2012 National Defense Authorization Act

NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act
Immoral, unethical and dangerous.

Things to know...

A common budgetary bill with a slight alteration which would place domestic terror investigations and interrogations into the hands of the military and which would open the door for trial-free, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, so long as the "government" calls them terrorists.

We’re talking about the stripping away of our most basic freedoms. We’re talking about a potential state that can call me a terrorist for writing this forum post and then lock me up and throw away the key.

The president has threatened to veto if it comes to his desk, What a total lie. Classic bait and switch. he will sign it and ensure us that "his" executive branch would never misuse this power... yeah right...Privacy is considered surrendered, after all, what have you got to hide if you are a "good" citizen. I might as well knock down my walls of my home and tear the locks off. Come on in Big Bro and Big Sis. Have some pie!

STOP this BILL! If you’re a patriot, call your representative to give them a piece of your mind.

:grumble:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, "with a slight alteration", meaning as the law is written it doesn't do any of those nasty things you claim it does.

Since you know that it doesn't actually do those things, the ONLY one doing a classic BAIT & SWITCH is YOU.

Which is unethical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A coalition of human rights, civil liberties advocates and national security experts held a conference call on Tuesday morning 12/12 to warn that the NDAA still carves out a hypothetical role for the military to enforce the law on American soil. Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) comment that "the homeland... is that battlefield"—made during the December 1 debate after which the Senate approved its version of the NDAA—applies equally now, said Raha Wala, a lawyer at Human Rights First. And ACLU legislative counsel Chris Anders argued that the NDAA could set up a jurisdictional conflict between the military and the FBI similar to those that exist between state and federal level law enforcement authorities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope.

The FBI or State arrests someone and if they are an Enemy Combatant (non US Citizen) they can get turned over to the Military for detention.

All this does is clarify that Enemy Combatants arrested on US soil are treated like POWs.

 

Congressman Justin Amash

“They (the Obama Admin) will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.”

 

Total BS.

The language is quite clear.

It does not extend to citizens of the United States

 

The language is not clear enough imo. It leaves to much wiggle room for the administration to play with.

 

Only if you don't understand what the words "does not extend" mean.

Little Review:

First the people covered by this act is pretty small:

To prevent someone being deemed covered by this act without Legislative oversight:

Restatement of limitation to who is covered to insure it is quite limited to members of al-Qaeda or associated force:

Who it isn't:

Clearly states that it doesn't apply to US Citizens or Lawful resident aliens.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112dITQd0:e548990:

Arthur

 

All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.

 

No it doesn't.

That's a preposterous interpretation of that section.

And if the President tried to interpret it that bogus way

This would be the basis for stopping him:

f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)

And by the way, the legislation was PASSED this evening in the House. The vote was 283-136, it will also pass the Senate tomorrow and Obama is not going to use his veto on it.

 

Senator Carl Levin,

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch,

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law. In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side."

The ACLU notes

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

 

HEY !
There's already a thread about this!
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111238

 

BS 1032 says who is covered by 1031 and it specifically exempts US Citizens.

 

That's true. It also means that the law doesn't say anything about whether he should or should not do it. So your problem isn't with the NDAA, on that score...which doesn't address the question of whether he has the authority to detain citizens one way or the other. There are many laws that do not address that question...in fact no statute permits the president to do so (which doesn't mean he does not have the power, just that whether or not he has the power is unclear under the law). The worst you can say about this statute is that it doesn't forbid him from detaining citizens, but it certainly doesn't authorize it.

The NDAA does some good things, like requiring that all people held anywhere be given access to a military lawyer and a hearing before a military judge to determine their status as detainees. Without this law those people have nothing (at least nothing expressly written into law). Otherwise it largely just codifies what Obama already asserts *is* the law. In short it is Congress standing behind what the President has long asserted his power to be. That's good, as not people can debate the questions and Congress can be held accountable if people disagree.

The fear mongering and misrepresentation of this statute are astounding. Hold Congress accountable if you don't like the law, but please educate yourself about what the law actually says, first. I'd recommend reading this, to start:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

 

This is what you need to know. It doesn't matter if you have a D or an R by your name, none of these men and women in power deserve this kind of authority. Our founders and framers designed the constitution in such a way that the people of this nation would be ruled by law and not the whims of a ruler or ruling elite (submitting a waiver or declaring a certain group as terrorists). The majority of Americans may be asleep on this. They may have no idea what’s happening even as so many of their rights and your rights are being taken away.

Samuel Adams once said " It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men".

 

Again, all this law does is codify in writing powers that Obama has been claiming he already had for years. Congress was playing the game of "strategic silence" on those questions so that they could not be held accountable. Now they are on the record saying "Yea, President Obama, you are correct."

The bill does not authorize the President to detain citizens. It doesn't forbid it either. If your problem with the bill is that you wish it did forbid it, then you have the same problem with every bill that Congress has ever passed dating back to 1789, because they all fail to address that point.

The big difference is that detainees are now clearly entitled to due process, before a military judge with the assistance of a military lawyer. Let's say, however, that Obama detained a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil (again, not because this bill says he can, but it would because he believes he has that power inherently under the Constitution). Let's say Obama decides to deny that person any access to the American court system. Buzz! He just violated the Constitution. Even if this statute did say that citizens were denied the access (it doesn't), the courts would ignore the statute because it would be unconstitutional as applied, and the Bill of Rights trumps it.

This law doesn't do what you think it does, and even if it did, the law would be a dead letter that the courts would ignore.

If a U.S. citizen is ever detained in the U.S. and denied access to the courts, this law won't be the reason, because this law does not allow it. The reason will be because Obama overstepped his authority, and your fix would be to either not vote for him next time or to write your senators demanding his impeachment.

 

I understand your points and agree with you to a point. I personally just don't believe that we should have a law which states we are now at a permanent state of war. It gives the high office the ability to wage war without abandon. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution clearly defines the war powers given to congress. This is an obvious siphoning of more power given directly to a war embracing executive branch.

Meanwhile the US of A edges closer and closer to pulling the trigger on its next pawn in the great game of death and destruction.

 

Well....Obama signed the bill, so now it is law. Nothing to do but sit back and watch as nothing at all changes.

 

I'm not a fan of it either.

~String

 

Some guy writes down on a piece of paper (which is enchanted, I'm told), that he now has expanded rights to capture or kill people he considers undesirable, and because he can and does capture and kill on a massive scale, treating the matter as though it were the most natural thing in the world, it is called "law". Now, although it may be true that any person claiming to have the right to capture and kill has no incentive to lie about the virtue and necessity of capturing and killing, I do have reservations about letting a rogue individualist claim the exclusive right to initiate violence. My skepticism is mainly aimed towards the idea that certain pieces of paper can be enchanted documents that inoculate their authors against the normative rules of ethical conduct. How does this happen? Is the paper blessed by a priest? Are the words composed of unicorns blood? I don't understand it. The man engages in ordering murders and kidnappings both locally and abroad, I've even heard rumors that he uses this ability as leverage to compel people to give him a percentage of their income in perpetuity, something that would land me in jail in a heartbeat, yet everyone acts as though nothing strange is happening. I thought equality means everyone is equal. Have I been misinformed? How is this contradiction reconciled?