[watsisname]

It's all just a bunch of WIMPs and MACHOs, man, WIMPs and MACHOs

[deathfun]

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

[G0atmaster]

An informative video I just found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldlvtptj7Fc

[Sushi]

Pretty sure we've talked about this before.

Anyway, here is a reasonable, FUD-free discussion of the NDAA and what it actually means.

Please read before spreading further panic, FUD, and ignorance.

[MP-Ryan]

Pretty sure we've talked about this before.

Anyway, here is a reasonable, FUD-free discussion of the NDAA and what it actually means.

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

[G0atmaster]

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.

[BrotherBryon]

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.

[JCDNWarrior]

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.

[G0atmaster]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[Drogoth]

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.

[Aardwolf]

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.

[Nuke]

where do i sign up for my jackboots?

[JCDNWarrior]

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.

[Aardwolf]

Hm... what would happen when you filed a missing person report? What would happen if/when the police arrest the spooks for kidnapping?

[cloneof]

Well I'm not specifically surprised. These things tend to happen under the incentives of a democratic system.

But truly frightening nevertheless!

[Mikes]

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?

[MP-Ryan]

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? 

[Nuke]

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? 

yea but rocket science is easy, law is hard.

[The E]

Guys Guys Guys

MP-Ryan read the bill

HE IS ONE OF THEM