The issue is over misinterpretation, really. It's a pretty straightforward bill. Albeit one I'm not particularly fond of anyway and seems really unnecessary. The important thing to bear in mind is nothing is going to happen to us. We're not going to transform into a jackboot-wearing police state as soon as it's implemented and start sending anybody and everybody to concentration camps. It's just sensationalism and fearmongering. We've had... five or six threads on this issue now I think?[/QUOTE] You're correct actually, your rights aren't going to disappear overnight. It's going to happen over the course of many years with people like you saying, "don't worry they can't take our rights away overnight".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.