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".
Since I don't live there I don't know how much this was talked about in the media but I'm guessing next to nothing.
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
It was talked about a lot here, in the US, and was even discussed at length here at EvC.
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.
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
Then what's the benefit? Why write a new bill that simply reiterated a previous one?
That was only a single provision in the bill. The entire bill does a lot fo things.
From wiki:
The Act authorizes $662 billion [4] in funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization.[5][6] The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia,[7] and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.[8]
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[9] and Senate sponsors[10] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (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.[13][14][15][16][17]
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?
Also, were you aware that it was not actually supposed to be about US lawful citizens when it was introduced but Obama administration requested it include them. Even though he said those pretty words afterwards "‘I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo#!
(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
Legal challenges generally happen after some law is used. Until then there is little to legally challenge. Unfortunately several current laws allow actions taken in secret and without any oversight, so even if it was used would anyone know?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
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
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
Hey Hyroglyphx. Is this your first thread since when you stopped posting? Welcome back. We've missed your good stuff and hope you find time to contribute to the debates.
Perhaps it is not good to air regarding anything one possesses and some of what one is thinking, etc, etc.
This admin has usurped immense power. Government has known and unknown means of wielding it against the citizenry.
It can listen in on cell phones, home phones, and just about any other media devices available. It's scary how many ways they can watch anyone, including tiny bugs placed near business checkouts, industrial facilities, stadiums, offices, private homes, etc, etc.
ABE: Relative to the thread topic, the above are ways which bad people in power may use to detain anyone for whatever reason suits them.
Edited by Buzsaw, : As Noted
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)
This admin has usurped immense power. Government has known and unknown means of wielding it against the citizenry.
Why hasn't anyone nominated this for post o' the month? I, of course cannot make such a nomination, because my attempts are taken as dry humor.
Buz, your zeal and love for this country knows no bounds.
In this case, said usurping consisted of attempting to discourage Congress from attaching the NDAA to legislation, not vetoing the bill on his desk, and adding signing statements that attempt to prevent NDAA from applying to US citizens.
From the president's signing statement:
quote:“Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
But don't let any of that reality mediate your melanin hatin', paranoid rants in any way. 'Cause your unending defense of democracy helps keep America free.
Of course I cannot give you sole credit. The OP also emphasizes the president's signing over the action by Congress.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
