Anyone Following the passage of the NDAA?

[Warthogg]

And what I was trying to get at was actions like this were done without this law, and then to get to the point of internment again you'd have to disregard all those lawsuits and court rulings in between 1941 and today... In some ways we are very much the same country (emergency powers are a possibility) while in others we are very different (public opinion and court rulings since).

Well California Congressman Pete Stark (D) says 'we can do about anything we want'. He didn't mention the need for any more laws.

This is my FAV from Pete:

Congressman Stark: "The more debt we owe, the wealthier we are".

Guess we be rich bitches about now.


Wart

[Ronwicp]

I spoke with both my Senator's Washington offices twice about this bill. Did you ?


Wart

Edited to add:

Senator Coburn was one of only seven to vote against the bill though I'm sure my calls had little to nothing to do with that decision.

Why would I want to ask a congressman, who hasnt read it, over just reading it myself? Then I found the omission that all the sky is falling blogs and whatnot decided they would leave out.

[Oswald Bastable]

Why would I want to ask a congressman, who hasnt read it, over just reading it myself? Then I found the omission that all the sky is falling blogs and whatnot decided they would leave out.

It is a necessity of the left that their plants attempt to foment as much disharmony as possible in right leaning boards, particularly through disinformation and disingenuous reporting of facts. Wart excels at this.

[Ruskiegunlover]

I'll second that oswald....

[Warthogg]

Why would I want to ask a congressman, who hasnt read it, over just reading it myself? Then I found the omission that all the sky is falling blogs and whatnot decided they would leave out.

To ask your Senators where they stand, explain your problems with the bill and to oppose the bill is why I called my Senators.


Wart

[AK again]

LOL, if there's no reason to call your senators, there's no reason to vote, and there may in fact be no reason to support the gov't.
And, for the record, I'm not the left.

[Warthogg]

Quote Originally Posted by Ronwicp
Why would I want to ask a congressman, who hasnt read it, over just reading it myself? Then I found the omission that all the sky is falling blogs and whatnot decided they would leave out.

To ask your Senators where they stand, explain your problems with the bill and to oppose the bill is why I called my Senators.


Wart

We have nothing to worry about cause Barry would NEVER use the power....yeah right.

Wart

.....the President’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto,” said the White House in a statement, adding that this president would never really use the power anyway, so there is nothing to worry about.

Look at what the measure actually says. While it doesn’t “expand” existing authority to detain American citizens indefinitely, it supports previous federal court decisions which found that the president has the authority, as commander-in-chief, to define who is an “enemy combatant,” who can, therefore, be detained indefinitely, even if that suspect is an American citizen.

I believe the above supports the point mriddick has been making.

It should be clear that a new era of controls is about to be imposed.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2011/12/20/1534/

[Ronwicp]

I would agree with all that except the bill specifically says US citizens are exempted from this military detainment law.

All the blog's and news folks have been saying we all gonna be rounded up and put into military detention camps. They always leave out the part that says it doesn't apply to citizens.

[AK again]

Does anyone really think we'd be rounded up en masse? That's silly. This is much more about a knock on the door (or not) at 3:am, followed by a severe disappearing. Disappearing a simgle person is so much more effective than rounding up a bunch of people ...
I dislike our tolerance of incremental losses of freedom, and the acts that set us up for those incremental losses, such as the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

[Warthogg]

I would agree with all that except the bill specifically says US citizens are exempted from this military detainment law.

All the blog's and news folks have been saying we all gonna be rounded up and put into military detention camps. They always leave out the part that says it doesn't apply to citizens.

I have read what you posted. However, I'm believing this is one of those times where what is said may not be true.

I'm going to post several excerpts from the same article below.

I'm hopeful people will go to the link and read for yourselves.

Wart

..........................

Imagine both the ACLU and the NYT attacking Barry.

Imagine it was Senators Feinstein and Sanders trying to help us.

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.”

In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a 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.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...etention_bill/

In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1).

There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2).

The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...etention_bill/

[Warthogg]

Sort of a short version to my post above but there is still much more at the link.

Wart

” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...etention_bill/