• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

TNAR said:
Your logic is still flawed. Let me walk you through this step-by-step.
Click to expand...
Please, no. You are walking in circles... I'll just stand here and watch as you pass by.... repeatedly :2razz:

TNAR said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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 ;)
 
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?
 
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...
Link these experts.

Paschendale said:
Statements by congress members confirm this.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Paschendale said:
The president's statements confirm this.
Click to expand...
Only to the lower wattage bulbs.

Paschendale said:
Why is ANYONE attempting to argue otherwise?
Click to expand...
Those bulbs have sufficient wattage to read (as well as reason).
 
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.
 
Karl said:
All versions of the bill allow anything and everything that they do not specifically prohibit (according to arguments here, including yours).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, the bill appears to have passed. Will Obama, who's never made civil rights a huge cornerstone of his presidency, veto it?
Click to expand...

It is very likely he will not even read it, but yes, he will sign it.
 
Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is 3 words
 
misterman said:
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.”
Click to expand...

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.
 
700. National Defense Authorization Act (1/2/2012)

The Gift of New Year 2012 President Obama gives Americans is a new law that ripped their civil right – NDAA.
1. It is a stealth raid on people.

The Act was proposed in later November, quickly passed by the Senate and the House during the Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas season. It was signed by President on New Year’s Day Eve. It was a typical military style - a stealth attack on civil rights taking the advantage when people were relaxing their vigilance in holiday season.

2. So said mainstream media kept a tight mouth on this important issue. Blind the eyes of a lot of people.

3. Majority of law makers and the President passed the Act. It proves the “politicians” don't represent the voice of the people. It also proves the election system has been hijacked by the intelligence already. The so said representatives are not elected by the voters but selected by the rulers of this country.

4. Beware the Feds to turn the US into a “battle field” so they could eliminate the dissenters. It’s easy for them to do so – just plant a few provocateurs in Occupy Wall Street Movement.

5. War on Iran is their major goal. With great possibility, there will be false flag nuclear attacks on US cities to justify the Iran war. Most people realize the truth of the 911 attack. This law is created to deal with the people who won’t believe this government anymore when such “terror attack” happens again.
 
katsung47 said:
700. National Defense Authorization Act (1/2/2012)

The Gift of New Year 2012 President Obama gives Americans is a new law that ripped their civil right – NDAA.
1. It is a stealth raid on people.

The Act was proposed in later November, quickly passed by the Senate and the House during the Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas season. It was signed by President on New Year’s Day Eve. It was a typical military style - a stealth attack on civil rights taking the advantage when people were relaxing their vigilance in holiday season.

2. So said mainstream media kept a tight mouth on this important issue. Blind the eyes of a lot of people.

3. Majority of law makers and the President passed the Act. It proves the “politicians” don't represent the voice of the people. It also proves the election system has been hijacked by the intelligence already. The so said representatives are not elected by the voters but selected by the rulers of this country.

4. Beware the Feds to turn the US into a “battle field” so they could eliminate the dissenters. It’s easy for them to do so – just plant a few provocateurs in Occupy Wall Street Movement.

5. War on Iran is their major goal. With great possibility, there will be false flag nuclear attacks on US cities to justify the Iran war. Most people realize the truth of the 911 attack. This law is created to deal with the people who won’t believe this government anymore when such “terror attack” happens again.
Click to expand...

I'll take #4 for double jeapordy.
Who would that benifit?
What class are the Occupy Wall Street protestors targeting?:peace
 
jasonxe said:
Ron Paul Introduces Legislation To Repeal Sec-1021 of NDAA - YouTube

Statement Introducing Repeal of Sec. 1021 of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Bill will probably be up tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I am seriously considering Ron Paul as a likely candidate for my vote__I believe he suspects Sec-1021 has little if anything to do with terrorism.

The US Government seems to have developed a fear of the people and appears to be seeking a doomsday insurance policy for some future event.
 
Empirica said:
I am seriously considering Ron Paul as a likely candidate for my vote__I believe he suspects Sec-1021 has little if anything to do with terrorism.

The US Government seems to have developed a fear of the people and appears to be seeking a doomsday insurance policy for some future event.
Click to expand...

Paul is one of a very small number of Constitutionally-minded people in DC.
 
Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act

17 January, 2012, 02:28
US President Barack Obama is the target of a suit filed by Pulitzer Prize-winner Hedges, and the reasoning seems more than obvious to him. The decision to take the commander-in-chief to court comes as a response to President Obama’s December 31 signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, a legislation that allows the US military to detain American citizens indefinitely at off-site torture prisons like Guantanamo Bay.

Obama amended the NDAA with a signing statement on New Year's Eve, insisting that while the Act does indeed give him the power to detain his own citizens indefinitely without charge, that doesn’t mean he will do so. Specifically, Obama wrote that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Under another piece of legislation, however, the government is being granted the right to suspend citizenship of any American if the Enemy Expatriation Act joins the ranks of the NDAA as an atrocious act approved by the president.

Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act — RT
 
katsung47 said:
Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act [...]
Click to expand...
Well it's about time... what is it now, three or four thousand Americans that have been indefinitely detained and tortured under that Act already?
 
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemoller
 
Cardinal said:
Well, the bill appears to have passed. Will Obama, who's never made civil rights a huge cornerstone of his presidency, veto it?
Click to expand...

Not a chance in hell.

Obama has never cared for the rights of Americans, all he wants is what is best for him and his.
 
Pointy said:
Not a chance in hell.

Obama has never cared for the rights of Americans, all he wants is what is best for him and his.
Click to expand...

Whoever on that seat will do same thing. They are all the puppets selected by rigged election.

Washington Republicans want to repeal NDAA
By The Stranger February 3, 2012

Reps. Jason Overstreet, Matt Shea, Vincent Buys, Cary Condotta and David Taylor, all Republicans, have introduced HB 2759, or the Washington State Preservation of Liberty Act. With the bill, the lawmakers aim to tackle the NDAA provisions that make American citizens on par with al-Qaeda terrorists in terms of making anyone in the US eligible for stay at the Guantanamo Bay military prison.

» Washington Republicans want to repeal NDAA Mutiny Radio
Click to expand...
 
Men of brave.

Quote, "NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote
Posted by Michael Boldin

Today, the Virginia Senate took a firm stand in support of liberty, the Constitution for the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia by voting in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.”

The final vote was 39-1.

After a motion to recommit (delay until next year) went down to the wire before being rejected yesterday (report here), groups across the political spectrum activated in support of the legislation, which codifies in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote – Tenth Amendment Center
 
katsung47 said:
Men of brave.

Quote, "NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote
Posted by Michael Boldin

Today, the Virginia Senate took a firm stand in support of liberty, the Constitution for the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia by voting in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.”

The final vote was 39-1.

After a motion to recommit (delay until next year) went down to the wire before being rejected yesterday (report here), groups across the political spectrum activated in support of the legislation, which codifies in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote – Tenth Amendment Center
Click to expand...

I'm actually really impressed. Normally Virginia is home to the most screwed up legislation in the country. Crazy that they actually seem to care about civil rights this time.
 
So, I haven't been keeping up -- someone tell me how many U.S. citizens have been swept up so far by the authorizations in this bill? :lamo
 
Karl said:
So, I haven't been keeping up -- someone tell me how many U.S. citizens have been swept up so far by the authorizations in this bill? :lamo
Click to expand...

Just because we don't know of any happening doesn't mean that it A: hasn't or B: won't be used some time in the future.

The person most likely to win a game of strategy is the one that can plan the most moves ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom