National Defense Authorization Act

[dc1971]

Exaggerated by axe-grinders.

What's exaggerated? What the sam-hill are you talking about?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Call me weird, but I prefer that anyone still have the protection of the 6th amendment and be permitted a speedy trial.

Not weird, but it separates you from your political establishment. What's weird is that those are the freedoms "they" hate "us" for, aren't they? Maybe the line of thought is that the "hostilities" will end when those freedoms are gone?

Some of those hostilities can last for years ...

Quite the understatement. See Myth #2:

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

[...] Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable. [...]

 

[crimresearch]

I was reading some griping about this and that on other forums about the NDAA; mostly claims about throwing Americans in prison indefinitely when they are suspected of terrorism. I read about the 2012 version of the bill here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act

I read the latest version (I think) of the bill here; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540pp/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540pp.pdf



The law appears to be most affecting non-residents of the USA. What say you guys?

Ranb

A few things

The law doesn't restrict its use to those *proven* to have committed those actions, as with any statute it is applied on the basis of accusations.

If there is no trial, or no trial for several years, or a classified tribunal, the chances to defend oneself against such accusations seem slim to none.

The difference between 'requiring' indefinite military detention with no recourse and 'allowing' it, is probably moot for those being so detained.

The 'end of hostilities' means whatever those doing the detaining want it to mean.


So, the only way this could be carte blanche to 'disappearing' people in the US would be if we had corrupt and power hungry politicians and bureaucrats in charge... so no problem, right?

 

[Juniversal]

So, the only way this could be carte blanche to 'disappearing' people in the US would be if we had corrupt and power hungry politicians and bureaucrats in charge... so no problem, right?

But why the ambiguity? Why can't it be more clear?

I think it's obvious that they're trying to keep it open to interpretation so it can be applicable to pretty much anyone they want to silence.

Not to be a shill but I honestly believe their intentions are to contain individuals that they feel would aid or contribute to violence against the United States (i.e. terrorist). I don't think they just want the ability to contain any random person, "just because". Regardless it is a dumb provision, asking to be abused.


I see absolutely no problem with the current precedent of giving one a speedy trial. I understand the logic of not allowing someone to walk freely that could pose a considerable threat (even if they're from this country) but our constitution doesn't allow for that in addition to the provision dancing around the border of immorality.


It's the Minority Report idea of stopping a crime before it happens. A trial wont necessarily net the desired result of the suspect being detained, which means said person could commence with their "evil deed" and it would shine negatively on the competency of our national security system. The U.S. gov't (and U.S. business for that matter) have an intense fear of liability (See: Tort and tort reform) so they over regulate as to get rid of any loop holes "the terrorist" can exploit. They literally want to stop the crime before it happens. This is an example of them being far too aggressive in their legislating to avoid liability.

 

[Beerina]

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/



Call me weird, but I prefer that anyone still have the protection of the 6th amendment and be permitted a speedy trial. Some of those hostilities can last for years, too late for a speedy trial in my opinion.

Ranb

The problem is that the "end of hostilities" is not clear. When Japan and Germany were defeated, that was that. When North and South Korea were split, that was that.

With entrenched combatants hiding among other people, who have demonstrated their willingness to start things up again as soon as the heat is off, what is the end?

When people who are released make a beeline to get right back into it, what sense is that?


I'm not trying to defend the current state, but there needs to be a solution besides a revolving door.

 

[gnome]

I'm willing to entertain solutions that have clear standards as to when someone can be treated as an "enemy combatant". I realize there are some people we capture that we don't have a good criminal case against, but also are too dangerous to let go right away. I would want something that prevents them from according that status on demand to any individual they choose. That's too much power, especially if it involves US citizens.

 

[theprestige]

I'm willing to entertain solutions that have clear standards as to when someone can be treated as an "enemy combatant". I realize there are some people we capture that we don't have a good criminal case against, but also are too dangerous to let go right away. I would want something that prevents them from according that status on demand to any individual they choose. That's too much power, especially if it involves US citizens.

I'm willing to entertain solutions, too. But I'm curious: How else do you propose to identify people in that gray area of "people we capture that we don't have a good criminal case against, but also are too dangerous to let go right away", except on a case-by-case, judgment-call basis?

 

[gnome]

There is no one-size-fits-all rule that can deterministically provide an outcome without judgment--my concern is that it comes to judgment in a manner that keeps US citizens that actually are not enemy combatants from being railroaded under the provision.

 

[Kahalachan]

No one person is so dangerous that we ought to change our judicial proceedings and sense of ethics to stop them.

 

[Tricky]

The problem is that the "end of hostilities" is not clear. When Japan and Germany were defeated, that was that. When North and South Korea were split, that was that.

With entrenched combatants hiding among other people, who have demonstrated their willingness to start things up again as soon as the heat is off, what is the end?

When people who are released make a beeline to get right back into it, what sense is that?


I'm not trying to defend the current state, but there needs to be a solution besides a revolving door.

How about implanting a GPS chip before releasing them?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Bottom line this was put in place to protect neocons, the media and essentially the establishment when the truth about 9/11 breaks and becomes irrefutable. The government will not concede the obvious and Americans who demand justice will be labeled terrorists.

 

[Virus]

Bottom line this was put in place to protect neocons, the media and essentially the establishment when the truth about 9/11 breaks and becomes irrefutable. The government will not concede the obvious and Americans who demand justice will be labeled terrorists.

Interesting. Tell us more.

 

[angrysoba]

The problem is that the "end of hostilities" is not clear. When Japan and Germany were defeated, that was that. When North and South Korea were split, that was that.

The first example may be true but the second example is way off.

North and South Korea were split de facto at the end of World War Two while the countries came into existence de jure in 1948 (though neither recognized the other), three years before the Korean War. An armistice was signed but never a full peace treaty hence, technically, North Korea and South Korea are still at war.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Interesting. Tell us more.

What else would get the American public so lathered up that the feds would consider them terrorists?


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_should_raise_eyebrows.html



http://campfema.com/

Recent legislation attempting to legitimize the use of internment camps to detain U.S. citizens in the event of an uprising or civil unrest has many people asking what nation they live in.

In a country born out of political dissent, we watch our leaders in Washington slowly pass bills that label ordinary Americans as thought criminals and potential domestic terrorists for simply questioning the actions of their government. We see third party candidates and their impassioned supporters listed in secret government reports that call their allegiance into question and brand them as fanatics and extremists.

Senate committee hearings and official FBI documents further illustrate the mindset of our elected officials as they classify homeschoolers, gun rights activists and anti-abortionists as threats against the existing social and political order; by default creating an entire nation of radicals and revolutionaries - where everyone is a suspect… equally guilty until proven otherwise.

 

[Juniversal]

What else would get the American public so lathered up that the feds would consider them terrorists?


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_should_raise_eyebrows.html



http://campfema.com/

Don't know what your link has to do with this bill but i'll bite. The actual term used is "National Responder Support Camp". Remember FEMA stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency. Their purpose is "disaster relief" in emergencies. It's not a military or police agency so they don't have the ability or discretion to intern or imprison anyone (I know in conspiracy land this is irrelevant). I see conspiracy types are still riding the FEMA camps wave. These are clearly camps that would be resurrected in the event of a national disaster ala. hurricane Katrina.


I did a quick google search and found
this. Nothing nefarious about it:

"Pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is authorized to provide individual and public assistance under Presidential declarations of a disaster and emergency. Under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, FEMA is responsible for developing an efficient logistics system for procurement and delivery of goods and services necessary for an effective and timely response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters."

Internment camps? Not so much.

 

[Juniversal]

Bottom line this was put in place to protect neocons, the media and essentially the establishment when the truth about 9/11 breaks and becomes irrefutable. The government will not concede the obvious and Americans who demand justice will be labeled terrorists.

Both sections 1021 and 1022 (the provisions everyone's concerned about) of the defense bill make it clear it's not applicable to United States citizens. Needless to say foreign terrorist don't fall under the jurisdiction of the constitution but the Geneva Convention.



From section 1021:

(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.

From section 1022:

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens

(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.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

 

[gnome]

Your point about section 1021 is worth examination, but the language you point out in section 1022 does not PREVENT applying it to American citizens, it merely gives more options if the person is an American citizen. The REQUIREMENT does not extend. The authority still does.

 

[NoahFence]

Bottom line this was put in place to protect neocons, the media and essentially the establishment when the truth about 9/11 breaks and becomes irrefutable. The government will not concede the obvious and Americans who demand justice will be labeled terrorists.

The truth about 9/11 has broken already, kiddo. Happened over 10 years ago. Try to keep up.

 

[NoahFence]

Don't know what your link has to do with this bill but i'll bite. The actual term used is "National Responder Support Camp". Remember FEMA stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency. Their purpose is "disaster relief" in emergencies.

~snip~



Internment camps? Not so much.

I've often wondered about that. Why FEMA? Why no NASA Camps? ATF Camps? FEMA is pretty much the last organization that would inter prisoners. They help after disasters.

Another MASSIVE fail for Conspiritards. Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 Twoofies, FEMA Failures...

Why can't they find a REAL conspiracy? There has to be one out there somewhere.

Clayton - that last question was posed to you. Can you answer it? I've even bolded it to make it clear to you what question I refer to.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I've often wondered about that. Why FEMA? Why no NASA Camps? ATF Camps? FEMA is pretty much the last organization that would inter prisoners. They help after disasters.

Another MASSIVE fail for Conspiritards. Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 Twoofies, FEMA Failures...

Why can't they find a REAL conspiracy? There has to be one out there somewhere.

Clayton - that last question was posed to you. Can you answer it? I've even bolded it to make it clear to you what question I refer to.

Because meaningful independent substantive investigative journalism no longer exists.