Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: G0atmaster on January 22, 2012, 12:05:32 pm
-
If you haven't heard about the NDAA yet (H.R.1540), you had better start researching. Now.
The NDAA is a bill that we pass every year to approve the DoD's budget. But this year, it hass some serious, bonechilling clauses contained within it.
Among other things, it declares that the United States is a battleground and a warzone in the War on Terror. It states that the government can, on suspicion of terrorist activities or, get this, a "beligerent act" against the United States makes one an enemy combatant, and the United States Armed Forces can be ordered to detain you without warrant, proven evidence, incommunicado, without Habeas Corpus or access to a lawyer, until "hostilities cease."
The War on Terror was defined by George Bush as "a war without end."
Under this law, neither "terrorist" nor "beligerent act" are well-defined. A beligerent act can be anything, and a terrorist can be anything from a card-carrying suicide bomber, to a person missing fingers, to a person storing ammunition, to a person with more than 7 days' food in their home.
Oh, this goes for citizens, residents, and foreigners. This attacks the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments viciously.
As if that's not enough, an amendment was passed that requires that the Rules of Engagement for any designated live-fire zone allow military personnel to "proactively defend themselves." There is no word as to who desides what a "designated live-fire zone" is.
Here's the worst-case scenario I can imagine with this amendment:
people gather to protest *something*
The military is called in to keep the peace
The crowd becomes unruly
A riot begins
soldiers begin "proactively defending themselves."
Thus, we see the end of the right to assemble.
This bill was signed into law by President Obama on December 31st, 2011.
He issued a signing statement, which says he was reluctant and held reservations, that he promises not to detain any US Citizens. But as it turns out, he was the one who told congress to write in the contraversial sections. In fact, he threatened to veto it, but not because of its glaring flaws. He wanted to veto it becausee it kept him accountable to a congressional committee once every 3 years.
If only that were the end of it. But it isn't.
Also on the books is HR1981, which spells out the end of privacy on the net as we know it, as it would require ISP's to snoop on our web surfing, and hold records for one year, tying IP's, even dynamic ones, to individuals.
This means that viewing "undesirable material" makes you a suspect, and as a suspect, you can be detained.
Couple this, with the censorship and takedown-without-due-process under SOPA and PIPA, and we see an incredibly terrifying trend coming together.
I'll post sources later. For now, just google. While the media and majority are avoiding the issue, some people are talking about it.
And no, I don't wear an effing tin foil hat. This is real.
-
I don't know, but I get teh feeling that this is just business as usual for the USA.
What happened to you Americans anyway? You used to be kinda cool before and during the Second world war, after that things kinda went downhill...
-
I think that the Patriot Act pretty much covered this all before.
And as for ordering military to shoot their own citizens they have sworn to protect - that's quite bad. There are incidents in history when that has indeed happened, and incidents where it turned out far worse to the ruling parties. I believe that in US case it would turn for worse if government ordered such actions; I think most of the US soldiers would still be quite conscientious(?) about this and would likely object. It is their cause as well that the protesters would be fighting - there is no sympathy for the big money, unless somebody gets paid their share. And I don't know at all what the National Guard would do and on whose side it would be.
I wouldn't be that happy living in EU either, this has turned out to be a far bigger deal worse than expected. Finnish defense morale is probably lowest in the history of the nation, and I really don't wonder about that as it really doesn't look like our government would even like to provide believable deterrent. So, who would like to get shot for the big money/politics interests?
-
I don't know, but I get teh feeling that this is just business as usual for the USA.
What happened to you Americans anyway? You used to be kinda cool before and during the Second world war, after that things kinda went downhill...
a history class would do you good
-
This has never been done to citizens. The patriot act had nothing to do with citizens. Now, every citizen is a potential enemy. Thus, the very philosophy of the constitution is nullified.
The only thing that has come close to this is the Security Act of the MacCarthy era.
-
a problem with us citizens is they have this glorified picture of what the usa really is. we are an empire. there is no way to sugar coat it. but we are an empire that is observant on history. we know that you cant just move in and take over huge chunks of territory like the nazis tried to do. when you stop pushing and start defending what you have taken, then it only takes a mediocre nation to put a stop to it. before ww2 came along we weren't the military powerhouse we are today, we had to be challenged by the japanese and the nazis, in fact i say our nation capitalized on the situation quite well. thanks to the nazis (and the japanese to a lesser extend), putting the most powerful nations in the world into a chokehold, was a huge invite for us to do a power grab of our own. all we had to do is defeat their empires. instant superpower. the soviet's too were also put into a similar position. with the war settled, the two remaining powerbases entered into the penis measuring contest that was the cold war.
what ultimately changed is they got the taste for real power and they werent about to let it go. they wanted more. since the old war mentality could not put us in command of the world, some other fledgling nation would step in and do their own power grab. instead we keep our military busy in little wars here and there against nations that pose no real threat to us. we setup a puppet government and we move on. anything we can do to keep the world in chaos will help us. any government we can turn to our side will help us. they want a world government and they would step on anyone to get it, even their own people. and when they do i will be there to nuke them and take it for my own (and then nuke it).
-
I think that the Patriot Act pretty much covered this all before.
It's actually an acronym! "USA PATRIOT Act", it stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
-
It's you american's fault for letting the political discourse be dominated by lunatics.
Oh, and BTW, get used to the idea that the USA are not a democracy anymore, and haven't been for quite some time. Pretty nice Oligarchy you have going there, though.
-
Pretty nice Oligarchy you have going there, though.
Pot, this is Kettle, over...
-
Sure, but we don't brag as much about our democraticness as the stereotypical american jingoist does :P
-
North America is ruled by large corporations
Europe is ruled by bankers
South America is ruled by drug dealers
Asia is ruled by communist ass-dicks
Africa is ruled by......... well...... Africa is continuously in a state of anarchy
and Australia is ruled by cane toads
that's why I want to build my own country out in the middle of the ocean.
-
Just don't put it on the sea floor, okay?
-
I guess that if somebody won't do anything about all this idiocy, I'll end up going to Switzerland.
US proposes a series of Communist China-style restrictions, EU is going bankrupt and China is too totalitarian for me. Guess it's time to start learning German.
-
It's you american's fault for letting the political discourse be dominated by lunatics.
Oh, and BTW, get used to the idea that the USA are not a democracy anymore, and haven't been for quite some time. Pretty nice Oligarchy you have going there, though.
nu uh america is number one in democracy you just hate my freedom america invented democracy enjoy your wmd terrorist
-
Just don't put it on the sea floor, okay?
click me (http://orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Artificial%20Islands/ARTIFICIAL%20ISLANDS.htm)
I guess that if somebody won't do anything about all this idiocy, I'll end up going to Switzerland.
US proposes a series of Communist China-style restrictions, EU is going bankrupt and China is too totalitarian for me. Guess it's time to start learning German.
You do realize that switzerland is ruled by the biggest bankers of all, don't you? Haven't you ever heard of swiss bank accounts?
-
It's you american's fault for letting the political discourse be dominated by lunatics.
Oh, and BTW, get used to the idea that the USA are not a democracy anymore, and haven't been for quite some time. Pretty nice Oligarchy you have going there, though.
nu uh america is number one in democracy you just hate my freedom america invented democracy enjoy your wmd terrorist
im working on it, dont rush me!
-
You do realize that switzerland is ruled by the biggest bankers of all, don't you? Haven't you ever heard of swiss bank accounts?
I did.
Despite that, it's much better than all these lunatics all over the world. It's not going bankrupt, censoring Internet, allowing military to do whatever it wants to nor turning it's schools into moron factories. Plus, CERN is located in there.
-
...a bill that we pass every year...
this might have something to do with why no one is talking about it.
-
It's actually an acronym! "USA PATRIOT Act", it stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
Just like the PROTECT IP Act stands for Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act
I wonder who in the legislative bureaucracy gets paid to come up with cutesy backronyms for bill names.
-
Probably the same guy who thinks up all of NASA's.
-
It's all just a bunch of WIMPs and MACHOs, man, WIMPs and MACHOs
-
Just don't put it on the sea floor, okay?
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.
I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture
It's pretty funny looking at all these bills that are trying to get passed. I mean, American Politics is flipping hilarious
-
An informative video I just found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldlvtptj7Fc
-
Pretty sure we've talked about this before.
Anyway, here is a reasonable, FUD-free discussion of the NDAA and what it actually means. (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/)
Please read before spreading further panic, FUD, and ignorance.
-
Pretty sure we've talked about this before.
Anyway, here is a reasonable, FUD-free discussion of the NDAA and what it actually means. (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/)
Please read before spreading further panic, FUD, and ignorance.
No fair, you've injected rationality and fact into a discussion based in pure paranoia. That's cheating.
Good on you :P
-
no, sorry. Every major analyst of the bill will, in fact, tell you that U.S. citizens are not protected, that "beligerent act" is not defined, that "terrorist" is not defined, and specific names in bills (I.e. taliban/al-Quaeda) hold zero legal weight in the execution of law.
Furthermore, look up H.R. 1981, which will reuire ISPs to snoop on browsing, and log all surfing, tied to an individual identity, for a minimum of one year. Then, look up the Enemy Expatriate Act, which allows the government to strip citizenship of persons believed to be in support of the US's enemies.
Watch videos of the congressmen debating the bill. Ron Paul just introduced a bill that would repeal, and I quote, "the section of the NDAA that allows for the indefinite detention of US Citizens."
This isn't FUD. This is gross excess of power and political corruption.
-
And this is procisely why we have a 3 branch government. These provisions go too far and won't survive a challange in the supreme court. Now it's only a matter of some one filing suit to bring it to their attention.
-
I'm somehow not very convinced this gets challenged, or that the Supreme Court will turn it around for a while. Though I'd really like to see it challenged, just to see what will happen, good or bad.
-
You don't understand. this law suspends habeas corpus, the right to an attourney, and the right to a trial. This means, you will never see a courtroom, you will never be able to appeal, you will never have a hope of making it to the supreme court. You will be kept in a windowless cell, completely incommunicado, indefinitely.
Just to prove that this isn't FUD, here are some of my resources:
The wikipedia article on the bill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
The text of the bill itself:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540
The "Live-Fire zone" amendment:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=112&amdt=h318
Ron Paul's proposed bill that will repeal the Indefinite Detention of Citizens clause:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1941%3Astatement-introducing-repeal-of-sec-1021-of-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2012&catid=16%3Aspeeches&Itemid=1
News article about the above:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10608-ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-repeal-ndaas-indefinite-detention
Video by MSNBC in 2009 detailing the fact that Obama has been planning this from the beginning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mPZlysCAm0
A writeup by Jonathan Turley detailing what the government can and has already done:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120117/OPINION16/120116032/Jonathan-Turley-10-reasons-we-re-not-free?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp
Now this one is really interesting. It's about the EEA, or the Enemy Expatriate act, which states that if you support terrorists, even to the degree where you simply speak out against the government, you may have your U.S. Citizenship stripped. It's on the books now:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/317977
And don't forget about ACTA and HR1981, the former of which is a stiff, worldwide internet censorship proposal, and the latter of which will require ISPs to snoop on their customers, and log personally identifiable data connected to browsing and web-surfing habits.
Put these all together with SOPA, and you have a fully-formed system of monitoring what people are saying and doing and thinking, censoring undesirable communication and thought, and punishing people for undesirable behavior, whether it's truly a crime, or simply vocal opposition.
Bottom line: This is the foundation of totalitarianism. This is grotesque. What the American government is doing is incredibly unamerican, and unconstitutional.
-
I wonder, what caused American government to suddenly try to make America a totalitarian country?
They managed to violate half of the constitutional amendments with just 3 bills. This is ridiculous. I'd have expected this from Polish government, but American? Come on.
-
Emigrate to Canada; oh and help us remove Stephen Harper in the 2015 election so that it doesn't happen here either
^ There's my partisan plug.
Attacking the actual issue, the book isn't closed on this one, signed into law or not. Look at what happened to SOPA and PIPA. Make enough noise and lawmakers will be forced to repeal it. The issue is of course, no one is talking about it.
-
You don't understand. this law suspends habeas corpus, the right to an attourney, and the right to a trial. This means, you will never see a courtroom, you will never be able to appeal, you will never have a hope of making it to the supreme court. You will be kept in a windowless cell, completely incommunicado, indefinitely.
Yes, and no... If they use it on you, you can't defend yourself. That doesn't mean someone can't sue the people who used it on you.
Edit: If they find out.
-
where do i sign up for my jackboots?
-
One other problem with NDAA is that you can get arrested and disappear into the night, without anyone being informed you're gone. Thus, no defense can be formed.
-
Hm... what would happen when you filed a missing person report? What would happen if/when the police arrest the spooks for kidnapping?
-
Well I'm not specifically surprised. These things tend to happen under the incentives of a democratic system.
But truly frightening nevertheless!
-
Hm... what would happen when you filed a missing person report? What would happen if/when the police arrest the spooks for kidnapping?
They (the police) would likely get told that this isn't their jurisdiction / it's a matter of national security / that the bad guy in custody is really a terrorist / etc. ?
Take your pick?
-
Here is the so-called indefinite detention of citizens clause (that Mr. Paul is trying to repeal):
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).
I'd once again like to point out that before commenting on a law, one should actually read the damned thing. It's plain English, this isn't rocket science folks. By my count, 7 of you failed to do that just since Goatmaster's last post, and you all now look like fools.
As for the text itself - put down the crack pipe, oh paranoid ones. (b), (d), and (e) make it abundantly clear who this can and cannot be applied to, and (e) expressly states that existing laws and authorities remain fully in effect (including habeas corpus).
This is what happens when you get your information from conspiracy websites and mother****ing Wikipedia. For the last time, Wikipedia is useful for background information if you take it with a bit of a grain of salt. It is NEVER an acceptable primary source for ANYTHING.
Next time anyone wants to throw out conspiracy garbage about expansion of powers, kindly quote the sections you're referring to, not something else that discusses them. Even the "live-fire amendment" is completely innocuous just from the description in the link G0atmaster provided - it's ROE clarification.
Any other pieces of legislation people would like posted and explained to them because they're so busy drinking the conspiracy cow piss they can't do it themselves, or can we call it a day? :mad:
-
Here is the so-called indefinite detention of citizens clause (that Mr. Paul is trying to repeal):
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).
I'd once again like to point out that before commenting on a law, one should actually read the damned thing. It's plain English, this isn't rocket science folks. By my count, 7 of you failed to do that just since Goatmaster's last post, and you all now look like fools.
As for the text itself - put down the crack pipe, oh paranoid ones. (b), (d), and (e) make it abundantly clear who this can and cannot be applied to, and (e) expressly states that existing laws and authorities remain fully in effect (including habeas corpus).
This is what happens when you get your information from conspiracy websites and mother****ing Wikipedia. For the last time, Wikipedia is useful for background information if you take it with a bit of a grain of salt. It is NEVER an acceptable primary source for ANYTHING.
Next time anyone wants to throw out conspiracy garbage about expansion of powers, kindly quote the sections you're referring to, not something else that discusses them. Even the "live-fire amendment" is completely innocuous just from the description in the link G0atmaster provided - it's ROE clarification.
Any other pieces of legislation people would like posted and explained to them because they're so busy drinking the conspiracy cow piss they can't do it themselves, or can we call it a day? :mad:
yea but rocket science is easy, law is hard.
-
Guys Guys Guys
MP-Ryan read the bill
HE IS ONE OF THEM
-
Guys Guys Guys
MP-Ryan read the bill
HE IS ONE OF THEM
While you made me laugh, the last thing these guys need is encouragement, you!
-
Hey, now that you posted the text, we technically have all read it, thus making us all part of THEM.
-
They'll have to turn in their tin foil hats on their way into the Evil Conspirators Conference Room. They interfere with the world domination hologram, and we can't have that.
-
There are still two things that are problematic, here... mostly due to ambiguous phrasing.
Warning: yes, I am talking about semantics. The semantics are important here; a law should be phrased in a manner that leaves no such ambiguity...
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.
That "or" means a person doesn't have to have any involvement with al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
And then, is it
any person who has committed a belligerent act in aid of such enemy forces, or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces
or is it
any person who has committed a belligerent act, or any person who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
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.
Here, is it
United States citizens who are captured or arrested in the United States, lawful resident aliens of the United States who are captured or arrested in the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States
or is it
United States citizens (captured anywhere), lawful resident aliens of the United States (captured anywhere), or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States
-
In addition to that, Mp-Ryan where is "a beligerent act" defined? That could bee for peaceful protests. For speaking out against political corruption, for voicing your opinion, or doing any of a hundred ambiguous behaviors they find undesirable.
I have read the bill. It's still grotesque.
Furthermore, if it really is so benign, why was it drawn up in a secret committee behind closed doors? Why was it rushed through the deliberation phase? And why, oh why, is no mainstream news source within the U.S. talking about it, while everyone else is buzzing about it like crazy?
-
yes, but not nearly to the extent it's being made out to be. at least in writing. of course we know lawyers and the courts basically interpret things however they ****ing want to.
-
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).
There are no semantics here. Legal drafting follows established rules which ensure their meaning is read the same way regardless of the piece of legislation.
In the case of 1021(b)(2), it means any person who was part of, supported, committed a belligerent act to support, or directly supported by aid or otherwise, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated enemy forces. This limits the scope in such a way that a direct link has to be established to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or an associated organization - your interpretation that it is not limited is incorrect.
1021(e) works in conjunction with (d), and should be read exactly as written: US citizen detention is not affected, lawful resident of the US detention is not affected, and detention of those captured/arrested on US soil that do not fall into those categories is also not affected.
-
In addition to that, Mp-Ryan where is "a beligerent act" defined? That could bee for peaceful protests. For speaking out against political corruption, for voicing your opinion, or doing any of a hundred ambiguous behaviors they find undesirable.
Nope. Belligerent act will either be defined in the definitions section of the bill (EDIT: just checked, this is a pared down definitions with only 3 entries, so there is definitely another piece of overarching legislation), or it will be derived from another piece of legislation that sets out definitions. As the NDAA is a yearly authorization bill, it is a derivative work, and will definitely rely on other pieces of legislation that remain permanently in force. Not being an American and not fully versed in the structure of US legislation, I don't know offhand what that piece would be or precisely where the definition is found, but rest assured it is defined somewhere. If that somewhere isn't a piece of federal legislation, it may be case law, or it may even rely on the common usage principle - in which case all you need is whatever reference dictionary US federal law uses (in Canada, it's the Oxford English dictionary, but I don't know about the States). Regardless - the administration doesn't get to change the definition at their whim. You should also note that the correct understanding of the bill's phrasing is "belligerent act in aid of such enemy forces," with the forces being previously defined as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. It's actually a fairly specific usage that can't be broadly applied, conspiracy-theorist nonsense notwithstanding.
I have read the bill. It's still grotesque.
Well, you haven't provided anything factual that would make anyone else arrive at that conclusion, but you are entitled to your opinion, baseless as it appears to be.
Furthermore, if it really is so benign, why was it drawn up in a secret committee behind closed doors? Why was it rushed through the deliberation phase? And why, oh why, is no mainstream news source within the U.S. talking about it, while everyone else is buzzing about it like crazy?
Because it's a routine defence spending authorization bill? I don't know the peculiarities of US spending authorizations, but they don't seem like riveting material that deserves national attention. Stuff like this brings the conspiracy nuts out of the woodwork, but the majority of the time they read a few things out of context and then proceed to flip out over nothing. Happens in Canada all the time too.
Feel free to post the sections that are "grotesque" and perhaps we can clear up the interpretation and lack of legal understanding issues that a lot of people in this thread are demonstrating.
-
i find it rather grotesque. not so much for the content of the bill but for how the whole process worked. first, this has nothing to do with spending. it should therefore not be in a spending bill. this is one of the biggest things i honestly can't believe we let congress get away with. if for some godawful reason i ever find myself in congress, the first thing i will do is propose a constitutional amendment that forbids such practice, and not rest until it passes. second, i FIRMLY believe that if the government does not NEED a law to do their job, then it should not make one. this is one of those cases. creating some legislation and then defending it by saying, "oh, but we won't use it like that" is utterly assanine. phrases like "this shall not be construed to affect...." set off more warning lights. if it isn't intended to change things, why the **** are we even creating it? see point #2. if we just didn't have this clause in the first place, any chance of it being abused, however unlikely, is eliminated.
-
In addition to that, Mp-Ryan where is "a beligerent act" defined? That could bee for peaceful protests. For speaking out against political corruption, for voicing your opinion, or doing any of a hundred ambiguous behaviors they find undesirable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belligerent
The legal/formal definition is specifically about acts of war. Protests do NOT fall under that category, nor do other "undesirable behaviors."
I have read the bill. It's still grotesque.
Furthermore, if it really is so benign, why was it drawn up in a secret committee behind closed doors? Why was it rushed through the deliberation phase? And why, oh why, is no mainstream news source within the U.S. talking about it, while everyone else is buzzing about it like crazy?
G0atmaster, you're about a month late. There was a lot more buzz on this earlier.
Did you even read the link I posted?
Does the NDAA expand the government’s detention authority?
Nope. Under current law, the Obama administration claims the authority to detain:
persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces 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 hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.
If that link (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/) wasn't clear enough, here's some more in-depth analysis by the same people (who actually know what they're talking about and aren't trying to spin anything): Part 1 (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-laws-of-war-part-i/) Part 2 (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-laws-of-war-part-ii/)
If you could take off the tinfoil for just five minutes and actually learn some facts about how things currently work, you might find less reason to panic. The bill is certainly problematic for a number of reasons, but it isn't the constitution-shredding monstrosity you and thousands of ignorant bloggers have made it out to be. It formally sets rules and limits on powers that the government has been claiming to have for years. IMO it's bad that the government is claiming these powers, but it's good to formally define them (so they are limited and can be more effectively challenged).
-
It seems MP-Ryan failed to understand it (or he understood, but failed to give any such indication)...
So I'll do it again, this time without adding any words; only parentheses to indicate order of parse. This is not something that I'm imagining: there are two ways to read these sentences.
(any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities) in aid of such enemy forces.
any person who has committed a belligerent act or (has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces).
(United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons) who are captured or arrested in the United States.
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or (any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States).
-
He didn't fail to understand anything, except perhaps what the blazes you're talking about. He speaks legalese as part of his job, so if he doesn't see a problem with it, I'm more inclined to think you're seeing ghosts than actual threats.
-
:rolleyes:
/me points at post #46.
-
@watsisname: You read the post I was responding to, and you recognized its relevance. Have a cookie!
@Scotty: consider the following phrase:
"men and women with tall hats"
Does "with tall hats" apply to the men, or just the women? In English, there is ambiguity. If you mean to say that in legalese, that phrase would always be interpreted as "men and women, both with tall hats", then fine.
But MP-Ryan has not been so consistent:
According to MP-Ryan, in 1021(b)(2) the phrase "in aid of such enemy forces" applied to the whole of "any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities"
And yet in 1021(e) the phrase "who are captured or arrested in the United States" somehow only applies to "any other persons", rather than the whole list "United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons" :confused:
-
There is also the question if the ambiguity in the wording is deliberate or simply the result of gross incompetence.... in todays world either is just as likely :P LOL.
-
It seems MP-Ryan failed to understand it (or he understood, but failed to give any such indication)...
So I'll do it again, this time without adding any words; only parentheses to indicate order of parse. This is not something that I'm imagining: there are two ways to read these sentences.
(any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities) in aid of such enemy forces.
any person who has committed a belligerent act or (has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces).
(United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons) who are captured or arrested in the United States.
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or (any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States).
the first ones. in normal, conversational english, that's how you would parse those statements. to get to the second one, you'd have to be deliberately mis-interpreting. and it just so happens the first parsings are the ones that make sense in the context of the bill.
-
According to MP-Ryan, in 1021(b)(2) the phrase "in aid of such enemy forces" applied to the whole of "any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities"
And yet in 1021(e) the phrase "who are captured or arrested in the United States" somehow only applies to "any other persons", rather than the whole list "United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons" :confused:
Commas are important.
(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.
Let me break it down for you. Here is the way the clauses operate:
A person who was 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.
The first set of brackets encompasses the entire definition of enemy forces. The second set surrounds the entire set of circumstances included aside from those previously stated. The absence of a comma following "act" means it operates as a single clause; were the "or" preceded by a comma, it would be a separate clause.
(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.
Clauses here are defined by the comma placement, thus there are three categories in operation. {United States citizens}, {lawful resident aliens of the United States}, and {any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States}.
The rules are quite consistent. You just have to pay attention to them. And these aren't legal rules, these are the rules of the English language, which I'll grant you are becoming a bit of a lost art themselves. Congress, rest assured, writes their bills in English, not "American." Considering the number of people who can't even distinguish between "then" and "than" in written form, I'm not really surprised this has become a point of confusion.
-
i find it rather grotesque. not so much for the content of the bill but for how the whole process worked. first, this has nothing to do with spending. it should therefore not be in a spending bill. this is one of the biggest things i honestly can't believe we let congress get away with. if for some godawful reason i ever find myself in congress, the first thing i will do is propose a constitutional amendment that forbids such practice, and not rest until it passes. second, i FIRMLY believe that if the government does not NEED a law to do their job, then it should not make one. this is one of those cases. creating some legislation and then defending it by saying, "oh, but we won't use it like that" is utterly assanine. phrases like "this shall not be construed to affect...." set off more warning lights. if it isn't intended to change things, why the **** are we even creating it? see point #2. if we just didn't have this clause in the first place, any chance of it being abused, however unlikely, is eliminated.
All legitimate points. None of that, however, suggests this is the constitution-killing debacle that the hysterics are going on and on about.
-
Very well, you have explained the perceived inconsistency. :)
But you have not explained how 1021(e) couldn't mean this:
{{United States citizens}, {lawful resident aliens of the United States}, or {any other persons}} who are captured or arrested in the United States.
And, in response to...
to get to the second one, you'd have to be deliberately mis-interpreting. and it just so happens the first parsings are the ones that make sense in the context of the bill.
I say...
If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way.
Besides, these are politicians we're talking about. Deliberately mis-interpreting is what they do best.
-
Very well, you have explained the perceived inconsistency. :)
But you have not explained how 1021(e) couldn't mean this:
{{United States citizens}, {lawful resident aliens of the United States}, or {any other persons}} who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Yes, I have. The clauses are separated by commas and a final "or" (which could just as easily be an "and"). This means they are a list, where each listed item is self-contained. If they had wanted it to say what you keep saying it says, they would have written it like this:
(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, when captured or arrested in the United States.
By the rules of the English language, in the original text the phrase who are captured or arrested in the United States describes only the object immediately preceding it - any other persons.
EDIT: This is basic high school grammar.
EDIT2: ...and you accuse politicians of willful misinterpretation. Yeesh.
-
You don't understand. this law suspends habeas corpus, the right to an attourney, and the right to a trial. This means, you will never see a courtroom, you will never be able to appeal, you will never have a hope of making it to the supreme court. You will be kept in a windowless cell, completely incommunicado, indefinitely.
Just to prove that this isn't FUD, here are some of my resources:
The wikipedia article on the bill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
The text of the bill itself:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540
The "Live-Fire zone" amendment:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=112&amdt=h318
Ron Paul's proposed bill that will repeal the Indefinite Detention of Citizens clause:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1941%3Astatement-introducing-repeal-of-sec-1021-of-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2012&catid=16%3Aspeeches&Itemid=1
News article about the above:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10608-ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-repeal-ndaas-indefinite-detention
Video by MSNBC in 2009 detailing the fact that Obama has been planning this from the beginning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mPZlysCAm0
A writeup by Jonathan Turley detailing what the government can and has already done:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120117/OPINION16/120116032/Jonathan-Turley-10-reasons-we-re-not-free?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp
Now this one is really interesting. It's about the EEA, or the Enemy Expatriate act, which states that if you support terrorists, even to the degree where you simply speak out against the government, you may have your U.S. Citizenship stripped. It's on the books now:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/317977
And don't forget about ACTA and HR1981, the former of which is a stiff, worldwide internet censorship proposal, and the latter of which will require ISPs to snoop on their customers, and log personally identifiable data connected to browsing and web-surfing habits.
Put these all together with SOPA, and you have a fully-formed system of monitoring what people are saying and doing and thinking, censoring undesirable communication and thought, and punishing people for undesirable behavior, whether it's truly a crime, or simply vocal opposition.
Bottom line: This is the foundation of totalitarianism. This is grotesque. What the American government is doing is incredibly unamerican, and unconstitutional.
I have one question. Isn't China's "communist" government actually a complete departure from the very foundations of communism and actually is a totalitarian government?
I wonder, what caused American government to suddenly try to make America a totalitarian country?
They managed to violate half of the constitutional amendments with just 3 bills. This is ridiculous. I'd have expected this from Polish government, but American? Come on.
Wait, what'd I miss? Is there some inside joke about the polish government? I believe someone had to explain polish mail or something to me, so what's this all about?
Guys Guys Guys
MP-Ryan read the bill
HE IS ONE OF THEM
Holy ****! Let's lynch 'im!
Besides, these are politicians we're talking about. Deliberately mis-interpreting is what they do best.
+++yes_points
-
I have one question. Isn't China's "communist" government actually a complete departure from the very foundations of communism and actually is a totalitarian government?
Correct.
-
Then why does Wikipedia and all textbooks I have ever seen continue to refer to their government as "communist"?
Is it because if we came out and said that China is totalitarian, a lot of people would be very angry and/or outraged because our country is supporting such a government?
-
Then why does Wikipedia and all textbooks I have ever seen continue to refer to their government as "communist"?
Is it because if we came out and said that China is totalitarian, a lot of people would be very angry and/or outraged because our country is supporting such a government?
No, it's because (1) China refers to itself as a Communist state run by a Communist Party, and (2) the American education system portrays Communism as an evil, ineffective form of government as a result of the legacy of the Cold War, and it is therefore useful to continue using the term when dealing with nations that the US does not consider political allies. But mostly (1).
The Western world widely regards and frequently condemns China as a totalitarian state. That term only describes the result of a system of governance though, and isn't used to describe the system itself. China is better considered a capitalist-communist hybrid economy with a single-party unelected governance structure supported by a police state.
-
And, in response to...
to get to the second one, you'd have to be deliberately mis-interpreting. and it just so happens the first parsings are the ones that make sense in the context of the bill.
I say...
If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way.
Besides, these are politicians we're talking about. Deliberately mis-interpreting is what they do best.
agreed. which brings me back to
second, i FIRMLY believe that if the government does not NEED a law to do their job, then it should not make one. this is one of those cases. creating some legislation and then defending it by saying, "oh, but we won't use it like that" is utterly assanine. phrases like "this shall not be construed to affect...." set off more warning lights. if it isn't intended to change things, why the **** are we even creating it? see point #2. if we just didn't have this clause in the first place, any chance of it being abused, however unlikely, is eliminated.
-
The silence from the Tinfoil Hat Brigade today is absolutely deafening. Does this mean we're all done with this "the sky is falling" nonsense, or are you re-grouping for another round?
-
there's really no need to be an ass and try to provoke further argument.
-
The silence from the Tinfoil Hat Brigade today is absolutely deafening. Does this mean we're all done with this "the sky is falling" nonsense, or are you re-grouping for another round?
the sky does not simply fall by itself, we have to make it fall. it will be a glorious end.
-
there's really no need to be an ass and try to provoke further argument.
Provocation? Not my goal. The polite explanatory version of me disappears when people make outlandish claims, continue to make outlandish claims despite having reality explained to them, and then go completely silent once the error of their ways is explained again, at length, in yet another round.
It takes 30 seconds or less to type "Oh, sorry, my interpretation appears to have been wrong, thanks for clearing that up" as opposed to simply disappearing off into the shadows until The Tinfoil Hat Brigade Rides Again.
Debate 101: When you make an argument, back it up with evidence. If you have no evidence, or the other side shows better different evidence, acknowledge that you may have been incorrect and strive to do better next time. There is nothing that annoys me more in debate than people who post conspiracy bull**** and then flee at the slightest sign that the discussion may not be going in the direction they hoped. It's cowardly, it's obnoxious, and it makes you (*not you, Klaus, but "you" in the generic sense) look like an idiot.
-
Agreed, post **** and run tactics are very annoying. It happens without fail anytime a 'debate' on evolution comes up.
-
Evolution mentioned. /thread
-
Back on topic here... forgive me for posting from a source that contains such obvious agendas... but getting past all that, I think this article has some good info. MP-Ryan, care to comment on this guy's handling of the English Language in reviewing this bill?
http://www.mathaba.net/go/?http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
-
Back on topic here... forgive me for posting from a source that contains such obvious agendas... but getting past all that, I think this article has some good info. MP-Ryan, care to comment on this guy's handling of the English Language in reviewing this bill?
http://www.mathaba.net/go/?http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
Sure!
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:
Wrong! Actually, a legal interpretation of the section says that it places no limits and simultaneously does not expand the powers of the President. What does that mean? It means precisely that the President has not gained or lost any legal powers from s.1021 of the NDAA - in other words, the section exists solely to clarify powers which already exist. That means that anything in s.1021 has to actually be authorized somewhere else.
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."
The author makes this sound a lot more nefarious than it is. (e) is just more of (d), really - clarification that s.1021 does not change anything from the status quo before it was enacted.
So, to wrap up on the s.1021 of the NDAA aspect - it has no new implications that did not exist before it came into being, it's sole purpose is to set out definitions. s.1021 of the NDAA is not unconstitutional and does not suspend habeas corpus, etc - which is what the thread started off about.
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. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...)
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.
Wrong again. Presidential powers must be supported in law. Without going into the specifics of the Patriot Act (which I am not intimately familiar with), let's just say that the author is taking a very loose interpretation of what the existing authorities are. And let's not forget - those are problems with the Patriot Act (a shoddy, rushed, ill-considered piece of legislation signed into law by George W., not Obama) and NOT the NDAA. That's a whole other discussion entirely.
And here's the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested, detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama:
• Criticizing the federal government.
• Using cash to purchase things.
• Storing food and medical supplies.
• Owning a firearm and storing ammunition.
• Standing still and minding your own business near a government building.
• Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building.
• Using a pair of binoculars.
• Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab.
• Protesting your government (or Wall Street).
• Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash.
None of this, or any of the rest of the article, is sourced to legislation. Without references, I'd treat it as what it appears to be - ill-informed, inflated trash. Actually, I'd treat the whole article that way - the only legal reference in the whole damn thing is to two subsections of the NDAA which actually point out that the NDAA has no effect on the legal situation of US citizens, US residents, or other persons captured/arrested in the US.
So the article really doesn't have much in the way of good information, other than an allusion that restrictive powers may be found in the Patriot Act.
-
Agreed, post **** and run tactics are very annoying. It happens without fail anytime a 'debate' on evolution comes up.
i don't see it as running. i see it as
-point made
-counter-point made
-brief discussion
-all ambiguities cleared, questions answered, no further points to argue or thoughts to input
-discussion ends
i don't see anything wrong with that. on the internet, that's a goddamn miracle. i have to be honest, and this is nothing personal, but MP's post looked a lot like calling out the "tin-foil hat brigade" to say something else to be ridiculed for, and sounded like a "come at me bro" to me.
now i feel like i should add a disclaimer to my post that this completes my thoughts on this matter and as such i will not post related to it again if i have nothing new to say.
-
Then why does Wikipedia and all textbooks I have ever seen continue to refer to their government as "communist"?
In about 10-20 years a cynic might say, for the same reason that the US is still listed as "democratic"? ;)