Actually I have read the NDAA because I was surprised that so many in the House and Senate voted for it given all the negativity here and in some corners of the news. Below are a link to the language that passed and the headers of the two controversial sections, with their respective exemptions for citizens and lawful resident aliens. Section 1021 (e) specifically says it changes nothing in existing law for citizens, lawful aliens or anyone captured or arrested in the U.S., and is clear about it. So the problem if any is with prior law. Section 1022 requires that Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists be held by the armed forces unless the president waives it for national security reasons. Congress doesn't want foreign terrorists in civilian prisons which I think is wise. I would have preferred that Section 1022 (b) be more simple and direct but if you take it in the context of what Section 1022's purpose is in the first place the "requirement" wording in Section 1022 (b) is consistent. In other words, I don't think optional detention is permitted just because they used the word "requirement" in the exemption section. So I think this is more poorly worded trash from incompetent politicians rather than a conspiracy. I realize almost everyone in P&R thinks this is the end of line for our freedoms and my opinion won't change anyone's mind because people will believe what they want to anyway. But I try to come to my own conclusions based on facts, not others' opinions which are often flawed. Tell me where you think I've gone wrong with my analysis. Seriously. Because if I'm missing something I really want to know. But if you guys want to make up some nonsense that I'm un-American because I disagree with you, you'd be more correct calling Mariano Rivera a lousy pitcher and I'll think you're a kook. I'm not sure what you mean with your question about what the military's purpose would be without "armed" anything because that's what they do. What I think we should do is throw out all the career politicians at the ballot box and if we don't do that we have no one to blame but ourselves. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (e) AUTHORITIES.âNothing 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. SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS. (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.â (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.âThe requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.âThe requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
You keep saying that Ron Paul is the only guy that would save the country. I disagree that he would save the country which is why I'm not voting for him. Now if I agree he was the guy to stop the shennanigans I would vote for him. We disagree on what the man would potentially do. Besides, the state government of California announced today that they are not even going to hold a republican primary because they don't want to spend the money. My vote out here on the left coast has always been symbolic at best. There is no democracy out here.
You should have your main residence in another state, like Texas so you can vote like an American. But, you recently said you were moving out of the country this year so there's no point. I can't wait til you quit your job and come get me and Lucrum for the world tour.
You are correct that the problem is with a prior law, specifically, the AUMF of 2001. The NDAA simply codifies what was supposed to be a temporary power (as granted by the AUMF) into permanence. Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities." **since there is no exemption for US citizens, it can and will be applied to US citizens. In fact, as you've alluded to, it already has...and the NDAA really changes nothing per se. Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...sons-military-force-authorities#ixzz1igpwNjqM
When I wrote that the problem, if any, is with prior law I didn't mean the AUMF because I looked at that and it clearly authorizes force ONLY against those who did something PRIOR to the 911 attacks to either carry them out or support them. Here's the language and it's pretty clear: SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html So codifying the AUMF doesn't authorize anyone to do anything to someone who does something AFTER 911 (unless they also had something to do with the 911 attacks, and even then it would be for their role in 911).
And the problem with that is the AUMF has been and continues to be the justification for the continuing war on terror. Al Qaeda has become (and affiliates). Affiliates can go on forever. Libya had nothing to do with 9/11, neither did Iraq, yet the AUMF provided the base justification for both (in addition to the UN for Libya). It's already been bastardized from its original parameters. That's the problem with blank checks to the federal government. That tends to happen.
They're not blank checks. As I've shown, neither the AUMF or the NDAA authorizes the government to do anything to citizens even remotely close to what people have hysterically claimed here and elsewhere. Which means that Ron Paul's claim that the NDAA is a slip into tyranny that "virtually guarantees our descent into totalitarianism" is flat out wrong. Because if the government is over-reaching and doing something beyond what the law allows, THAT'S the problem. NOT the law.
No, you haven't shown anything of the kind. You gave your interpretation of section 1021 of the NDAA without actually showing what it stated and you've failed to acknowledge how it codifies what's been done with the AUMF. The Executive has already held US citizens without trial. We agree on this. The AUMF was the justification for that unprecedented leap. The NDAA makes no changes to existing laws, meaning, the AUMF has that covered. No exemption being added for US citizens in the NDAA is basically a bookend to the applications of the AUMF. When Ron Paul calls it a decent into tyranny, he is explaining how little by little, step by little step, we are doing just that. Just like the Nazis codified the slaughter of Jews, we are codifying the our own Soviet-ization. You need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
No, you've given no factual counter argument and have chosen instead hysterics about Nazi Germany and "our own Soviet-ization." While I quoted only the section titles and exemptions for citizens and legal aliens, I linked to the rest which you seem to have not read or understand. Did you even notice the AUMF is written in the PAST tense? You need to step back and realize you can't solve a problem unless it's properly identified.
Let's see if we can identify the disconnect. Do you believe the President has always had the power to indefinitely detain US citizens without charge or trial?