| Author | Message | ||
     Jcbikes |
By signing into law the NDAA, the president has awarded the military extraordinary powers to detain US citizens without trial. More here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica /2012/jan/02/ndaa-historic-assault-american-libert y | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Do not worry Comrade.... It is for your own protection It is for the children It is for the minorities It will improve the economy It will create jobs It will stop terrorism It protects the Constitution The Founders would have 'liked' it on Facebook and other lies brought to you by D.C. | ||
| Hootowl |
When folks whine about the US holding terrorists at gitmo without trial (we're at war, they'll be released when the war is over, just like with any other war) this is the result: Laws that specifically make it legal, though any reasonable person would agree that it was already legal to detain enemy combatants until the war is over. Ripe for abuse? Maybe. The law pretty clearly states that it can't be applied to US citizens or legal residents. Personally, I don't see the need for this law at all. If you're an enemy operating in the US in civilian clothes, we can already consider you a spy. Execution after a military tribunal is warranted. Done. Why do some see a civilian trial as an option for these people? | ||
| Hootowl |
And if you're a US citizen doing the work of the enemy, well, that makes you a traitor. Same as above. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
They getting ready for the 2012 riots. Minority report. | ||
| Slowride |
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood. There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad). But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness. That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says: The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention. The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention. In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”). Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.” What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law. | ||
| Hootowl |
You've used an opinion piece as the basis for your argument. The opinion uses references from other opinions (the NYT editorial page) and a socialist to bolster its own conclusions. Not very convincing. | ||
| Moxnix |
Komrade, drink the sludge. Get it all down. It vill be good for you. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
This bill will be used against and directly towards the American Citizen... just as the HealthCare bill will be used and put into practice to benefit the 'undocumented' .... If you haven't caught on that this administration plays fast and loose with who it panders too, and who the enemy is.... http://youtu.be/nWgF80cD3xE yep, Hello Tea Party - it is you that is on the list - do not even dream that they would use this against the OWS. | ||
| Gschuette |
It gets more scary every day! | ||
| Jcbikes |
The media did not report this to the public - of course! | ||
| Gschuette |
The media is the fourth branch of government. They only report what TPTB allow them to. Obama signed it and it was a McCain brainchild. Mostly passed by republicans. If this bill isn't proof that they are all pieces of shit, I don't know what is. Vote libertarian. | ||
| Aesquire |
The law pretty clearly states that it can't be applied to US citizens or legal residents. The President has already stated that this law does give HIM the power to arrest and hold American Citizens .... but don't worry, he won't. Trust him. http://obrag.org/?p=52006&cpage=1 ( Barack feels that HE may interpret the law as he sees fit. ) The pirates/terrorists/wannabe theocrats at Gitmo will be released as soon as the war is over. Don't hold your breath. By the same lights, YOU can be held until the war is over. A little undefined? Are you in opposition to any actions by this or any other administration? A vet? Believe in a Constitutionally limited Government? Then you have already been defined as a terrorist, and the greatest threat to America. ( as Obama's Minions see it ) Not sure when THAT war will be over. When the last citizen is dead and only subjects remain? On a lighter note. http://boingboing.net/2012/01/03/missing-portion-o f-obama-hope.html | ||
| Aesquire |
Obama signed it and it was a McCain brainchild. Mostly passed by republicans. If this bill isn't proof that they are all pieces of shit, I don't know what is. Vote libertarian. They are NOT all feces. Almost. Close enough that I can agree with the sentiment. Don't vote Libertarian. ( except in certain cases ) Vote to get the guy in...out. Vote for new crooks. Sure, they will probably be corrupted pretty quick, but they won't be as slick about the bribe taking, and they won't have the power base to evade any justice, like certain Congressmen from NY. ( You know, the one with the tropical condo, the tax cheat, with the multiple rent controlled offices and apartments in NYC. ) Get the ones in out. Vote Republican, Democrat, whatever. I'm really hoping we can avoid forcible term limits in my lifetime. | ||
| Swampy |
DAMN IT! I was planning on going fishing this summer  | ||
| Gschuette |
I believe in good old fashioned freedom. I shouldn't have to vote to get people out. I should be able to vote on the issues I believe in. | ||
| Moxnix |
Freewill vs. homing pigeons. (What the heck does he mean by that??) | ||
| Boltrider |
  | ||
| Xl1200r |
I shouldn't have to vote to get people out. I should be able to vote on the issues I believe in. You live in a representative republic. Citizens don't generally vote on issues. | ||
| Aesquire |
Really, do you expect any politician to share your views? On EVERY subject? With me I find that so unlikely as to be silly. NOT ONE of the politicians I have seen in my life fit all of my ( sometime contradictory ) wants and needs. ( and yes, wants and needs are different ) I want the Constitution to be the guide to The Rule Of Law, Not Men, and find the first couple of amendments so important that I will follow the oath I have already given to protect and defend those ideals. Why? because a place with no right to complain and defend yourself is the most common place in history. It is not, however, a place I will tolerate, having tasted a far less bitter fruit. There's a lot more, but the politician has to have enough honor to actually take an oath, and mean it. Damn rare, IMHO. So, If candidate A doesn't make you overjoyed at his dedication to what YOU want, ( and you won't be, since he is NOT ) you MUST pick which of the jerks you are given to choose from is probably going to do the most harm to your ideals and wants. Then vote against him. It's really that simple. It's easy to throw up your hands and give up. It's also cowardly. Hold your nose and vote against the worst of your choices. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Remember appropriately - Hitler was elected, and the Soviet Union had elections as well. There is nothing of the ballot box that limits tyranny. and it should be more than evident with our own history of hanging chads, cemetary registrations, voter fraud, jurisdictional jerrymandering, voter intimidation, and the ones ones coming down the pike the voting rights to illegals the popular vote replacing the elements of the electoral college. The drug of power is an addiction, the cure is term limits. | ||
| Blake |
Hitler was not elected. In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were: | ||
| Jcbikes |
We had an election but their were a lot of illegal ballots cast. Obama was not truely elected by the people in my opinion. (Message edited by jcbikes on January 06, 2012) | ||
| Reindog |
It has now been declared racist by the Zero Administration to require proof of citizenship in order to vote. This is how Post-Constitutional America is shaping up. I understand why the Poll Tax was discriminatory and unconstitutional but this is the height of insanity (unless ones goal is to create undocumented Democrats). | ||
| Jcbikes |
And the dictatorship continues...He does what ever he wants...."Obama on Wednesday, with no recess in effect and against the publicly stated position of his own Justice Department, made four "recess appointments." http://news.investors.com/Article/596910/201201051 902/obamas-banana-republic-abuse-of-power.htm | ||
| Aesquire |
While there indeed was voter fraud in the 2008 presidential election, I see no way that that fraud got Obama elected. However. I recently heard ( but have NOT verified, so take this with a big salt lick ) that Obama's petition to run In the primaries has been found to have too few legit signatures. So his status may actually be illegal, but, honestly, even if true, it's way too late now, he's already there, and already rich. Of course, if you want to go on about the birth certificate, or the possibility that Obama Sr. wasn't even his dad ( but instead was an American Black communist radical.... making Obama a legitimate citizen.... LOL ) Or that the Obama in the White House isn't the "real" Barack Obama, but instead a sleeper agent...  Agent from whom, I have no idea. Indonesia? Heck, Bill Clinton has done far more for Indonesia when he made all that coal land in Utah a park, after getting massive bribes from Indonesian Coal millionaires....... China? Again, Bill, much better at it.  As far as the "recess appointments" I'm pretty sure the scum he put in those jobs would not be to my liking. ( but can say the same about other Presidents. ) But Congress wasn't really there. They faked being in session to prevent Obama doing what he did, so he just trumped them. It's funny if it wasn't so dangerous. The real trouble with power grabs of that nature, is that the next guy can use them too. Patriot act no worry? Sure Bush wouldn't abuse it? How about Hillary? ( who, this time last cycle was the sure winner, over Rudy, Remember? ) Obama loved the Patriot Act when he got to use it. Now that Barack has made the Congress vestigial in approving appointments, ( just do it on the weekend, and there's no need to ask Congress ) what will Jeb Bush do? Mitt? Newt? Sarah? If Hunstman appoints deepak Chopra as Sec State?..... One of the dumbest things ever is the line..."If you're not guilty you don't have to worry about the new law ( that robs you of your rights )" |
