I know there are a lot of smarter cats than me on this forum.
Can some of you guys break this National Defense Authorization Act 2012 thing down?
Can some of you guys break this National Defense Authorization Act 2012 thing down?
National Defense Authorization Act 2012 ?
Main part is being able to throw out our constitutional rights under the guise of terrorism. From my understanding it is written pretty vaguely so who knows how they will "interpret" it.
I do know they can...
They can hold us indefinitely.
They can detain us when we are outside the US.
Due process is something they can laugh at while holding you as long as they want.
Apparently it is suppose to include more domestic military powers.
I find it ironic that this came out after the American assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemeni. I would imagine this frees up any notion that it may not be legal to assassinate Americans without any trial.
Basically bypassing due process of law since "terrorism" is something different then criminal and should be treated differently.
Just another way to control us and cement the police state we know as the United States.
I do know they can...
They can hold us indefinitely.
They can detain us when we are outside the US.
Due process is something they can laugh at while holding you as long as they want.
Apparently it is suppose to include more domestic military powers.
I find it ironic that this came out after the American assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemeni. I would imagine this frees up any notion that it may not be legal to assassinate Americans without any trial.
Basically bypassing due process of law since "terrorism" is something different then criminal and should be treated differently.
Just another way to control us and cement the police state we know as the United States.
Good post. I just heard about it and looked it up on Wikipedia and there seems to be a pretty good article on it so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_De..._Year_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_De..._Year_2012
Quote:Quote:
the Act primarily "authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counter-terrorism initiatives within the U.S. and abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide."
Quote:Quote:
the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was 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," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF] .." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."
Quote: (01-05-2012 12:35 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:
I know there are a lot of smarter cats than me on this forum.
Can some of you guys break this National Defense Authorization Act 2012 thing down?
The controversial measures of the act pertains to Section 1021 and 1022, which many have argued are unconstitutional and violate the Bill of Rights, primarily the Fourth Amendment that concerns search and seizure requirements in accordance with the due process clause (the right of a US citizen to a fair and speedy trial).
Under this act, the US military has the option to detain US citizens on US soil who are suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial. An American citizen who happens to be a terrorist suspect can be arrested on US soil and sent to Guantanamo and held without trial, indefinitely.
Essentially, this means that U.S. citizens can be indefinitely detained without reasonable suspicion, probable cause, Miranda warning, Right to counsel, Habeas corpus (the body of evidence causing the detainment or arrest), or protection from Double jeopardy.
The statute also contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision, without geographical limitation, and can be used by current and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.
From Mother Jones -
The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do?
—By Adam Serwer
| Fri Dec. 16, 2011 2:34 PM PST
9
Paul Keller/Flickr
Following the Obama administration's withdrawal of its veto threat Wednesday, the National Defense Authorization Act passed both houses of Congress easily and is now headed to the president's desk.
So what exactly does the bill do? It says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention—except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military. It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won't be based on the authority in this bill.
So it's simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay." When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would "strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military," or that the "legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial," they're simply wrong.
The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, "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."
As I've written before, this is cop-out language. It allows people who think the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks gives the president the authority to detain US citizens without charge or trial to say that, but it also allows people who can read the Constitution of the United States to argue something else. That's why Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has proposed legislation to make it clear that indefinite detention authority does not apply to US citizens arrested in the US—which at the very least, should force Congress to go on record about who exactly is opposed to detention without trial at the whim of the executive branch.
Does the defense bill change the status quo? Yes. Though detention of non-citizen Al Qaeda suspects captured in the US is now mandatory in name only, because of procedural loopholes that allow the president to avoid placing such a suspect in military custody, the bill nevertheless writes into law an assumed role for the military in domestic counterterrorism that did not exist before. This is not a power this president is likely to use, because neither he nor his top national security officials seem to think they even need it. A future US president, even one more enamored of executive power, might still not use it for similar reasons: Because his non-political advisers tell him it's a bad idea.
Still, the reason supporters like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are happy with this bill is that it codifies into law a role for the military where there was none before. It is the first concrete gesture Congress has made towards turning the homeland into the battlefield, even if the impact in the near term is more symbolic and political than concrete.
But "symbolic" and "political" doesn't mean "meaningless." Codifying indefinite detention on American soil is a very dangerous step, and politicians who believe the military should have an even larger domestic counterterrorism role simply aren't going to be satisfied with this. In fact, if there is another attack, it's all but certain they will hammer the president should he choose not to place the suspect in military detention.
There really is no telling where inertia brings us from here. Graham and his colleagues have made no secret of the fact that they believe the president should (and does) have the ability to detain American terrorism suspects captured in the US indefinitely, and they may even have enough votes in Congress to make it happen some day. At that point, the only defense for Americans will be the Constitution and a Supreme Court willing to read what it says.
UPDATE: In case it's not clear, I still think the president should veto the bill. What it does is bad enough. It just doesn't do what a lot of people are saying it does.
The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do?
—By Adam Serwer
| Fri Dec. 16, 2011 2:34 PM PST
9
Paul Keller/Flickr
Following the Obama administration's withdrawal of its veto threat Wednesday, the National Defense Authorization Act passed both houses of Congress easily and is now headed to the president's desk.
So what exactly does the bill do? It says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention—except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military. It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won't be based on the authority in this bill.
So it's simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay." When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would "strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military," or that the "legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial," they're simply wrong.
The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, "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."
As I've written before, this is cop-out language. It allows people who think the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks gives the president the authority to detain US citizens without charge or trial to say that, but it also allows people who can read the Constitution of the United States to argue something else. That's why Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has proposed legislation to make it clear that indefinite detention authority does not apply to US citizens arrested in the US—which at the very least, should force Congress to go on record about who exactly is opposed to detention without trial at the whim of the executive branch.
Does the defense bill change the status quo? Yes. Though detention of non-citizen Al Qaeda suspects captured in the US is now mandatory in name only, because of procedural loopholes that allow the president to avoid placing such a suspect in military custody, the bill nevertheless writes into law an assumed role for the military in domestic counterterrorism that did not exist before. This is not a power this president is likely to use, because neither he nor his top national security officials seem to think they even need it. A future US president, even one more enamored of executive power, might still not use it for similar reasons: Because his non-political advisers tell him it's a bad idea.
Still, the reason supporters like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are happy with this bill is that it codifies into law a role for the military where there was none before. It is the first concrete gesture Congress has made towards turning the homeland into the battlefield, even if the impact in the near term is more symbolic and political than concrete.
But "symbolic" and "political" doesn't mean "meaningless." Codifying indefinite detention on American soil is a very dangerous step, and politicians who believe the military should have an even larger domestic counterterrorism role simply aren't going to be satisfied with this. In fact, if there is another attack, it's all but certain they will hammer the president should he choose not to place the suspect in military detention.
There really is no telling where inertia brings us from here. Graham and his colleagues have made no secret of the fact that they believe the president should (and does) have the ability to detain American terrorism suspects captured in the US indefinitely, and they may even have enough votes in Congress to make it happen some day. At that point, the only defense for Americans will be the Constitution and a Supreme Court willing to read what it says.
UPDATE: In case it's not clear, I still think the president should veto the bill. What it does is bad enough. It just doesn't do what a lot of people are saying it does.
Ok.
This is exactly what I hoped it wasn't.
Is anyone else noticing how little press this is getting?
It is not on the mainstream news, hell, even minimal youtube videos and article on the web.
This is exactly what I hoped it wasn't.
Is anyone else noticing how little press this is getting?
It is not on the mainstream news, hell, even minimal youtube videos and article on the web.
Great to have you back G, you were sorely missed.
Quote: (01-05-2012 01:44 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:
Ok.
This is exactly what I hoped it wasn't.
Is anyone else noticing how little press this is getting?
It is not on the mainstream news, hell, even minimal youtube videos and article on the web.
Yep, it is definitely being black listed in the media. I didn't hear anything about it until after it was voted in. Something this big should have blown up the media channels.
This stuff is just reinforcing my attitude to living abroad.
Set up a foreign company, bank less then 100k salary that would be excluded under the foreign exclusion tax and let my foreign company pay for all living expenses (house, car, meal stipends...)
Quote: (01-05-2012 01:44 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:
Ok.
This is exactly what I hoped it wasn't.
Is anyone else noticing how little press this is getting?
It is not on the mainstream news, hell, even minimal youtube videos and article on the web.
Ive noticed the same G,things are changing fast and most don't even realize it. check these out
these are just a few videos,there are many more. ex military soldiers are also ready to fight and linking up and training others for the same.
I think MOST military men would never turn their backs on us but then there is the un and those power tripping police officers. Shit is going to get real soon.
Quote: (01-05-2012 01:44 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:
Ok.
This is exactly what I hoped it wasn't.
Is anyone else noticing how little press this is getting?
It is not on the mainstream news, hell, even minimal youtube videos and article on the web.
It was all over reddit.com and news.ycombinator.com . Pretty popular with the tech crowd.
The Govt is ten steps ahead, they understand things are about to pop off and are taking the steps to protect their asses. You should do the same. People should stop relying on mouthpieces such as mother jones, read the section yourself it is extremely vague (which lawmakers wan't) but anybody whom studies law knows this is done specifically to do what the law vaguely does not apply. Why would you leave that door open never to step in it? The Govt greatest fear isn't some dude in the middle east its always been Americans them selves. If Americans could wake up from their coma they would push back hard, largest standing army of armed citizens on the globe. The Govt has been taking steps since the Patriot Act to shore up their end of protection for the certain clash to come. I am on the phone so I can't post links but I will later. Americans should research this stuff hard, Obama snunk this in on NYE and the MSM didn't even make a word of it.
From the Young Turks. These guys are Progressives that loves them some Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ
"Feminism is a trade union for ugly women"- Peregrine
Mainstream America will not care about this.
As this will not be affecting 99.9% of Americans.
As this will not be affecting 99.9% of Americans.
Quote:Quote:
As this will not be affecting 99.9% of Americans.
0.1% of the population is 300,000 people.
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
Quote: (01-05-2012 12:55 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:
Under this act, the US military has the option to detain US citizens on US soil who are suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial. An American citizen who happens to be a terrorist suspect can be arrested on US soil and sent to Guantanamo and held without trial, indefinitely.
Essentially, this means that U.S. citizens can be indefinitely detained without reasonable suspicion, probable cause, Miranda warning, Right to counsel, Habeas corpus (the body of evidence causing the detainment or arrest), or protection from Double jeopardy.
There is a bright side to this. Anytime a girl wants to corner you by accusing you of false rape charges, tell her you just made a phone call to the US Attorneys office, and the local army post and informed them of her love affair with a suspected terrorist organization member she confessed to during sex, and e-mail this part of the act to her.
Touche bitch, so think twice before saying I raped you because you are pissed I brought out the slut in you last night!
Mixx
Didn't they vote this thing in on December 31st?
A Saturday?!?
Real diabolical.
Vote it in while "99.9%" of america is getting ready to go to overcrowded, overpriced crappy bars with police on every street corner.
(You know how G's spend new years.)
A Saturday?!?
Real diabolical.
Vote it in while "99.9%" of america is getting ready to go to overcrowded, overpriced crappy bars with police on every street corner.
(You know how G's spend new years.)
Quote: (01-05-2012 12:09 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:
Didn't they vote this thing in on December 31st?
A Saturday?!?
Real diabolical.
Vote it in while "99.9%" of america is getting ready to go to overcrowded, overpriced crappy bars with police on every street corner.
(You know how G's spend new years.)
This is typical for Policy formation. Any news or Government policy that is unfavorable or would get negative attention or scrutiny is more times then now rushed in on late afternoon on Fridays before long weekends. Why so? Because this is when the News-desk is about to close and would get lost under the heap come Tuesday when the work week revs back up. This is the time when one should scour the news to find crappy laws enacted or news that may be not all that great.
People also need to know that US lawmakers changed the definition of "terrorist" this includes American Citizens also, whom simply as broad as it says are unfavorable to the USA Govt.
Obama is a shill. It was him and his inner-team that demanded this provision, they would of veto'd the law because moderates wanted the stipulation of USA citizen being able to be detained or killed taking out. - Obama forced the provision back in.
® Sen McCain speaking on question from Rand Paul
Look at this Shill ® Lindsey Ghrahm speak
Jesus.
This "safety and security" bullsh*t has got to stop.
Ill take my chances.
It amazes me how many people I know are fine with this sh*t. Even people that are pretty cool all around.
I will ask them what they think about TSA scans and stuff, and they will respond with, "Well, we have to, it does make us safer"
Are you f*cking kidding me?
This stuff makes me hit the roof.
Hell, I am probably a terrorist now for saying this on a public forum.
Wait till this summer boys...it is going to be one long hot summer.
This "safety and security" bullsh*t has got to stop.
Ill take my chances.
It amazes me how many people I know are fine with this sh*t. Even people that are pretty cool all around.
I will ask them what they think about TSA scans and stuff, and they will respond with, "Well, we have to, it does make us safer"
Are you f*cking kidding me?
This stuff makes me hit the roof.
Hell, I am probably a terrorist now for saying this on a public forum.
Wait till this summer boys...it is going to be one long hot summer.
Quote: (01-05-2012 11:53 AM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
As this will not be affecting 99.9% of Americans.
0.1% of the population is 300,000 people.
Oh i was way off.
300,000 lol
Put it this way, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than having government agents show up at ur door and take you to Guantanamo Bay under this new Act.
I wouldnt worry about it.
But thats just me....
Quote: (01-05-2012 03:47 PM)Dash Global Wrote:
Quote: (01-05-2012 11:53 AM)Roosh Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
As this will not be affecting 99.9% of Americans.
0.1% of the population is 300,000 people.
Oh i was way off.
300,000 lol
Put it this way, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than having government agents show up at ur door and take you to Guantanamo Bay under this new Act.
I wouldnt worry about it.
But thats just me....
Not surprising that you are missing the whole point as usual.
Read this and meditate on it for the rest of the day:
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
By Pastor Niemoller
eh color me not worried or concerned.
im MUCH more concerned over the economic status of the US....
im MUCH more concerned over the economic status of the US....
Quote: (01-05-2012 04:04 PM)Dash Global Wrote:
eh color me not worried or concerned.
im MUCH more concerned over the economic status of the US....
Do you think that a country which will detain its citizens for any reason will grant economic liberties to those same citizens?
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Quote: (01-05-2012 08:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote: (01-05-2012 04:04 PM)Dash Global Wrote:
eh color me not worried or concerned.
im MUCH more concerned over the economic status of the US....
Do you think that a country which will detain its citizens for any reason will grant economic liberties to those same citizens?
Exactly. If you don't fight the "small" fights, you won't be in a position to take on the bigger fights later on. Once government has taken your freedoms, you'll never get them back. That's why this is cause for concern. Just remember the liberal outrage over the Patriot Act when it was introduced under the Bush Administration. Now, you hear low-pitch grumbling at best, against the Obama Administration's fascist policies. I really think the white liberal base is psychologically incapable of holding him to task for his executive overreach--which is why I think the Occupy movement inevitably lost its legs; that movement would eventually have had to challenge and confront Obama in unison at some point, but they were psychologically unwilling or incapable of doing so.
Had it been President Bush who ordered the due-process-free execution of a U.S. citizen expat a couple of months ago--Anwar Al-Awlaki--we wouldn't hear the end of it. The newspapers and editorials would have gone mad criticizing and excoriating the guy. With Obama, we don't hear anything. That was like a 2-day story. Can you believe that? Al-Awlaki didn't even commit any crimes. Even if there was evidence of him having done so, and there wasn't, he would have been entitled to his day in court. His killing was conducted in violation of Habeus Corpus, the US Constitution, and even the Magna Carta (1215 AD).
That's wild. Obama has not only maintained the federal "wartime" powers introduced by his predecessor, but he has expanded them, while getting a relative free pass in the process.
Quote: (01-05-2012 08:45 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:
Quote: (01-05-2012 08:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote: (01-05-2012 04:04 PM)Dash Global Wrote:
eh color me not worried or concerned.
im MUCH more concerned over the economic status of the US....
Do you think that a country which will detain its citizens for any reason will grant economic liberties to those same citizens?
Exactly. If you don't fight the "small" fights, you won't be in a position to take on the bigger fights later on. Once government has taken your freedoms, you'll never get them back. That's why this is cause for concern. Just remember the liberal outrage over the Patriot Act when it was introduced under the Bush Administration. Now, you hear low-pitch grumbling at best, against the Obama Administration's fascist policies. I really think the white liberal base is psychologically incapable of holding him to task for his executive overreach--which is why I think the Occupy movement inevitably lost its legs; that movement would eventually have had to challenge and confront Obama in unison at some point, but they were psychologically unwilling or incapable of doing so.
Had it been President Bush who ordered the due-process-free execution of a U.S. citizen expat a couple of months ago--Anwar Al-Awlaki--we wouldn't hear the end of it. The newspapers and editorials would have gone mad criticizing and excoriating the guy. With Obama, we don't hear anything. That was like a 2-day story. Can you believe that? Al-Awlaki didn't even commit any crimes. Even if there was evidence of him having done so, and there wasn't, he would have been entitled to his day in court. His killing was conducted in violation of Habeus Corpus, the US Constitution, and even the Magna Carta (1215 AD).
That's wild. Obama has not only maintained the federal "wartime" powers introduced by his predecessor, but he has expanded them, while getting a relative free pass in the process.
Exactly.
That quote I put above is so telling.
People don't care unless it affects them directly. Even people on an "enlightened" forum such as this don't get it.
If you think about it, it all started with the smoking ban.
Looking back, I should have cracked heads and kicked brain matter across the street when they put up that weak crap.
But I was young and naive at the time, I honestly thought, that they could never enforce the smoking ban. How wrong I was.
That was the first "wedge" they drove in memory against our freedoms. It hasn't stopped since.
America is not the same America it was even just 15 years ago.
Interesting what you said about Obama as well. Obama is the perfect puppet to ram this sh*t down our throats.
All this is doing is stepping up my plan to get the hell out of this place.
There is no time to waste.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)