Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NDAA signed by obama. Government can now detain US citizens indefinitely
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 3 of 14 (650998)
02-03-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Philo
02-03-2012 5:52 PM


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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2012 6:09 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 5 of 14 (651005)
02-03-2012 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2012 6:09 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2012 6:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2012 6:41 PM Perdition 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