Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NDAA signed by obama. Government can now detain US citizens indefinitely
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 2 of 14 (650997)
02-03-2012 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Philo
02-03-2012 5:52 PM


Basically you can now be held indefinitely without trial. I mean, I don't live in the USA but this is absurd. The land of the free has become the land of the "do what we tell you or be detained".
Yep, which is a suspension of habeus corpus, a fundamental Constitutional right. It boggles the mind how this was even allowed to pass.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Philo, posted 02-03-2012 5:52 PM Philo has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 4 of 14 (651002)
02-03-2012 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Perdition
02-03-2012 6:00 PM


The consensus appears top be that the NDAA doesn't grant the President any power he didn't already have by the AUMF, and other authroizations. What the bill does is says flat out that it isn't rescinding said powers. So, nothing new, even though we would wish that this would change.
Then what's the benefit? Why write a new bill that simply reiterated a previous one?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Perdition, posted 02-03-2012 6:00 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Perdition, posted 02-03-2012 6:21 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 8 of 14 (651010)
02-03-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Perdition
02-03-2012 6:21 PM


(AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[11][12] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces
So basically it's an extension of the AUMF to include Congressional approval. I'm literally astonished how this passed and why so few people are challenging the Constitutionality of it.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Perdition, posted 02-03-2012 6:21 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-03-2012 6:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 10 of 14 (651018)
02-03-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Philo
02-03-2012 6:40 PM


How will anyone have the courage to go on stand against anything now in the US knowing that they can just without any evidence pull them up and send them anywhere in the world to a hold/prison indefinitely?
Someone with alot of clout and exposure would be less likely to be jailed for something like dissent than the average protester would. I could see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich throwing a goddamned fit over this.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Philo, posted 02-03-2012 6:40 PM Philo has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 14 (651019)
02-03-2012 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
02-03-2012 6:55 PM


Unfortunately several current laws allow actions taken in secret and without any oversight, so even if it was used would anyone know?
That's precisely what makes it so scary, along with the slippery slope of loosely identifying someone as a "terrorist" or a "threat to national security." I read their criteria for deeming someone as a terrorist and it was, quite honestly, appauling.
If my memory serves me correctly, I recall you stating that you own a few handguns and rifles. By their very carelessly loose wording, that potentially could land you in prison and we'd all be none the wiser.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-03-2012 6:55 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 02-04-2012 12:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024