deprave
New Member
[video=youtube;NoOhnrjdYOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOhnrjdYOc&ob=av3e[/video]
National Defense Authorization Act sections 1031 and 1032
- Thread starter FilthyFizzle
- Start date
[video=youtube;NoOhnrjdYOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOhnrjdYOc&ob=av3e[/video]
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
It doesn't require one to be a lawyer to realize the basic premise was to close the loophole that I have mentioned ad naseum, not to mention that that is EXACTLY what many news outlets have been saying as well. The reluctance on most peoples' behalf to accept the reality of those provisions of the bill stems from the whacked out ego trip some are currently schizophrenically enjoying.
Once again, I would like you all to point out who is actually CITING the text of the bill to make any claims to the contrary of what I have repeated here.
The fact is that NONE of you can do this, because you all are so focused on the rhetoric (read: BULLSHIT) that you are unable to accept that the technical reality of the bill is far less menacing than it really is.
My challenge still stands: find me a credentialed, independent, legal analysis citing the text of the bill (and other supporting documents if necessary), that presents anything to the contrary of what I have stated.
So far you have all still come up with NOTHING but youtube videos and rhetoric.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
Do you ever stop and realize that because of your paranoid fear, that you are actually already quite controlled? That you are too afraid and stifle your own outward influence to make anything better because you believe all the outlandish crazy shit that you do? And that when any voice of common sense or reason comes into play, you automatically react in order to protect your own paranoia?
Still waiting for any logical response that uses FACTS and not rhetoric.
I disagree.
Also I was not trying to add anything other than some observations. Regardless of what these bills include, there is no need for them right now. We have survived just fine this long without them. We need our dollar to survive, not these bills.
What are the unintended consequences of bringing the troops home?
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
The bill was a MAINLY a BUDGET bill, until some folks decided to make it a convoluted faux-civil rights debate (which was a total farce from the start). So, yeah, we did NEED the bill because we NEED to have an adequate level of funding for our military (let the torrent of numbers roll right on in....). And who wants to live in a nation that just "survives"? If you want that, then America is not for you.
As far as your last question, why engage in more rhetorical posturing? Why not just answer your own loaded question?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
The people who wrote it say it does exactly the things I say it does. The only sources you will find saying otherwise are those who benefit directly from this bill in terms of consolidation of power. Obama explicitly wanted this shit in there too (according to the Senate committee anyway, but maybe they're just paranoid and crazy too ???). So, yeah, there's also that.
I will paraphrase this as best I can. " We should do great evil upon our own citizens in the name of killing people in far away lands all in the pursuit of world hegemony at the expense of the public and the gain of the elite."
sync0s
Well-Known Member
LOL I just noticed your sig.. Sounds like something that would come off of one of those bad lip reading videos.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
Sowhats the news on this thing recently?
Is it official now?
I called a senator who voted for it from my state and they hung up on me
Is it official now?
I called a senator who voted for it from my state and they hung up on me
Cali chronic
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile Bill Ayers gets a holiday card from the Obama's
deprave
New Member
Im just waiting for the 7 something senators and teams of lawyers to come say its not the truth...lol There needs to be an official announcement if these people are full of shit or whats the deal? You would think one of them would come out and apologize and say its actually not true...maybe it is just dirty politics but I think someone will have to step forward and apologize or say its not true If that is the case.....It appears to me in the bill it says no citizens can't be taken.. so someone make a good post for the argument if they really believe it because I have to agree with Ruiner there has yet to be a good argument..
I philosophically disagree with such a bills mere existence ...However, where is the hard evidence that citizens can be detained indefinitely by the military? It is a fairly weak argument from the ACLU.
Why Did the sponsor of the Bill Lindsay Graham say its true? I really want to hear an explanation or apology from him and I think it is well deserved and one from Carl Levin also.
I philosophically disagree with such a bills mere existence ...However, where is the hard evidence that citizens can be detained indefinitely by the military? It is a fairly weak argument from the ACLU.
Why Did the sponsor of the Bill Lindsay Graham say its true? I really want to hear an explanation or apology from him and I think it is well deserved and one from Carl Levin also.
I think you have fallen for their trap. This is how it always works. They mix some seemingly good intentions in with some seriously special interest meat and potatoes. Then they call it somehting like "The super awesome, only good can come from this, ultra high employment defense act". They know damned well that 99% of people wont read the title of the bill let alone the contents of it. This has happened time and time again. From Wall st reform to Welfare reform to healthcare reform again and again.
Anyway, heres an article; http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28215
From the anti-globalization website http://www.globalresearch.ca
You Don’t HAVE to Lock up Joey For The Rest Of His Life Because He Called You A Mean Name, But You CAN Lock Him Away And Throw Away The Key And Then Falsely Accuse Him Of Being a Suspected Bad Guy If It Would Make You Happy
In response to my essay documenting that the indefinite detention bill does apply to American citizens on U.S. soil, a commentator posted:
Can somebody explain to me like I am 5, why [one of the bill's provisions - which discusses U.S. citizens] does not protect citizens?
Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand …
The bill says that the military must indefinitely detain anyone SUSPECTED of helping bad guys.
One provision says that the mandatory (“must”
indefinite detention doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens … but the government CAN indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen it feels like without trial, without presenting evidence, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen. This would destroy our Constitutional rights to trial, to face our accuser and to consult with an attorney.
Indeed, it would destroy rights created in England in 1215.
In other words, it’s like saying “you don’t HAVE to lock up Joey for the rest of his life because he called you a mean name, but you CAN lock him away and throw away the key and then falsely accuse him of being a suspected terrorist if it would make you happy”.
Get it?
That is why Congressman Justin Amash wrote:
Senators McCain and Levin have teamed up to promote one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime, S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill would permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President. It is destructive of our Constitution.
… A few commenters have suggested that the dangerous provisions in S 1867 (discussed in my previous post) do not apply to American citizens because of this 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.” This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.
Amash subsequently wrote: … A few commenters have suggested that the dangerous provisions in S 1867 (discussed in my previous post) do not apply to American citizens because of this 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.” This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.
Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.
***
They 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.
The ACLU notes:***
They 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.
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.
See this.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...8S02xx:e578148
(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.
(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.
Is this sinking in yet?
(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.
(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.
Is this sinking in yet?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nope, more fun to act like the world is out to get you as part of some nefarious kabal.
this place needs a "conspiracy theories" sub forum. it would clear out half of what's in this politics section and i wouldn't have to be reminded that my wife and i are part of some globalist plot to control hollywood and the banks.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Learn to read. Requirement, do you know what this word means? It means you're required to do something legally. It doesn't mean you don't have to do it. In other words - it's up to us if we detain you or not. And the people who wrote the bill say it does exactly as I've stated it does and it reads EXACTLY as I've stated it does as well. You guys are deeply in denial.