National Defense Authorization Act

[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.

Maybe the same reason FEMA was upfront and personal en masse in New York City on 9/11. Much too deep for the dupes to get.

 

[NoahFence]

Because meaningful independent substantive investigative journalism no longer exists.

So get on it then.

I'll give you a place to start:

Hydraulic Fracturing.
The energy companies are paying off the EPA and various state agencies, allowing them to pretty much do whatever they want, dump whatever waste they want, whereever they want, sickening citizens and the environment.

THAT'S real.

9/11 was the single most well documented event (possibly) in human history. It had the most witnesses to the crime as any in history. There is no question what happened. Same applies to the atrocitied perpetrated by the Nazi's.

Those are fake conspiracies.

I gave you a real one. Get on it.

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe the same reason FEMA was upfront and personal en masse in New York City on 9/11. Much too deep for the dupes to get.

So your proof that FEMA has internment camps is that they showed up to a Federal Emergency to Manage it?


Dude. You really, honestly, can't see the massive failure in that line of thought?

Seriously? Be honest. I won't tell.

 

[TK0001]

The NDAA is substantial enough. No need to bring in 9/11 idiocy.

 

[crimresearch]

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:

​

From section 1022:

​

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

It has already been pointed out that removing the requirement, still doesn't *prohibit* this from being applied to American citizens.

Why pretend otherwise?

 

[Clayton Moore]

So your proof that FEMA has internment camps is that they showed up to a Federal Emergency to Manage it?


Dude. You really, honestly, can't see the massive failure in that line of thought?

Seriously? Be honest. I won't tell.

Seriously. FEMA was already in NY on 9/11 to participate in a drill.

 

[Juniversal]

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.

I see. Didn't read it correctly. Definitely leaves a lot of ambiguity in it's language. Sounds like section 1022 is saying if you're a "terrorist" associated with AL-Qaeda or similar groups and have participated in or attempted a terrorist attack (but are an America citizen) you aren't automatically detained indefinitely (i.e. until the end of "hostilities") but it is an option.

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.

Good question. One thing I know is you can never accuse CT'ers of being critical thinkers.

It has already been pointed out that removing the requirement, still doesn't *prohibit* this from being applied to American citizens.

Why pretend otherwise?

I'm not "pretending" anything. I simply interpreted the text as meaning it doesn't apply to US citizens. The section (1022) is titled "MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS".

 

[Clayton Moore]

It has already been pointed out that removing the requirement, still doesn't *prohibit* this from being applied to American citizens.

Why pretend otherwise?

Because he hasn't noticed his, and pretty much every American's, pants are down around his ankles.

 

[Juniversal]

Because he hasn't noticed his, and pretty much every American's, pants are down around his ankles.

I can speak for myself thank you.

 

[Brass]

You can't take anyone who cites a friggin' Alex Jones movie seriously at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since the best principles of the Constitution include the option of waging war, and since waging war typically involves straight-up killing people, with no other due process than "we think you might be a legitimate target (or at least you might be standing next to a legitimate target)", it's not clear to me what part of the Constitution you think the NDAA is out of line with.

I don't believe it authorizes indefinite detention of anyone, but I do believe it's furthering this recent move to blur the distinction between prisoners of war (not accused of any crime--and subject to the Geneva Convention on the treatment and disposition of POWs--what this law calls "the rules of war") and detainees accused of a crime (and subject to the rights of the accused--habeas corpus, etc.)

If a person is detained as a suspect in the 9/11 attack, then they are accused of a crime. If a person is taken as part of the war in Afghanistan, they are not accused of a crime, but are POWs. It is certainly possible that someone could be in both categories, but that would give them additional protections rather than fewer.

This law seems to say that a person in our custody accused of being involved with the 9/11 attack (a crime) should be treated as a POW. I think that's problematic. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to a person accused of a crime. Boumedienne v. Bush made it clear that holding these detainees by the military and trying them in military courts does not strip them of these rights--not even for non-citizens.

I suspect if the law is used to further the approach that you can strip the rights of the accused if the crimes of the accused are in a class called "terrorism" that the specific workings of that will be reversed, but that there will probably not be a direct review of this section of the law.

I don't think the Constitution "cares" how you define a class of detainees as long as you give anyone accused of a crime the rights of the accused.

I understand there are already procedures whereby people who aren't properly prisoners of war can challenge their detention as that status. (Otherwise, it would make a really big hole in the entire point of habeas corpus rights.)

BTW, from the way I read the Geneva Convention on POWs, if you're taken under the rules of law (and not as someone accused of the crime who gets those rights), you can't be kept in close confinement (prison) at all, but have to be housed the way the military is normally housed. I know it's a bit off topic, but if the argument is that anyone involved in 9/11 is not to be treated as an accused criminal (and afforded the rights of the accused), then they should actually be kept in barracks as POWs.