PDA

View Full Version : NDAA: The Biggest Election Issue No One's Talking About



Dolphins9954
10-11-2012, 07:51 PM
You don't have to live alone in the woods, reading issues of Guns and Ammo and co-writing your manifesto with beard lice, to be terrified about the state of basic freedoms in America today. Given the counterterrorism provisions in the fairly recent National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), we currently live in a country where the government can pick up American citizens and detain them indefinitely without access to a lawyer or even a criminal trial. That means locked up forever without even the basic protections we afford to rapists and murderers.

"That can't be right," you say. "Such a power would be completely unconstitutional!"

And you're right. Even President Obama (http://www.politicususa.com/obama-ndaa-statement.html) said he had "serious reservations with certain provisions [of the bill] that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists." And then he signed it.


http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/149373-1.jpg?v=1
Getty

"I'll sign my name, but I'm not gonna draw a smiley face in the O like usual."
But the point is not just to beat up on the president. After all, Governor Romney did that for 90 minutes in last Wednesday's debate without a single mention of these NDAA provisions. That's because the NDAA will persist under a Romney administration as well. That's right: Regardless of who wins in November, your lingering notions of living in a country that is free and democratic can best be described as "quaint" and "wrong."

So considering that this law alters our concept of what it even means to live in a democracy, why is no one talking about it? Why does no one seem to care? There are three major reasons, but first, let's talk about what the NDAA is.

What Is the NDAA?

The primary role of the NDAA is to provide for the Defense Department's budget, which this year amounts to a cozy $662 billion. However, the NDAA also contains counterterrorism provisions in sections 1021 and 1022 that allow the federal government to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until "the end of the hostilities."

Did that clear it up for you? No? See, that's part of the problem. The NDAA is so poorly defined that it becomes a bit of an inkblot test for its possible effect. But the thing is, when it comes to basic, constitutionally protected, fundamental freedoms, we typically don't take an "Ahh, y'know what I mean" approach. What we do know is, pursuant to the NDAA, American citizens on American soil can be jailed indefinitely without the right to legal counsel if suspected of being a terrorist. And as Senator Rand Paul has pointed out, there are already all sorts of things on the books that can make you a suspect, such as missing fingers or having more than a week's worth of food in your house (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2N1z9zJ20k).



So, here we are in a tight election, and none of the candidates or pundits are talking about the one issue that's at the heart of the role of government and our rights as citizens. Why?


http://www.cracked.com/blog/ndaa-biggest-election-issue-no-ones-talking-about/#ixzz28xJf21VN

phins_4_ever
10-11-2012, 08:03 PM
I was wondering why that black helicopter was hovering above my house. Now I know. Thanks.

TheWalrus
10-11-2012, 08:08 PM
A horrible law. Has anyone actually been detained under it yet? An article I found from May says no one had yet.

Should be interesting (and very important, obviously) to see how all the legal challenges end up. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (and conservative judges in general) usually side with law enforcement on these kinds of issues, but it's hard to imagine that such a threat to due process and liberty could fall under anything but a strict scrutiny test, which this law would obviously fail, imo.

Dolphins9954
10-11-2012, 08:13 PM
I was wondering why that black helicopter was hovering above my house. Now I know. Thanks.


Keep on carrying the water.

Dolphins9954
10-11-2012, 08:19 PM
A horrible law. Has anyone actually been detained under it yet? An article I found from May says no one had yet.

Should be interesting (and very important, obviously) to see how all the legal challenges end up. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (and conservative judges in general) usually side with law enforcement on these kinds of issues, but it's hard to imagine that such a threat to due process and liberty could fall under anything but a strict scrutiny test, which this law would obviously fail, imo.

The law has been back and fourth in the courts with Obama and company vigorously defending and appealing it. Not really a "conservative" thing when it was Obama himself who requested it.

4DNDHbT44cY

Fact is both sides hate our liberties.

TheWalrus
10-11-2012, 08:24 PM
The law has been back and fourth in the courts with Obama and company vigorously defending and appealing it. Not really a "conservative" thing when it was Obama himself who requested it.

4DNDHbT44cY

Fact is both sides hate our liberties.

Conservative judges, dude. Judges. Different lines of judicial thought define our liberties and the laws that threaten them in different ways.

Dolphins9954
10-11-2012, 08:28 PM
Conservative judges, dude. Judges. Different lines of judicial thought define our liberties and the laws that threaten them in different ways.

How do you DEFINE Obama's request for such a law???

TheWalrus
10-11-2012, 08:37 PM
How do you DEFINE Obama's request for such a law???

What do you mean, request? My understanding is he signed it reluctantly.

Anyway, I don't like the provision. At all. I made that clear.

But the fate of the law now lies primarily with the courts. Different lines of judicial thought are a relevant part of this discussion and one I was trying to engender, rather than just focusing on "woe is us with these politicians" kinds of commentary.

Dolphins9954
10-11-2012, 08:42 PM
What do you mean, request? My understanding is he signed it reluctantly.

Anyway, I don't like the provision. At all. I made that clear.

But the fate of the law now lies primarily with the courts. Different lines of judicial thought are a relevant part of this discussion and one I was trying to engender, rather than just focusing on "woe is us with these politicians" kinds of commentary.

According to Carl Levin in the youtube video above. It was Obama himself who requested the law. The reluctance part was political drama.

Buddy
10-11-2012, 08:42 PM
A horrible law. Has anyone actually been detained under it yet? An article I found from May says no one had yet.

Should be interesting (and very important, obviously) to see how all the legal challenges end up. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (and conservative judges in general) usually side with law enforcement on these kinds of issues, but it's hard to imagine that such a threat to due process and liberty could fall under anything but a strict scrutiny test, which this law would obviously fail, imo.

I don't even think that it can be tried for constitutionality until someone is arrested under it. Sounds like a little WMD to keep hidden until Marshall Law is enacted. I'm with you...it is disgusting!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

phins_4_ever
10-11-2012, 08:46 PM
Keep on carrying the water.

I apologize. I forgot the smiley. My comment was more like a funny comment rather than a mocking of your post.

Buddy
10-11-2012, 08:49 PM
This thing passed in 2012 so both parties had to at least partially support it so I blame them both. I swear that I would love to vote out every sitting congressman/woman, the president, and clean house in the Supreme Court and all of the "Departments"! Washington is a cesspool.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

JamesBW43
10-11-2012, 08:56 PM
American citizens on American soil can be jailed indefinitely

Unless it was modified since I read it, this is not true. American citizens can only be detained indefinitely if they are NOT on American soil.

A scary thought still, but not what it keeps being made out to be.

Dolphins9954
10-11-2012, 09:21 PM
Unless it was modified since I read it, this is not true. American citizens can only be detained indefinitely if they are NOT on American soil.

A scary thought still, but not what it keeps being made out to be.

Splitting hairs while carrying water. Let's call it for what it is....a horrible bill that attacks the very foundations of our principles. Far worse than the Patriot Act that's for sure. A total attack on due process and the rule of law. And just like Judge Katherine Forrest said (who ruled the bill unconstitutional) "Indefinite Detention cannot be used on ANY of America's own citizens." She also added "In the face of what could be indeterminate detention, due process requires more."

PZjXHjkzMD4

Valandui
10-11-2012, 10:52 PM
What do you mean, request? My understanding is he signed it reluctantly.

Anyway, I don't like the provision. At all. I made that clear.

But the fate of the law now lies primarily with the courts. Different lines of judicial thought are a relevant part of this discussion and one I was trying to engender, rather than just focusing on "woe is us with these politicians" kinds of commentary.
He signed it reluctantly because he felt that the Executive Branch already had that power and that Congress was overstepping their bounds by codifying it.

TheWalrus
10-11-2012, 11:29 PM
According to Carl Levin in the youtube video above. It was Obama himself who requested the law. The reluctance part was political drama.

Says him. I've read it was reluctantly signed, as Valandui says (though I read for a different reason). Either way there's not a lot of clarity on it, I think we'd all agree. I haven't read about that aspect of it for a long time now so my memory could be foggy.

At the end of the day, though, "reservations" doesn't mean a whole lot. The bill was signed. Whether you give up a game winning touchdown by an inch or the guy walks in hardly matters.

Valandui
10-12-2012, 12:02 AM
Says him. I've read it was reluctantly signed, as Valandui says (though I read for a different reason). Either way there's not a lot of clarity on it, I think we'd all agree. I haven't read about that aspect of it for a long time now so my memory could be foggy.

At the end of the day, though, "reservations" doesn't mean a whole lot. The bill was signed. Whether you give up a game winning touchdown by an inch or the guy walks in hardly matters.

When you combine that with Bush's repealing of the Posse Comitatus Act gives a lot of reason for worry.

Dolphins9954
10-12-2012, 09:23 PM
Says him. I've read it was reluctantly signed, as Valandui says (though I read for a different reason). Either way there's not a lot of clarity on it, I think we'd all agree. I haven't read about that aspect of it for a long time now so my memory could be foggy.

At the end of the day, though, "reservations" doesn't mean a whole lot. The bill was signed. Whether you give up a game winning touchdown by an inch or the guy walks in hardly matters.

Carl Levin a DEMOCRAT and one who's been around for quite awhile said so on the senate floor. Which really brings into perspective the political shenanigans Obama is capable of. With one side of his mouth he specifically requests this unconstitutional power. While with the other he portrays himself as this reluctant president taking away our founding principles with a pen stroke. Which is why I have no faith in his and the democrats (who all so voted for this bill) postition on basic human rights and civil liberties. You can't trust either side with our freedoms at all.