Sobering analysis of the NDAA

[CuteOldGuy]

The 13 Senators that voted Nay on this year’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with 86 voting Yea:
Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)One was apparently too busy to vote: Moran (R-KS)


Yup. Lots of tinfoil hats in that bunch.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hmmm . . . You people are as stupid as I thought you were. How sad for America that you exist. There was a time when people cared about freedom, now it's "as long as I get mine" it doesn't matter what else happens. Unfortunately, they will not stop at me, they will come for you as well. I guess you didn't bother to read the column I posted, which was written by a liberal.

Do you really approve of the NDAA? That amazes me. Franklin was right, when we trade liberty for security, we will soon have neither. The terrorists have won.

didn't say I approved of this ,but you are the only one who has his panties in a bunch.If they passed it there isn't much we can do but write,call and email our rep's and express displeasure with this.

[CuteOldGuy]

Amnesty International opposes the NDAA

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press...-withdrawal-sa

As does the Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...ators-voted-NO

Even Anonymous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I68RgeYYrw4

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by ekim008

didn't say I approved of this ,but you are the only one who has his panties in a bunch.If they passed it there isn't much we can do but write,call and email our rep's and express displeasure with this.

I'm doing that, and will not vote for anyone who supports this outrage.

[CuteOldGuy]

C'mon, Whirlygirl, what does it say?

How about this?

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/...ve-war-on.html

[CuteOldGuy]

What does the guy doing this video get wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7IvL...ature=youtu.be

[CuteOldGuy]

Seriously? No one thinks this is a problem? I'd be interested in knowing why we shouldn't be concerned about this.

[CynicalSapien]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, read the damn thing yourself. What do YOU think it says? Look at Sections 1031 and 1032.

The fact you see the NDAA as unbelievably frightening suggests you and I may have something in common, it's apathy and complacency that allow this sort of shitting on the constitution to exist.

[CuteOldGuy]

Whirly, weren't you going to read Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA and tell me where I'm wrong? C'mon, I'm waiting.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Whirly, weren't you going to read Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA and tell me where I'm wrong? C'mon, I'm waiting.

COG, I trusted you on this, but decided to read it for myself - after reading most of the hyperlinks you provided - there is some questionable doublespeak (meaning innocents might be ensnared), but it explicitly says it does not apply to U.S. citizens.

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

See page 362 @

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf

[CuteOldGuy]

You're reading that wrong, IB. That ONLY applies to the requirement sub-section. It turns the "Shall" into "may". The government will not be REQUIRED to hold a citizen who is designated an enemy combatant, but still MAY hold them. Again, there is NO JUDICIAL REVIEW. So essentially, it means whatever the military and President wants it to mean.

[dilbert firestorm]

another opinion on this matter
http://www.thenation.com/article/165...rd-obamas-desk

there is another article that says the outrage on NDAA is over blown, but I can't find it.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

COG, I trusted you on this, but decided to read it for myself - after reading most of the hyperlinks you provided - there is some questionable doublespeak (meaning innocents might be ensnared), but it explicitly says it does not apply to U.S. citizens.

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

See page 362 @

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf

that's section 1032.

section 1031 is the one that has people up in burrs.

[dilbert firestorm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

according to Carl Levin, it was the Obama administration that requested the removal of the language that U.S. Citizens is not subject to section 1031. (imprisonment without trial apply to citizens)

“[T]he language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the Administration asked us to remove the language, which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section”

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

another opinion on this matter
http://www.thenation.com/article/165...rd-obamas-desk

there is another article that says the outrage on NDAA is over blown, but I can't find it.

This is one:
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011...-u-s-citizens/