WatchI just can't quite believe this, but it seems to be true.
Is it now really legal for the military to imprison US citizens forever without trial?
The NDAA certainly seems to say so, according to two retired four-star Marine generals:
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.
Soon even questioning the absolute control of the 1% over the US economy and government will also be classified as involvement with terrorism. That's what this is really about.
Another law called SOPA is intended to allow the quick shutdown of websites that even so much as give a link to material the government does not want you to view. It starts with copyright enforcement, but copyright enforcement is mere practice for other kinds of censorship. It does not seem coincidental that the NDAA violation of the Constitution happened so close to the SOPA proposal to censor the internet. Copyright is wrong. The Pirate Party is right.
The NDAA provisions are not legitimate and must not be obeyed by anyone working for the government or in the military. Please contact everyone in the military that you know and tell them they must not obey any orders that violate the fourth amendment. You might also send them a copy of the bill of rights to remind them what they are supposed to be defending.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
Patrick the key word is affirms the Presidents' authority. It was done already, this just makes it more firm.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,184 threads
6,156 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
How could the president have had that authority in the past?
It seems to be an obvious violation of the habeas corpus and the right to a fair trial.
No way can it be constitutional to imprison US citizens forever without trial.
Why isn't this the main story on the NY Times website?
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
&feature=youtu.be
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
Among the candidates, only Ron Paul is strongly opposed to the NDAA. He voted no on this along with just a handful in congress. The choice in 2012 should now be crystal clear.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,184 threads
6,156 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
Here are the 14 senators who voted against the NDAA:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nt77r/the_14_senators_who_voted_against_ndaa_all_the/
Amazingly it's about evenly split R/D and of course good old Bernie Sanders as the lone independent.
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
Hi Patrick,
Please allow me to suggest that this very important thread be kept prominently displayed. Thank you.
Follow
Befriend (28)
170 threads
4,161 comments
Premium
This country is fucked.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
334 comments
Patrick says
Not quite. NDAA was an omnibus spending bill. Voting against it would have been voting against funding our troops in peril, et cetera. Looking at the vote on the final bill as it pertains to the detention riders is misleading.
Here's a vote on a Feinstein-Paul amendment to strip the detention provisions from pertaining to US-Citizens. It failed 45-55. A much closer vote.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00213
I stripped the Nays (against the amendemnt, for detention of citizens without trial.) The Senators on the right side of that vote were these:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,184 threads
6,156 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
Thanks. This shows that the Republican Congressmen support violating the Constitution much much more than Democrats, except of course for Obama himself!
FOR clarifying "the applicability of requirements for military custody with respect to detainees."
41 Democrats
3 Republicans
AGAINST such clarification:
7 Democrats
30 Republicans
So in spite of all their talk about respecting the Constitution, the Republicans are obviously the ones who are voting the most to shred it by imprisoning US citizens forever without trial.
Obama is indeed runing Bush's 3rd term for him.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
I am not a political scholar. In Fact ......... This years NDAA seems to be the hurdle that changed us from a FREE COUNTRY.
We were a FREE COUNTRY 2 days ago !
Do we now have to fear making political statements ? Could we now vanish due to a simple mix up in some evidence, or a typical identity theft or even just an over zealous Authority figure.
But I wonder what the illegals think of this law ?
Follow
Befriend (28)
170 threads
4,161 comments
Premium
Why not just authorize the TSA to randomly fire automatic weapons into crowds.
You know, there's got to be Al Qaeda in there somewhere statistically speaking and how much more dangerous would be it to just leave them all at large?
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
334 comments
Patrick says
Harumph. I think what you mean to say is that the Republicans are hard on terrorists, and this is what Obama has to say on the matter:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill-signing-statement/
Sissy.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,184 threads
6,156 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says
Right! If you don't agree with Apocalypsefuck, then you're the sissy!
Screw the constitution, human rights, and your own personal safety. If you're not for firing automatic weapons into crowds to kill any terrorists that might happen to be in there, then you're soft on terrorism, you pansy traitor libtard commie socialist Obama-kissing bastard.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,184 threads
6,156 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
msilenus says
Not good enough, not by a long shot.
"will not authorize" actually means "can authorize at will, but say we won't, for now".
And can you count on the next president to even say he "will not authorize" your permanent imprisonment without trial?
Or the one after that?
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
Cloud says
Dr. Paul has been fighting for liberty and the Constitution for decades. His message was relevant then and now more relevant than ever.
Welcome Aboard!
Follow
Befriend (11)
104 threads
455 comments
Premium
Just in case anyone wants to read the bill
or the President's signing statement.
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
Glad to see the club has finally picked up on this. My post from a few days ago didn't seem to garner much attention.
The definitive word on the bill is Glenn Greenwald, read through his postings on the thing to get the clearest idea
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/
Follow
Befriend (13)
57 threads
165 comments
Mountain View, CA
LarryPatrickMaloney's website
Patrick says
Oh NOW you start to question Obama.
How can he do it? Well, cause he's a Marxist, that's how.
If you want to fix problems like this, help out by voting for Ron Paul in the California primary.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
Patrick says
Which 1% are we talking about here ?
Britney Spears
Michael Jordan
Roseanne Barr
Larry Ellison
George Soros
Founders of Google
Are you afraid of these people ?
Add Icon
0 comments
I wonder how the liberal chumps who voted for Obama are feeling about this.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
Sect 1021 includes this language
Any person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act
belligerent [bɪˈlɪdʒərənt]
adj
1. marked by readiness to fight or argue; aggressive a belligerent tone
Does that mean anyone on this site could soon just vanish ?
Makes me rethink who the (WTC) finger is pointed at !
(note) I am saying this in a calm civil manner (not belligerent)
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
1. Assassination of US citizens without due process.
2. Indefinite detention of US citizens without due process.
What's left?
The "good intentions" of our royals.
Follow
Befriend
1 comments
Franklin D. Roosevelt administration did that to the Japanese.
Perris Lake, California is one of the dirtiest secrets of WWII in which the OSS and FBI tortured Japanese Americans who were active in what the zealots (American equivalent to SS) considered politics.
What Obama signed into law is nothing new and with or without laws, the politics of the ruling class cannot change fundamentally unless revolution per T. Jefferson or Ron Paul is elected to force it to change. Unfortunately Ron Paul may be offed by the very power brokers that did in JFK under the guise of patriotism. I will vote my beliefs and vote Ron Paul. I have been conservative and I can no longer tolerate the stupidity of the Republican Party.
Follow
Befriend (13)
102 threads
3,759 comments
This bill was a poison pill. On one hand it funds military, on the other it has an amendment that damages the bill of rights.
Whoever votes for it votes down the rights, whoever votes against it votes against funding military. Washington politicians playing political games with our rights and our military.
I wrote another letter to my senator asking for the name of the individual senator who added indefinite detention to the bill, and for them to be ousted.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
600 comments
Gun up.
Follow
Befriend (28)
170 threads
4,161 comments
Premium
Right on, Patrick!
In fact, if you're not firing into random crowds right now, you are likely helping Al Qaeda operatives run wild in our great nation and destroy our Freedoms!
A real patriot today should be scouring the streets of America with assault weapon converted to full auto, looking for crowds of people that contain AQ operatives and blowing 'em the fuck away!
Get with Freedom!
Patrick says
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,184 threads
6,156 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
wbblair3 says
Don't forget number 3. Shutdown without warrant or trial for any website that even links to a site that might contain pirated material (the SOPA bill)
Very useful for shutting up 99%'ers who complain about our non-productive rent-seeking hereditary aristocracy. Fits in perfectly with 1. and 2.
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
1,534 comments
Los Angeles, CA
Hey its cool man, no president would do anything unpopular enough to blow up thier million dollar book deal/speaking gigs after they are done glad handing lobbyists in the WH. That would be bad business so its a non issue!
If Obama keeps this crap up Patrick might switch over to support Ron Paul and that will be the turning point in the 2012 election!
Follow
Befriend (13)
50 threads
2,626 comments
Premium
In hindsight we always say "How the hell did people let this happen? How did they let it get so far?"
It happens just the way it's happening right now. At this time, just like in other times, the status quo defenders ("Panglossians") are out in force and helping the government pooh-pooh those who are upset. Mostly because they don't wish to believe it's as bad as it is and are more afraid of passion than tyranny. Guess they never read Hannah Arendt - evil is often banal.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,184 threads
6,156 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
LarryPatrickMaloney says
No, he's a Republican fascist operating in the interests of Goldman Sachs. Very different.
thomas.wong1986 says
We're talking about those whose ever-increasing wealth derives primarily from mere owership of assets without productive work, ie, rent-seekers, at the expense of everyone else.
Yes, when those people feel their "rightly earned" eternal control of their servants' (your) labor is being threatened by free speech and democracy, they will indeed shut it down and imprison you forever without trial. They may start out nice, but self-interest has a way of warping perception.
tomharlen says
Note that permanent imprisonment without trial was created by Republican congressmen and passed by Republican congressmen, hardly any Democrats involved:
Patrick says
But yes, Obama does seem to have turned Republican, big time. Or maybe he was always a Republican in sheep's clothing.
So our "Democrat" president sides with Republicans against civil liberties, and "Republican" Ron Paul takes the side of civil liberties with Democrats and against his own party.
It's like Alice in Wonderland now.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,184 threads
6,156 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
PockyClipsNow says
Already done. I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on health care (we should allow buy-in to Medicare) and on handing ever-more wealth to those who do not work (we should have a small asset tax instead of a large income tax) but I'll register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primary and the general election because he's clearly for freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and against censorship.
If I'm imprisoned or not allowed to speak, all other issues are irrelevant anyway.
Follow
Befriend (1)
65 threads
1,209 comments
Good morning Comrades, I expect a full apology from everyone here that voted for the Asshole, and gave me such flack for spotting him as a Charlton and a crook, a media product to do some wicked bidding. I believe it were.
Follow
Befriend (13)
50 threads
2,626 comments
Premium
These Senators voted NO on the NDAA.
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)
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
334 comments
The GOP says
What do you want to bet that McCain voted for the indefinite detention rider without the attached -and very necessary- military funding muddling the morality of the issue?
We know he voted against removing it.
Follow
Befriend (28)
170 threads
4,161 comments
Premium
Unless the military is Free to secure our Freedom by incarcerating and machine gunning every potential Al Qaeda operative, Freedom has no meaning!
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
55 comments
Fontana, CA
Haven't you seen the video of McCain saying we need to "stop terrorism at all costs?"
I never thought I'd go from voting Obama in '08 to Ron Paul in '12 ... but, here we are!
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
55 comments
Sheeple,
You have been warned time and time again, but you've chosen not to believe. What you believe, on the other hand, is a) "no one can be that evil and that powerful", and/or b), "the world is too complicated for anyone to control". You are wrong, and have always been wrong, and will continue to be wrong, up until the point that your friends, family, and neighbors are all shot in the head, right before you. And even then, you still won't believe it. The world is ruled by deeply evil people, so easily, simply because YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IT'S HAPPENING.
Now go to your mirror and say, "you stupid, gullible fool" a thousand times until you wake up from your delusional state.
Quiz - was the following film produced in 2009 or 1989?
#t=1m11s
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
There is no indefinite detention in the bill. Obama issued a singing statement saying nobody will be imprisoned without trial.
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, 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. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
PockyClipsNow says
If Obama keeps this crap up Patrick might switch over to support Ron Paul and that will be the turning point in the 2012 election!
Already done. I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on health care (we should allow buy-in to Medicare) and on handing ever-more wealth to those who do not work (we should have a small asset tax instead of a large income tax) but I'll register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primary and the general election because he's clearly for freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and against censorship.
If I'm imprisoned or not allowed to speak, all other issues are irrelevant anyway.
shrekgrinch says
Hi Shrek,
Patrick just announced he will vote for Ron Paul although he doesn't agree with him on other issues. It's right there just a few comments above yours.
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
Patrick is not voting for Ron Paul because he will not be the nominee.