NDAA passed in Senate & the House....Obama signed it 12/31/11...

[smooth]

So what he posted is less relevant because it was published on YouTube? Get your head out of your ass. The citation in 1031 saying that U.S. Citizens are exempt from (unlawful) imprisonment without a trial or regard to time is was removed at the behest of the President's Administration AFTER it was approved by the committee that oversee's the wording you so eloquently deny exists.


P.S.

Fucking beautiful cars in your sig...

I take it you didn't actually follow the link he provided?

watch it, read the ridiculous comments (illuminati, Muslim president), note the date (16th).

The bill was passed last night.
We have access to the text.

YouTube vs. bill
I choose the bill, and I'm the one who needs to pull my head out of my ass?

The reason our rights are threatened is because of ignorance and people like sleeve who pretend to raise alarms but when you investigate it appears he may be an agent provocateur. Be careful who you get your sources from for critical information.

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

[mrsleeve]

Hey I am willing to admit when you have me beat. I was going on the last information I had. And who better to go with than the source's own words from recent verbal exchange with the rest of the law making body to make my point. There were some legitimate news source articles to back that clip as well form the last couple of weeks.

In one way I am correct sec 1031 and 1032 were deleted and reassigned to other purposes, and the necessary language was reinserted in Sec 1021e and 1022b.

I will tip my hat to you and concede you have won the day. But I will add that there is lots of other creepy shit in there

[smooth]

Again sitting US senators OWN WORDS hard to argue with that, his OWN WORDS, you think someone dubbed something other than what Mr Levin said during his rant to the Senate floor and then posted it to youtube when its got all the Cspan watermarks ???

a two week old video is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is the BILL signed into law last night and the signing statement about it.

Now, I could go on and point out Levin doesn't even say what you are trying to get people to believe in this thread but that would be a red herring. It would detract from the relevant information, the actual law. Given that I posted the law that was passed, people should ask themselves why you want to misdirect people from that salient information and instead try and denigrate me based on my location and education.

I'm actually the only person who posted factual citations for people to learn the actual law that was passed instead of opinions about it.

One must wonder why, when you claim to want transparency, my posts are bearing the brunt of your ire.

Could it be you don't actually want people to read the facts and come to their own conclusions?

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

[ck_taft325is]

They changed some wording but you don't feel this bill is in anyway even a mild issue what with the power it grants to most of the (corrupt) Congressmen and women?

[Farbin Kaiber]

The Signing Statement means nothing, and shows Obama's true colors after ranting about GWB's use of them.

[smooth]

They changed some wording but you don't feel this bill is in anyway even a mild issue what with the power it grants to most of the (corrupt) Congressmen and women?

My first post in this topic

the bill has problems, but that's a different animal from indefinite detention of citizens (law abiding or otherwise).

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

[gwb72tii]

a two week old video is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is the BILL signed into law last night and the signing statement about it.

Now, I could go on and point out Levin doesn't even say what you are trying to get people to believe in this thread but that would be a red herring. It would detract from the relevant information, the actual law. Given that I posted the law that was passed, people should ask themselves why you want to misdirect people from that salient information and instead try and denigrate me based on my location and education.

I'm actually the only person who posted factual citations for people to learn the actual law that was passed instead of opinions about it.

One must wonder why, when you claim to want transparency, my posts are bearing the brunt of your ire.

Could it be you don't actually want people to read the facts and come to their own conclusions?

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

Blah blah blah

Read his statement and then infer his intent
He says he will not authorize indefinite detention without trial
He does not say he will not hold americans, just not indefinitly
Great
You can sit your ass in jail and waive the bill at obama and wait for it gets to the courts
While they extract whatever info from you they think you have

Anyone wonder why there were record gun sales in 2011?

[smooth]

Blah blah blah

Read his statement and then infer his intent
He says he will not authorize indefinite detention without trial
He does not say he will not hold americans, just not indefinitly
Great
You can sit your ass in jail and waive the bill at obama and wait for it gets to the courts
While they extract whatever info from you they think you have

Anyone wonder why there were record gun sales in 2011?

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.
(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)(2).
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

-- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h112-1540 [emphasis mine]

[gwb72tii]

Im not disagreeing on the wording of the bill, just that in practice it means little
There are many examples of administrations chosing to not uphold the law as written.
Obama has publicly stated his intent to disregard this law as well.

And as you sit in a cell, it will take years to go thru the courts while you rot away, if anybody cares enough to sue the federal govt because smooth is in a cell, somewhere.

[smooth]

Im not disagreeing on the wording of the bill, just that in practice it means little
There are many examples of administrations chosing to not uphold the law as written.
Obama has publicly stated his intent to disregard this law as well.

And as you sit in a cell, it will take years to go thru the courts while you rot away, if anybody cares enough to sue the federal govt because smooth is in a cell, somewhere.

I previously wrote that I have already had to sit in prison for four years while appealing my case due to an illegal search and seizure so I'm well aware of how so-called protections aren't adhered to and the consequences of it.

But if your argument is that it doesn't matter what the law says, the government will do nasty shit to its citizens regardless, then I don't disagree. Of course, that renders your discussion of this law in particular pointless because they going to do what they want regardless.

Why sit here and complain about a law's wording if your position is that it doesn't matter what the law says they're going to abuse citizens anyway? My point was this law doesn't *authorize* the abuse of citizens--not that it doesn't happen anyway.

[devon.818]

so where should we all move to?

[ck_taft325is]

I previously wrote that I have already had to sit in prison for four years while appealing my case due to an illegal search and seizure so I'm well aware of how so-called protections aren't adhered to and the consequences of it.

But if your argument is that it doesn't matter what the law says, the government will do nasty shit to its citizens regardless, then I don't disagree. Of course, that renders your discussion of this law in particular pointless because they going to do what they want regardless.

Why sit here and complain about a law's wording if your position is that it doesn't matter what the law says they're going to abuse citizens anyway? My point was this law doesn't *authorize* the abuse of citizens--not that it doesn't happen anyway.

so where should we all move to?

Apparently wherever this guy had his illegal search and seizure commence. Talk about gangster.


I don't disagree Smooth and in accordance with your first post (which I entirely missed) I'm still not sure on your point? Are you simply saying that we shouldn't be worried about it or ? It seems like you're saying it shouldn't matter and that it's an inconsequential bill yet at the same time saying you have first hand experience where "laws" such as these have not only bitten you in the ass but stolen valuable time from your life and loved ones. I think it's often much simpler than they would like us to believe and that a bill of this proportion and what with all the media scrutiny around it and Obama even coming through claiming he wouldn't sign it and then following up with his John Handcock says a lot towards their intent with this bill. Not saying that we're going to be rounded up and held prisoner but if even 1 person has their life and freedom's expelled with no due process and without provocation (not a terrorist or linked to those/any other murderers) I, for one, believe that's one too many.

[smooth]

Fair enough, I can see how my posts might lead someone to wonder just what the heck my position is. Let's try to keep in mind, though, that even when things look similar they may not necessarily be related and I'm responding to a number of people making various points.

Initially, the thread was about how the president and Congress have now created a law authorizing indefinite detention of US citizens. If you read the posted blog, the youtube piece, a few of the comments, then they all lead to the notion that this new law codifies government behavior in a relatively new and harmful way in the way it manages its citizenry.

So my initial point was that this law doesn't actually do that. Before we can have a discussion about the law we need to have read the text of it. I mean, it's crappy because it's complicated, long, tedious language (intentionally written that way) but if we want to have a serious discussion I think it needs to be done.

So that's kind of where I tried to leave it in the beginning. Just read the law and see what does and does not cause alarm and then let's talk.

But then some posts starting going into the general issue of government abuse of its citizens. So here's the thing: some laws authorize the government really messing up citizens' lives. Aside from that, though, there's just bad apples.

But we can't just toss it all in the same sack and hope to understand anything of value afterwards. We have to understand NDAA in its own right, and that may be but may not be the same issue as bad laws, and all of that may be part of but is also just plain irrelevant to bad apples.

So until we stop conflating bad apples with bad laws and all of that with whether this one law is bad or not, it's really difficult to try and figure out what, if anything, should be done. But no matter what else, I think the starting point has to be getting the facts straight or my opinion about the kinds of responses won't really make any sense and someone is bound to take issue with whatever I type because without facts we're left with principle and fear.

Undefined fear isn't always the best place to be working from because it distorts perception.
So that's how I feel in a nutshell.

[joshh]

It also says "military custody". That leaves the door open.
If you're in any way trying to make an independent judgment on this law, just read through the Patriot Act and tell me if you trust these same people who also passed this law. Ah no I don't trust them or give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Brandon12V]

http://www.sparrowmedia.net/2012/03/ndaa-lawsuit-hedges-v-obama/