The National Defense Authorization Act

[Bardia]

Is it really as bad as this article makes it out to be? If so it's pretty scary...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...mericans-face/

or is it just misunderstood and being sensationalized?

[MisterNi]

Is it really as bad as this article makes it out to be? If so it's pretty scary...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...mericans-face/

or is it just misunderstood and being sensationalized?

Wow, this is a pretty offensive piece of legislation. I'm surprised McCain has gone full circle from a moderate Republican to borderline fascist.

[Lotus]

would someone mind summarizing what this is all about in a paragraph or two

[Hitta]

would someone mind summarizing what this is all about in a paragraph or two

Sure, government thinks you are a terrorist(aka government doesn't like you). Government goes to judge. Judge says yes. You spend life in Guantanamo bay. You die.

[rat1]

LOL. They are probably preparing for some predicted national unrest.

[EyeSeeCold]

It's unconstitutional and unnecessary considering that terrorism in the United States, or at least the provocative activity of the early 2000s has been deescalating since. Not to mention both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, two main figureheads of Middle-Eastern conflict, the latter leader of "Al-Qaeda", have been reported dead; numerous associated terrorists have been captured or killed; and hostile cities in Southwest Asia have been secured by the U.S. military and other friendlies. By now, US presence is supposed to be leaving the Middle East out of a dwindling perceived need for it, and overall conflict seems to be barely existent, yet we have this Act being pushed in the name of Homeland Security. The Senate wants a law that doesn't need to be a law, at least circumstances haven't necessitated it, so why should it be passed?

The risk is already there, it's just a matter of the military acting on their legal freedom when the Act passes, if it passes.



Response from the White House:

Detainee Matters:

The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.


Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of 2 legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s_20111117.pdf

[Bardia]

I was trying to read over the document itself but the wording is confusing and seems to contradict itself... This video clarifies the documents abilities to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial:



And to think I voted for McCain. I take my vote back. It's a very slippery slope as the definition of "terrorist" no doubt will become very broad as needed by the military.

Why aren't more of you concerned about this!

[DividedsGhost]

Why aren't more of you concerned about this!

We can't even agree on how we're going to deal with our debt problems...our government can't even keep the economy in line, which is arguably the only real purpose of government other than self-defense. I think there's too much for people to feel overwhelmed about to care about something like this.

Plus it's hard to care when no one cares to listen and those that do think it's the right thing to do. There are better battles to pick, perhaps in reducing our military occupations with the world, over worrying that laws have the potential to slippery slope into big brother. Anything can, Bardia. My concern with things like this is over whether we have the power to abolish these things if/when they get out of hand. And I think given the greater political freedoms this country has over much of the rest of the world, it isn't a problem.

[Ave]

We can't even agree on how we're going to deal with our debt problems...our government can't even keep the economy in line, which is arguably the only real purpose of government other than self-defense. I think there's too much for people to feel overwhelmed about to care about something like this.

Plus it's hard to care when no one cares to listen and those that do think it's the right thing to do. There are better battles to pick, perhaps in reducing our military occupations with the world, over worrying that laws have the potential to slippery slope into big brother. Anything can, Bardia. My concern with things like this is over whether we have the power to abolish these things if/when they get out of hand. And I think given the greater political freedoms this country has over much of the rest of the world, it isn't a problem.

These supposed "priorities" are a form of msidirection to real problems like this one - Im not saying the crisis isnt a real problem, but whats more important your freedom who your founding fathers and many others gave their blood for, or your government's debt?

[Gilly]

Or the Republicrat duopoly is getting brazenly sloppy now, and not even bothering to sustain the usual theatrics anymore that any effective difference exists between the two.

Yeah, and unfortunately that intricate illusion is the only thing that allows the current system to be effective in any way.

[Bardia]

I guess I am just surprised more people aren't posting saying something like "wait what's going on? Our freedom is being flushed down the toilet?"

[Capitalist Pig]

lol fascism rules

[Creepy-male]

I don't like the idea, judiciaries are critical for the checks and balances to work properly. Courts are critical in determining if the actions of the executive and legislative branch are legal and allow citizens the ability to challenge the authority and charges brought against them. I don't think there is any problem with defense based legislation; such as wire tapping and detainment of terrorists, but they need a judicial review process to prevent it from being corrupt.

I've been in a situation where I was hanging out at a parking garage between classes at university and the people owning the garage called the cops because he thought I was suspicious... I showed the guy and the cops my permit that gave me permission to use the garage all hours during the semester and I explained I lived over 30 minutes away and I was just taking an hour break between classes and hanging out at the garage in my car was a good option because by the time I drove back to my place and back I'd spend my entire time driving. Even with the permit and the logical explanation, which could have been validated reviewing my address on my DL the police still started to ask me questions. They suspected me of being suicidal, as I was "driving around aimlessly, on the top level of the garage"..... and they have had problems with someone jumping from the top of one of the other garages. So basically the cops asked me all these question to get a feel for my mental state, and eventually let me go, but it was annoying. What made it worse was I couldn't act annoyed because it made me look suicidal, when in fact I was actually annoyed at having to talk to the police when I had rightful permission to use the garage. They would say, "are you sure your not upset about anything, you seem kind of annoyed" and I was thinking "yeah because I shouldn't be dealing with this bullshit".... but you can't really tell the police that. Anyways, I bring this up because now I've begun taking pictures of the skyline of the city I'm from when I park at garages and I'm afraid a police is going to accuse me of terrorism for snapping photos of the skyline. If there wasn't some means for me to defend myself in court, I'd basically be screwed. It's not hard to build up evidence selectively to paint a portrait of someone that isn't true and it's not hard for cops to press a person to a false conviction under enough stress and coercion. Defense lawyers and judicial review are critical elements in the process, they are the only line of defense against mass hysteria spreading through society and people getting accused of things in a salem witch trial fashion -- and if the occasional guilty man goes free due to one or two corrupt defense lawyers, its worth it imo, because the overall function has a very critical role, and slight corruptions in the system are only practical and neccesarily consequences of an imperfect system maintained by human beings which make errors and fallacies. What matters is that the basic architecture of the system allows for some kind of fair equilibrium... checks and balances, which allows social harmony to exist, but does not promise it.

[Ave]

Shrug. Blame Obama, apparently it was his idea:

Maybe he wants to steal voted from the republicans.

[mu4]

Stop spreading the lies that this is a Obama thing. It's not like a veto is meaningful against a 90+ yes to less then 10 no vote.

There's a lot of rhetoric flying around about this and everyone is trying to pin the blame, this is just another neocon power grab. Stop watching Fox news people

If it was a Obama backed bill, it wouldn't get past a congress that is playing politics the way it has been, where the debt ceiling debate resulted in a downgrade of American credit due to GOP political tactics. The only way to get anything passed in congress without that kind of political wrangling if its a Republican backed bill.

Anyways, the bill sucks, and congress right now as a whole kinda of sucks. But the people that really really suck are these hypocritical small government conservatives who basically vote for any expansion of governmental Power as long as it doesn't cost their rich buddies any money. Basically, the scum of the world that has caused the downfall of many a great society. If you want your society to thrive, you work hard, you bring people up, you make the world a better place for everyone, you don't suck up to the rich and powerful for crumbs.

[Bardia]

Stop spreading the lies that this is a Obama thing. It's not like a veto is meaningful against a 90+ yes to less then 10 no vote.

There's a lot of rhetoric flying around about this and everyone is trying to pin the blame, this is just another neocon power grab. Stop watching Fox news people.

I thought it was pretty obvious from the vote count in the senate for this thing that both parties are on board. Our wonderful presidential candidate reject McCain spear headed it and Obama signed it. Both parties are equally guilty in my eyes.

[mu4]

Looks like hkkmr missed the memo:



Just to reiterate, the language in the bill authorizing the detainment of US citizens WAS taken out of the bill, but Obama pushed to have it put back in.

The language that was removed would have made it so that the only form of permanent detention possible for detainment of US Citizens would have been military detention. Do you want language that would have allowed only military detention of terrorism suspects even if they were American citizens. The whole bill is crap, but don't get the idea that indefinite detention isn't already happening, just be a computer hacker. The difference is military detention of US citizens is a totally different form of tyranny, and ultimately a far worse consequence and the language was made so that the only mechanism of indefinite detention would have been military detention against US Citizens.

The indefinite detention of terrorism suspects has been in place since 2001 but by the military. See Guantanamo Bay.

Simplified Version

Bill with Amendment = Military Detention: Yes Civilian Detention: No
Bill without Amendment = Military Detention: Yes Civilian Detention: Yes

You want the option to have the Civilian Detention be possible, no matter how onerous the bill. Spin it however you want, but I don't see a situation where military detention is preferable to civilian detention from a civil rights perspective.