General

Chat

National Defense Authorization Act

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvnx8sPFPQ1qzqqtso1_500.jpg
Are you educated on what your government is doing behind your back, Americans?

December 5, 2011

8 Comments • Newest first

Archetype

Thank the Lord I'm Canadian.

Reply December 5, 2011
Permafrost

[quote=Teaing]Try taking grade 9/10 history?
In Canada - the War Measures Act.[/quote]

Yeah, this was declared during actual wars..
America isn't in a real war..
And for the record I'm a college sophomore, so yeah i've taken plenty of history courses.

Reply December 5, 2011 - edited
imtwocats

@Caligula: The problem isn't the assassination of actual terrorists, it's the abuse of that kind of power which can get hundreds of innocents killed and then using this bill as an excuse for their murder. I have no sympathy for terrorists either, but this is a bill like the patriot act and various other bills our government has passed which can easily be used for the wrong reasons.

At least that's what I see what the worry is about. I'm hoping this isn't the case, but the government has attempted dozens of stupid things like this in the past.

Reply December 5, 2011 - edited
hallrock

[quote=Caligula]Read the bill for yourself, silly, and don't believe everything you're told.

Section 1031 - Part B
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(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.

Supreme Court cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Jose Padilla trial have ruled in the past that American citizens cannot be held indefinitely without cause or reason, so American citizens need not apply.

Section 1032 ONLY APPLIES if you've already met the criteria in section 1031.

Section 1032
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4, the Waiver Clause), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

That's basically treason under Section 3 of the constitution, which has been in place for decades.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(b)
(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.

The waiver specifically states that U.S. citizens are not subject to this law.[/quote]

That is absolutely in no way reassuring. For one, they didn't define support. It's too vague. They could detain anyone who has even verbally supported al-Qaeda based on that. It needs to better define a covered person. The government could simply say that the person they are detaining is a covered person without that person even being convicted by a jury.

Reply December 5, 2011 - edited
Permafrost

I don't trust them even if they say they won't.
They've already got their militarized police militia. Something big is going to happen within the next year.

Reply December 5, 2011 - edited
Permafrost

apparently they pulled the part about detaining people without jury.
but the scary part is that this was even fathomed by our government at all.

Reply December 5, 2011 - edited
Lmafroggy

OH my! :O

Reply December 5, 2011 - edited
ClementZ

Effing America.

Reply December 5, 2011 - edited