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
285 threads
1,760 comments
Anonymousone says
Hold on just a minute. You support Socialist SINGLE PAYER health insurance and higher taxes and you are voting for Ron Paul? I think you are supporting the wrong candidate. You should be voting for Bernie Sanders as a wrtie in.
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
Yes shrek, a signing statement. What, you never heard of them before?
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
Signing statement? HousingWatcher is asking folks. Please enlighten him.
BTW, thanks for bumping this very important thread. Don't you guys realize, the watcher really supports Liberty. He is just playing the devil's advocate.
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
What's wrong with indefinite detention? The weather is great at Gitmo this time of year.
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
Oh, and I would support indefinite detention for Netflix management. I get a rate increase while the service remains cr*ppy.
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
"What's wrong with indefinite detention? The weather is great at Gitmo this time of year."
"Oh, and I would support indefinite detention for Netflix management. I get a rate increase while the service remains cr*ppy."
The dreaded HousingWatcher cop out strikes again!
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
shrekgrinch says
If we'd listened to Republicans and Conservatives in 2008, McCain would be in the White House instead of just a Senator. Senator McCain personally introduced the portions of the bill that we're discussing here, and in much more extreme forms than were actually passed.
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained
The truly draconian form of the law required military incareration of civilian terror suspects. Obama threatened to veto it. McCain's side of the compromise on the veto threat was to make it optional. Obama's side of the compromise was to sign the law in a form that allowed him to implement the law in a constitutional way --ie: by ignoring the unconstitutional (but optional) powers it ostensibly gives him. (I say ostensibly because the legislature cannot grant an unconstitutional power except through constitutional amendment.)
I thank you for the invitation to imagine what the country would be like today if we'd given McCain a promotion in 2008 --but I don't have the stomach for it.
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
Obama is a tyrant? Because indefinite detention started under Bush. Does the name Jose Padilla ring a bell?
This article is from 2005:
Padilla's indefinite detention puts your rights at risk
Despite the clear language of the Constitution that prohibits detention without trial, the Bush administration insists that it can indefinitely hold Padilla — or anyone else it chooses — as an "enemy combatant" without trial or even formal charges.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-03-freedom-waronterror_x.htm
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
Another US citizen indefinitely detained by Bush was Yaser Hamdi. His detention is what gave rise to the famous Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court case.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_857_zayas.pdf
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
Obama is better than Bush. Bush is better than Obama.
Republican is this. Democrat is that.
Who's the fairest of them all?!
HousingWatcher for President!
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
Shrek, are you arguing that we should have put McCain in the White House so that he couldn't introduce these provisions from the Senate?
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,588 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Actually, the last minute changes in the bill are reported to require a trial for US citizens.
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,588 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Patrick says
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for massive speculation and decimation of main street. Deregulation will not be accompanied by the usual Ron Paul full reserve banking or gold money.
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
bgamall4 says
Fanned and +1
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
bgamall4 says
Hmm...I thought Ron Paul warned us many times and tried to prevent this economic mess. So he really created it? Thanks for the information.
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
HousingWatcher says
"He issued a signing statement saying his administration would not use the controversial indefinite detention provisions. This promise, however, is not legally binding -- and it also does not prevent future Presidents from detaining and torturing American citizens without right to a trial or attorney, and without bringing formal charges against them. The signing statement is the legal equivalent of a Post-it note affixed to a manuscript.)"
Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-outrage-continues-to-grow-online-2012-1
Yes HousingWatcher, a post-it note. What, you never heard of them before?
Follow
Befriend
5 comments
Thanks to a post by someone on this site a few days ago, I learned of Chinese black jails and thought at least we don't have it so bad here. Punkd! Of course, now, we can be detained in some government penalty box for that.
It makes me wonder if the 1% were scared by the OccupyWallStreet movement and lobbied Washington for this bill to squelch future protesters in case things get out of control for them. They were already unlawfully arresting protesters. Now, it'll be lawful.
Hope that last minute change about US citizens having trials is true.
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
Is indefinite detention really so bad? How about indefinitely detaining Wall St. executives? Unfortunately, they did not break any laws thanks to all the de-regulation that occurred, so prosecuting and convicting them is not really an option. But there is nothing stopping the govt. from indefinitely detaining them.
Follow
Befriend
285 threads
1,760 comments
So Anonymousone, if you want higher taxes and single payer health insurance, why on earth are you supporting Ron Paul? I think your on the wrong bus...
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
1,534 comments
Los Angeles, CA
GameOver says
haha it IS funny, we totally deserve to be ruled by a two headed corporate monster beyond our control whom cannot be criticized without 'being considered rascist' which is a crime here also now who can keep track. ha.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Patrick says
Agreed. Complete suppression of opposing political ideas that would limit the power and profitability of the ruling class is the goal. The senators and their overlords want to remove any legal means of changing the system. In another 20 years people will be too afraid to even speak out against injustice.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
bgamall4 says
Who gives a rat's ass about economic issues when we're dealing with the rise of the Fourth Reich? I'll take complete economic collapse over absolute tyranny any day.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
"If you all would have listened to Republicans and Conservatives back in 2008, we were telling you shit like this would happen."
"Republican's" and "Conservatives" have become two different things. BOTH major parties have become big spenders of borrowed money and BOTH major parties are wholly owned by moneyed special interests.
Better to have listened to the Libertarian candidates since 1972.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
bgamall4 says
Not according to anything I've read. I think you may be talking about Obama's legally useless signing statement.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
shrekgrinch says
That's exactly what I was thinking although I don't believe the riots will come from hyperinflation. I'm in the hyperdeflation camp, the deflation coming from massive worldwide defaults on debt.
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
287 comments
Isn't this were the Judicial Branch of our government is supposed to work? You can come up with whatever law you want in the legislative and executive branch only to have it overturned in the judicial branch.
However, as mentioned previously, we did round up all those Japanese nationals during WWII. Military martial law was in place for many years after the Civil War.
Don't worry, I will be nice when I get the orders to come down and kidnap you in the middle of the night wearing all of my tactical gear. Our pre built FEMA camps will be decent places to live when we capture all of you government dissidents.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
Truthplease says
Only when someone initiates a legal action that actually reaches the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, they don't otherwise monitor Congressional actions because of the now totally incorrect assumption that Congress will take care not to pass a bill unless they feel it is Constitutional. However, their philosophy has become, "Pass anything we want and let the courts decide."
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,588 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Anonymousone says
Actually, he did warn against speculation. But Mises and Austrian Economics has always tolerated speculation. They want to control it by controlling liquidity. In our system it would be better to have liquidity and control the speculation.
And the UK libertarians absolutely supported speculation in the Square Mile. Paul Staines, when he was a libertarian supported speculation and churning of stocks and contracts according to this article:
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn069.pdf
Libertarians, read that article and weep. American libertarians are in the dark.
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,588 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Dan8267 says
I read the bill and it doesn't scare me. I think people are overreacting to this bill. Read it. It has to do with middle east terrorism.
Follow
Befriend (1)
26 threads
188 comments
Chula Vista, CA
Think of Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. All of these governments secreted away people for death, or imprisonment, but NONE... I repeat NONE of them ever codified it into law. We will soon be witness to what South Americans call "Los Desaparecidos".
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,588 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
I don't buy it Nutt.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
bgamall4 says
You better reread it and read what any number of legal experts have to say. The bill dramatically expands powers and loosens definitions to the point where pretty much anyone anywhere is subject to whatever the military or president decide. It references middle east terrorism but is in now way or form limited to it. That doesn't scare you?
Follow
Befriend (2)
511 threads
521 comments
Anonymousone's website
bgamall4 says
Speculation? My goodness.
Why don't you watch and listen to his AMAZINGLY ACCURATE predictions/warnings:
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,410 comments
Davis, CA
People with Secret Police, have never needed to tell YOU what the laws are allowing them to do as they please.
Terrible that this was passed, but people fortifying their bunkers to prepare for the Coming Race Wars or whatever, are going to be as disappointed as the Y2K survivalists.
Follow
Befriend
63 threads
484 comments
Simi Valley, CA
Obama is just another front-man. it's obvious looking at his appointments. the last real president this country had was JFK. i'm with Alex Jones on this.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,188 threads
6,157 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
shrekgrinch says
Right, even though indefinite detention without trial is supported mostly by Republican Congressmen and opposed mostly by Democrats, Obama himself signed it into law.
So I can't vote for Obama. Voting for Obama (or for any of the mostly Republican Congressmen who came up with it) would be a vote against human rights.
Why don't I see Ron Paul's vote on the NDAA? Did he just not vote on it, or what?
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,410 comments
Davis, CA
During WWII, did the US government need an NDAA to imprison....excuse me "intern" Americans of Japanese ancestry? No.
Was listening to a story today about a Japanese-American student born in Seattle, who refused to report, and whose case was brought before the Supreme Court.
The SC sidestepped the issue and let it happen.
Was that the End of America? No it was not. It's ugly and needs fixing, but it's not the turning point to inevitabl Nazism.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,188 threads
6,157 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
EastCoastBubbleBoy says
Wow, 565 pages long. No wonder they can so easily bury anticonstitutional measures in there.
I'm for a Consitutional amendment that limits all Federal laws to a total of 1,000, none of which can be more than one page long in normal-size font, or use arcane vocabulary or grammar.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
blahblahblah says
You're not the only one who had that thought.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Patrick says
Now, I don't want to go all Herman Cain, but perhaps we should limit legislation to 20 pages and require that the full legislation be read out loud by every senator or representative before he gets to vote on it. This could be done in parallel and video recorded as proof of meeting the requirement.
If a senator doesn't read a bill, he shouldn't be allowed to vote on it. And if it's not worth a senator's time to read, it certainly doesn't deserve the power of the state.