POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

[NY8123]

The NSA doesn't give a **** about the constitution or rights, if they want the information they are going to get it and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. I believe it is honestly all a shell game and there is a modus of operandi in place to ensure information and intelligence can be gathered without the publics scrutiny.

a) The FBI rises to power collecting and gathering huge amounts of sensitive information leading to eventual public scrutiny
b) The CIA enters the picture as a young start up hardly drawing public attention while the FBI is hammered in openly public investigations
c) The Department for Homeland Security is a young start up agency hardly drawing public attention while the CIA is hammered openly in public investigations.

It just passes along the ability to operate outside the bounds of the constitution and anyone who thinks agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland, etc...don't operate outside the constitution is a fool.

[JamesBW43]

"The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces."

Not according to the law itself.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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.

[TheWalrus]

What the NSA is doing is unconstitutional by the 4th amendment. They're using a loophole saying they don't have persons looking at the information they're spying on, & I'm not so naive or trusting to believe them.

Loopholes count. Most of the time this is unfortunate, but they still count. But "unconstitutional" doesn't rise above opinion -- one which I share with you on the NSA (the article you posted was excellent, btw) -- when the matter has been resolved or at least partially resolved by the courts. The way you're framing your argument is like the courts have ruled what they're doing is unconstitutional and they're doing it anyway in defiance of the courts. Now maybe they're not following court orders to the letter, but that's still speculation in search of evidence.

Due-Process is a basic constitutional right, to deny an American citizen such a right is unconstitutional. You don't necessarily need to be a constitutional lawyer to know that.

Sure you do. Due process is complicated as hell and subject to interpretation. I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent enough time reading about rational basis versus strict scrutiny tests to know that.

In regards to civilian killings, look no further than the Wikileaks footage of that Apache gunning down about a dozen or so reporters, while injuring women & children in the process.

Are you telling me you think that was intentional? Friendly fire deaths are some of the most heartbreaking things to read about (I don't know if you've seen the excellent documentary on Pat Tillman, but I highly recommend it), but they happen. I sympathize with the argument that the fact that they're inevitable means they have to be factored into the negative side of any debate about foreign policy intervention, but I'm already on that side of the argument relative to Iraq, so I don't know what your point is on this. If your argument is that this sort of thing means we should never employ our military in hostile situations ever, then I wouldn't agree with that.

I don't think the government should cover up this sort of thing when it happens. But I also think we should be cognizant of the fact that sensible rules of engagement followed to the letter can still result in negative outcomes. It's all a matter of where you draw the line on what is a "reasonable" case for war or intervention. Perhaps you're a pacifist and don't believe in reasonable cases. I don't know.

[Locke]

Seriously. Where the hell is PhinFreak, Statler, and Trojan? Also, I'd love for Snake to drop by too. I'd love to hear his condescending opinion on what just happened...

[Valandui]

Oh, bull****.

The result of Jackson's so-called "best thing he ever did" was this:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


That's only a seven year economic depression. No biggie. And like I said, it wasn't even mostly a policy decision. Jackson hated the guy who was running the bank at the time and ended the charter to get back at him.

A correction will happen when you go from a central bank to a free market, however short it lasted.

[Valandui]

Not according to the law itself.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When an amendment to the bill was introduced to specifically say that it couldn't be used on US citizens American soil and it was voted down.

[rob19]

Loopholes count. Most of the time this is unfortunate, but they still count. But "unconstitutional" doesn't rise above opinion -- one which I share with you on the NSA (the article you posted was excellent, btw) -- when the matter has been resolved or at least partially resolved by the courts. The way you're framing your argument is like the courts have ruled what they're doing is unconstitutional and they're doing it anyway in defiance of the courts. Now maybe they're not following court orders to the letter, but that's still speculation in search of evidence.

I’m with NY on this one. I don’t believe the NSA isn’t looking at the information their spying on.

So, to my understanding, you’re not disputing the fact that American citizens are being spied upon, but rather that this isn’t evil enough to warrant not voting for X, Y, or Z candidate. I happen to disagree.

Sure you do. Due process is complicated as hell and subject to interpretation. I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent enough time reading about rational basis versus strict scrutiny tests to know that.

Regardless of how complicated it is, under no circumstance do I think we should have the ability to detain any citizen indefinitely without right to a trial. This is a circumvention of our basic judicial system for the purpose of convenience.

Are you telling me you think that was intentional? Friendly fire deaths are some of the most heartbreaking things to read about (I don't know if you've seen the excellent documentary on Pat Tillman, but I highly recommend it), but they happen. I sympathize with the argument that the fact that they're inevitable means they have to be factored into the negative side of any debate about foreign policy intervention, but I'm already on that side of the argument relative to Iraq, so I don't know what your point is on this. If your argument is that this sort of thing means we should never employ our military in hostile situations ever, then I wouldn't agree with that.

I don't think the government should cover up this sort of thing when it happens. But I also think we should be cognizant of the fact that sensible rules of engagement followed to the letter can still result in negative outcomes. It's all a matter of where you draw the line on what is a "reasonable" case for war or intervention. Perhaps you're a pacifist and don't believe in reasonable cases. I don't know.

I’m saying if it wasn’t intentional, they need to be more prudent with whom they choose to target. These drone strikes are seriously affecting a way of life in other parts of the world, people live in absolute fear & we’re killing far too many innocent civilians for my tastes. I can never understand the people who believe the rest of the world hates us because “we’re free & awesome”. I also question the legitamcy of some of these wars in the first place.

No biggie. And like I said, it wasn't even mostly a policy decision. Jackson hated the guy who was running the bank at the time and ended the charter to get back at him

I don't know how correct this is, here's a quote from Jackson in regards to this:

"In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government.

The notion that banks privatize profits and socialize losses dates at least to the 19th century, as in this 1834 quote of Andrew Jackson":

"I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. ... You are a den of vipers and thieves."

—Andrew Jackson, 1834

Not according to the law itself.

You’re wrong, unfortunately.

(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law "does not apply to American citizens."

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can't even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under "existing authorities."

Let's parse it intelligently, shall we?
First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:

(
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...)

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.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;

(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.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the "or" operator. This statement essentially means:

• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the "authority of the President" to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:

(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.

This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the "or" operator:

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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.

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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.

In other words, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand "existing authorities."

What are those "existing authorities?"

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens

As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it's widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...)

Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES..."

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama's executive "kill list" justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President's expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn't change that view.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[JamesBW43]

When an amendment to the bill was introduced to specifically say that it couldn't be used on US citizens American soil and it was voted down.

Iirc, that amendment said nothing about on or off US soil, but just about US citizens in general, which would then open the can of worms regarding people like Al-Awlaki. But even if it did, the simple act of voting down an amendment is typically not as simple as a referendum on the amendment itself. Oftentimes what seems like an obvious thing to vote for or against actually has extenuating circumstances around it that could completely unravel a bill.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

You’re wrong, unfortunately.





To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The author completely ignores the words "existing law". Also, I'm pretty sure "authorities" in this context is referring to issues of jurisdiction and custody. But even if it's not, I don't recall anything in the Patriot Act allowing for indefinite detention of US citizens. I remember it allowed to hold immigrants indefinitely, but I'm pretty sure that was it.

[Valandui]

Iirc, that amendment said nothing about on or off US soil, but just about US citizens in general, which would then open the can of worms regarding people like Al-Awlaki. But even if it did, the simple act of voting down an amendment is typically not as simple as a referendum on the amendment itself. Oftentimes what seems like an obvious thing to vote for or against actually has extenuating circumstances around it that could completely unravel a bill.

The amendment they went with was a more generic one that said nothing would change as far as how American citizens were currently treated in that regard. The problem lies in the combination of Bush's repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Obama Administration's belief that they already had the authority to do what the NDAA spelled out. In that case, if nothing changed for American citizens under that provision of the NDAA we already have what it authorized.

[rob19]

The author completely ignores the words "existing law". Also, I'm pretty sure "authorities" in this context is referring to issues of jurisdiction and custody. But even if it's not, I don't recall anything in the Patriot Act allowing for indefinite detention of US citizens. I remember it allowed to hold immigrants indefinitely, but I'm pretty sure that was it.

Simply Google the section you're referencing. You'll find pages upon pages of articles debunking your misconception, it isn't just that author.

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” 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:


The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

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”).

Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”

What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.