Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Obama's New Year's Gift To America. NDAA Is Now Law.

  1. -1
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,109
    vCash:
    7173
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Obama's New Year's Gift To America. NDAA Is Now Law.

    Obama Signs Defense Bill, With 'Reservations'

    http://www.npr.org/2011/12/31/144524...h-reservations



    “Don’t Be Fooled”: The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens


    The bill is confusing. As Wired noted on December 1st:

    It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

    A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.

    The ACLU notes:

    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.

    But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

    Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:

    “The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“

    Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so:
    [youtube]V5Oo3gzj2oc[/youtube]


    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...-u-s-soil.html


    Obama's signing statements is such a joke. "I promise not to violate your rights even though I was the one that wanted to do it in the first place".
    Last edited by Dolphins9954; 12-31-2011 at 05:53 PM.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,277
    vCash:
    7214
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Police state
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    3,643
    vCash:
    4847
    Loc:
    Gainesville, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1123GIUn3:e548990:

    SEC. 1031. 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) 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).

    While I'm certainly not happy about the bill, this section seems pretty clear to me that nothing changes for citizens on U.S. soil.
    Not every human is a manipulative, opportunistic, letch... or at least that's what I'm told.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,109
    vCash:
    7173
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43 View Post
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1123GIUn3:e548990:




    While I'm certainly not happy about the bill, this section seems pretty clear to me that nothing changes for citizens on U.S. soil.

    NDAA proponents sometimes point to an amendment to sec. 1021, added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as proof that the NDAA doesn’t apply to Americans. The amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states:

    "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."

    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.

    In fact, the Senate expressly rejected a provision that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens. Sen. Feinstein offered another amendment to sec. 1021 that stated the section “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” That amendment was rejected 45-55. Sen. Feinstein’s other amendment, which does nothing to protect U.S. citizens, passed 99-1.
    Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. I strongly believe in protecting the country’s security and equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies. But the American people cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate our constitutional rights.

    The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity. And I concede that this issue takes time to understand. Over the next few months, I hope to join others who value our country’s constitutional rights to block the NDAA’s dangerous detention provision. Once the American public sees for itself what’s included in the NDAA, I’m confident they will demand we do so.
    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?not...96584837047596
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,109
    vCash:
    7173
    Thanks / No Thanks
    The NDAA's historic assault on American liberty


    President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

    Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely (see the text of the statement here).

    Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the president would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Senator Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.
    The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not "support our troops" by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president. The "American way of life" is defined by our constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

    There are also those who continue the longstanding effort to excuse Obama's horrific record on civil liberties by blaming either others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

    The Obama administration and Democratic members are in full spin mode – using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

    Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Senator Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying the president as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or, as Obama maintains, a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.

    Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this un-American measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who, they insist, betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens, however, are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.
    For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment: 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?newsfeed=true


    TREASON!!!!!!!
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    3,643
    vCash:
    4847
    Loc:
    Gainesville, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    If they put in an exemption for citizens then they cannot indefinitely detain citizens who happen to be terrorists hiding out overseas, like Al-Awlaki et al. I'm totally against that too but I keep seeing people claim that citizens can also be held indefinitely on U.S. soil. 1031(e). seems to dispute that.

    NDAA proponents sometimes point to an amendment to sec. 1021, added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as proof that the NDAA doesn’t apply to Americans. The amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states:

    "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."

    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.
    I don't understand what he's saying here. The subsection says it doesn't "affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of". What does that have to do with "the President's view of his own power"? And isn't the President's power in this case drawn from the Authorization for use of Military Force (a statute)? And how can a bill "disingenuously" say anything? Misleading or open language is one thing, but if a bill clearly says something, how can it be disingenuous?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,109
    vCash:
    7173
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43 View Post
    If they put in an exemption for citizens then they cannot indefinitely detain citizens who happen to be terrorists hiding out overseas, like Al-Awlaki et al. I'm totally against that too but I keep seeing people claim that citizens can also be held indefinitely on U.S. soil. 1031(e). seems to dispute that.



    I don't understand what he's saying here. The subsection says it doesn't "affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of". What does that have to do with "the President's view of his own power"? And isn't the President's power in this case drawn from the Authorization for use of Military Force (a statute)? And how can a bill "disingenuously" say anything? Misleading or open language is one thing, but if a bill clearly says something, how can it be disingenuous?
    There are also those who continue the longstanding effort to excuse Obama's horrific record on civil liberties by blaming either others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

    The Obama administration and Democratic members are in full spin mode – using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

    Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Senator Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying the president as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or, as Obama maintains, a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.
    In one of the greatest attacks on civil liberties in this country’s history, Democratic and Republican Senators voted yesterday to approve a measure as part of the $662 billion defense bill that would allow for the military to hold both citizens and non-citizens indefinitely without trial — even those arrested on U.S. soil. In a welcomed change, President Obama has committed his Administration to fighting the measure as inimical to the rule of law. The measure was pushed by Carl Levin (D – Michigan) and John McCain (R – Arizona). While some members of Congress like Ron Paul (R., Texas) have denounced the bill, the measure passed at the same time that Administration lawyers publicly declared that the military and intelligence agencies alone should decide whether a citizen should be killed without a charge or hearing (including killing citizens on U.S. soil) — a position supported by President Obama who has ordered the killing of U.S. citizens under his claim of inherent authority.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, tried to pass an amendment that would have limited it to suspects captured “abroad” — a measure that still raised constitutional and international law problems. However, even that modest amendment failed on a vote of 45 to 55. Here is the voting roster, which includes Democrats Begich (D-AK), Casey (D-PA), Levin (D-MI), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Manchin (D-WV), McCaskill (D-MO), Pryor (D-AR), as well as independent Lieberman (ID-CT). A watered down amendment was then passed 99-1 that left the matter (it would appear) to the Administration. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/02/42285/


    "existing law or authorities" and "requirement" are the key words. It really is a confusing piece of work designed for exactly that. When Feinstein tried to make it specific as to saying "does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” It got voted down and the current vague and broad version was put in. You can't look past that. "Existing law or authorities" is meaningless when we have a government and president that feels it can already detain Americans or even assassinate them without due process ie. Padilla, Anwar al-Awlaki, Patriot Act and Authorization for Use of Military Force. When the attempt came to make it specific it was voted down. And even Levin said it was Obama that wanted the power to detain in the first place. That speaks volumes. Once again Washington makes another horrible bill that costs to much and takes away liberties.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    3,643
    vCash:
    4847
    Loc:
    Gainesville, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/02/42285/


    "existing law or authorities" and "requirement" are the key words. It really is a confusing piece of work designed for exactly that. When Feinstein tried to make it specific as to saying "does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” It got voted down and the current vague and broad version was put in. You can't look past that. "Existing law or authorities" is meaningless when we have a government and president that feels it can already detain Americans or even assassinate them without due process ie. Padilla, Anwar al-Awlaki, Patriot Act and Authorization for Use of Military Force. When the attempt came to make it specific it was voted down. And even Levin said it was Obama that wanted the power to detain in the first place. That speaks volumes. Once again Washington makes another horrible bill that costs to much and takes away liberties.
    I'm not looking past it, I'm saying that there is possibly a semi-reasonable explanation for it (that they want to be able to detain citizens like Al-Awlaki as they do foreign terrorists) and that it is not necessarily a means toward an actual police state on home soil.

    And I disagree with your assessment that 1031(e) is meaningless because of how our government/President "feels". They are still not above U.S. law.

    I do agree that this does take away liberties though as it seems to be a green light to indefinitely detain any citizen visiting a foreign country.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    Valandui's Avatar
    The Ghost

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2008
    Posts:
    9,587
    vCash:
    12142
    Loc:
    Lakeland, FL
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43 View Post
    I'm not looking past it, I'm saying that there is possibly a semi-reasonable explanation for it (that they want to be able to detain citizens like Al-Awlaki as they do foreign terrorists) and that it is not necessarily a means toward an actual police state on home soil.

    And I disagree with your assessment that 1031(e) is meaningless because of how our government/President "feels". They are still not above U.S. law.

    I do agree that this does take away liberties though as it seems to be a green light to indefinitely detain any citizen visiting a foreign country.
    Regardless, a US citizen has the right to a fair trial and a lawyer. It doesn't matter if the government thinks someone is a terrorist or not.

    Valandui's Weekly Music Video

    Black Crown Initiate: Withering Waves
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlqJA1Rteio
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,109
    vCash:
    7173
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43 View Post
    I'm not looking past it, I'm saying that there is possibly a semi-reasonable explanation for it (that they want to be able to detain citizens like Al-Awlaki as they do foreign terrorists) and that it is not necessarily a means toward an actual police state on home soil.

    And I disagree with your assessment that 1031(e) is meaningless because of how our government/President "feels". They are still not above U.S. law.

    I do agree that this does take away liberties though as it seems to be a green light to indefinitely detain any citizen visiting a foreign country.

    Here's a good read that explains it better than I can.


    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...ill/singleton/


    Long read but worth it. Scroll down to "myth #3" that covers what I'm saying.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Obama signs NDAA again.
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-03-2013, 07:59 PM
  2. Judge Halts Obama's NDAA Indefinite Detention Law
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-19-2012, 05:40 PM
  3. America Needs Obama Now
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-03-2009, 07:37 PM
  4. What Is The Gift You Most Disliked This Year?
    By TheAnswer385 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-28-2005, 03:49 AM
  5. Hot gift this year: Trash talk'n Schulters
    By Sethworld in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-21-2005, 07:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •