Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 129

Thread: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

  1. #101
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    Your logic is still flawed. Let me walk you through this step-by-step.
    Please, no. You are walking in circles... I'll just stand here and watch as you pass by.... repeatedly

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    As I pointed out in post #29, the early version of the bill allowed the indefinite detention of certain defined persons. (Notice they do not all the indefinite confiscation of chocolate ice cream cone, thus blowing your ridiculous attempt at trivializing this debate out of the water.)
    All versions of the bill allow anything and everything that they do not specifically prohibit (according to arguments here, including yours). The allow the indefinite confiscation of chocolate ice cream. The also allow humans to marry their domestic pets. They allow cats and dogs to adopt human children. You see, none of these things are specifically prohibited by any version of the bill, including versions that were never written (and that point is very important).

    Of course, we are missing one important piece of evidence that would prove my logic beyond any doubt: If, in his signing statement, President Obama had said that his administration would not permit cats and dogs to adopt human children, then that would have been slam-dunk proof that the bill did allow such adoption. However, in his defense, and in defense of my adaptation of your logic, there are a limited number of things that the bill does not specifically prohibit that he could list in his signing statement.

    Ergo, a lack of his denial that he will do something is not proof that it isn't allowed in the bill (I think that's a triple negative... can I get a ruling on that please?).

    But I do think it's really cute how you cut and pasted from sections 1034 and 1022 of the bill in order to prove something you claim is in section 1021 of the bill. That's almost as good as claiming that an earlier version of the bill is the same as a later version of the bill (or at least justification for a claim about something that didn't previously exist, as far as you know, which is really not far at all).

    I leave you with the immortal words of John Kerry: "I was for the bill before I was against it". I suggest the purveyors of your argument adopt that as their motto

  2. #102
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    Why are we arguing about how the law is interpreted when every expert agrees that it allows the military to lock up citizens without due process? Statements by congress members confirm this. The president's statements confirm this. Why is ANYONE attempting to argue otherwise?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Why are we arguing about how the law is interpreted when every expert agrees that it allows the military to lock up citizens without due process?
    Link these experts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Statements by congress members confirm this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    The president's statements confirm this.
    Only to the lower wattage bulbs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Why is ANYONE attempting to argue otherwise?
    Those bulbs have sufficient wattage to read (as well as reason).

  4. #104
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    From the NDAA of 2012 as passed (I'm going to leave the earlier drafts, both those real and imagined, alone for this post):


    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.

    (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.

    What does this mean? It means that nothing in Section 1021 changes anything with regards to the detention of U.S. citizens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the U.S.
    If said detention was allowed before, then nothing is changed.
    If said detention was prohibited before, then nothing has changed.
    The important thing to remember is nothing has changed. If you have a beef about what was before, then this bill is not the place to direct that beef.


    SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

    (b)(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

    What does this mean? It means that Section 1022 does not apply to citizens of the U.S. Clearly. Period. End of story. End of line
    If one wants to play the "well it doesn't say they can't if they don't want to" game, please go to the conspiracy forum. Or the brain transplant bank. Whichever is closer. Or more likely to be successful.

    The amount of tin foil hattery on this subject, from both the left and the right, is simply mind boggling.

    From Obama's signing statement: Section 1021 [...] breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. [...] under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...]

    Why did he include that last sentence? Because of all the mad tin foil hattery out there, which is a national embarrassment. Insane tin foil hattery that claims "Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad", or "Act to Allow Detention of Citizens", or that "The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts". Two words, people: Get a grip.

  5. #105
    Revolutionary
    TNAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,018
    Blog Entries
    17

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl
    All versions of the bill allow anything and everything that they do not specifically prohibit (according to arguments here, including yours).
    If this is the case then our government is an omnipotent tyranny from the first bill they passed and every other bill has been redundant. I know and you know this is not the case which is why you continue at your ridiculous attempts to trivialize this issue which you apparently do not comprehend. At the risk of confusing you yet again, I will show you where the prior versions of the NDAA explicitly allowed the indefinite detention of anyone on the face of the earth regardless of their citizenship status.

    The first version of the NDAA was submitted to the Senate as bill S.1253 on 6/22/11. The section pertaining to detainees in this version was 1031 which reads in part as follows:

    (a) In General- The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities...
    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person...
    (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) Long-term detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities against the nations, organizations, and persons subject to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    This was changed due to concern from many organizations and citizens until we get the version which I earlier quoted and you felt the need to quote a second time. Bringing up dogs and cats and ice cream does nothing besides displaying your incomprehension of what was at issue in this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl
    The important thing to remember is nothing has changed. If you have a beef about what was before, then this bill is not the place to direct that beef.
    The important thing to remember is that the journey one takes to get to the destination reveals much more than the end result. Once you stop looking at the end result and look at the journey you will see what the ballyhoo is about.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    09-14-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    879

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    First they massacred Branch Davidians in Waco Siege,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Davidian.

    Then they created OKC bombing, tried to get a Patriot act,
    and I didn't speak out because I didn't want to offend the Feds.

    Then they created 911 attack to get the Patriot Act and war,
    and I didn't speak out because I am not a muslim.

    Now they come for US citizens with military Authorization Act,
    and I didn't speak out because I am not a terrorist.

    Then when they prison you as a terrorist,
    and there is no law to protect you because you have given up all your civil rights already.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-22-12 @ 12:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    101

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Well, the bill appears to have passed. Will Obama, who's never made civil rights a huge cornerstone of his presidency, veto it?
    It is very likely he will not even read it, but yes, he will sign it.

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-22-12 @ 12:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    101

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    From the NDAA of 2012 as passed (I'm going to leave the earlier drafts, both those real and imagined, alone for this post):


    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.

    (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.

    What does this mean? It means that nothing in Section 1021 changes anything with regards to the detention of U.S. citizens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the U.S.
    If said detention was allowed before, then nothing is changed.
    If said detention was prohibited before, then nothing has changed.
    The important thing to remember is nothing has changed. If you have a beef about what was before, then this bill is not the place to direct that beef.


    SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

    (b)(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

    What does this mean? It means that Section 1022 does not apply to citizens of the U.S. Clearly. Period. End of story. End of line
    If one wants to play the "well it doesn't say they can't if they don't want to" game, please go to the conspiracy forum. Or the brain transplant bank. Whichever is closer. Or more likely to be successful.

    The amount of tin foil hattery on this subject, from both the left and the right, is simply mind boggling.

    From Obama's signing statement: Section 1021 [...] breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. [...] under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...]

    Why did he include that last sentence? Because of all the mad tin foil hattery out there, which is a national embarrassment. Insane tin foil hattery that claims "Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad", or "Act to Allow Detention of Citizens", or that "The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts". Two words, people: Get a grip.
    That is 3 words

  9. #109
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Please explain exactly why this is wrong. I hope it's wrong. But you haven't shown that it's wrong yet:

    “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.”
    It's frightening. Fema prison camps are also a reality. Most people probably believe they don't exist. I'll be one of those people they'll just have to shoot and kill.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  10. #110
    I support ██ ███
    jasonxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,405

    Re: Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

    Last edited by jasonxe; 01-18-12 at 05:19 PM.



Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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