I rarely get angry at posts on ET, but his racial slur was infuriating. It took deliberate effort on my part not to go off on him. He claims he was a Marine Corps officer and if he thought of the black people under his command like that, there is no way he treated them fairly or gave a damn about them.
The NDAA does much more than you just described. Whether you understand the full scope of the Act or not, many will read your post and wave your banner, because they are too stupid or too lazy to educate themselves on the matter. The NDAA also imposes sanctions on Iran. Although it adds cost to the American tax payer, it provides more pay, and healthcare benefits to military personnel. It also allows Governors to request assistance from the military in the event of a wide array of disasters, including terrorism. You and others can get started learning more about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012 As for the controversial unconstitutional detention that you speak of, keep in mind that âindefiniteâ does not mean the same thing as forever. Indefinite means, an unknown length of time, but doesnât mean that a time cannot be determined. The NDAA only codifies the existing authority that was already claimed by President Obama, from the first day he took office, which was granted by the D.C. circuit under the AUMF. The AUMF, or Authorization for Use of Military Forces Against Terrorism , was passed by congress on Sept 14 2001 as a response to the 9/11 attacks. It was signed by George W. on Sept 18 2001. It was revised within the NDAA to include the apprehension and detention of anyone, who is deemed to be participating in the planning or act of terrorism to the U.S. or any of itâs coalition allies, and detainees can be held without trial until the end of hostilities, authorized by the AUMF. AUMF also gave us the ability to kill Bin Laden, as it allows the president the power to use any and all necessary force againts any , including those who are abroad, who were determined to be involved in or responsible for the 9/11 attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act Here as another informative article that should help you further your education, on the confusions that lie within and between the NDAA and the AUMF. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/12/national-defense-authorization-act.html The AUMF and the NDAA are specifically designed to protect citizens from individuals like you, if you are indeed planning to inflict any harm upon American citizens.
We are not any where even remotely close to a civil war. I will let you know as soon as their is even the remotest of possibilities. It wouldn't be a war anyhow as much as a round up, as the vast majority of U.S. citizens have no thoughts or desires to have any kind of blood shed altercation with other Americans. Use your energy to make a difference. Write those letters to your congress. Save others the time and effort. If there are enough who think like you and agree with your stances, then get as many of those people that you can find to sign your petition, giving it greater weight. It may or may not make a difference, but you will never know if you are not continually trying. There is no endgame, but there can be progress.
Though you correctly point out that the NDAA deals with more than apprehension and indefinite detention, it is nevertheless bad law, highly troubling, and most regrettable. With regard to U.S. citizens, there is no need, let alone a reasonable justification, for suspending Bill of Rights habeas corpus protection or for retention without trial until the end of hostilities . Habeas corpus is the key protection against unreasonable imprisonment. It is exactly in cases such as those arising from military action in an undeclared war where the protection is most important. It is the bedrock law that stands between justice and lawlessness.
What you are failing to understand is Habeas corpus has not been suspended, or over-written by the NDAA, as you are claiming it has. Since it was codified in Europe in 1679, Habeas corpus has never served as a remedy or protection for those who commit acts of war against the state. It has never protected members of the Viet kong, the Nazi regime, or any other enemies of the state in the history of the U.S. An individual may be reasonably apprehended for being suspected of terroristic threats against the state. (If) that individual, at a point sometime after his/her arrest, has been determined to have committed some other crime other than an act of war against the state, then and only then does Habeas corpus come into effect, at which point in time it does serve to protect that individual from unreasonable detainment. Since that point in time cannot be determined before or during the individuals arrest, then the period of time until it is determined is by law of nature "indefinite".
The black Men under my Command were black Men, and Brother Marines, not animals. I stay in touch with them to this day. I have very good black Friends who act like good citizens. The ones in black panther uniforms standing at polling stations intimidating white voters are animals, pure and simple. The ones screaming for their free shit are animals.
For these people who believe in a fantasy of attacking people in order to "save" the country... they will soon wake up to their own personal-hell-reality while lying in a cold jail cell for the rest of their life. Unfortunately it seems there are already many folks out there living a personal-hell and wasting their life fantasizing about this nonsense.
I think I can say that I am in total, or at least near total, disagreement with what you describe in the second paragraph. Let me make it clear that my position is in regards to habeas corpus protection for U.S. citizens, not for enemy combatants who are citizens of other countries. Though I think it would be a good idea to extend habeas corpus rights, where practical, to anyone detained in U.S. custody, for whatever reason, regardless of citizenship. This statement from the first line of your second paragraph is where the problem lies: "An individual may be reasonably apprehended for being suspected of terroristic[sic] threats against the state." The Act allows anyone, including U.S. citizens, suspected of being a terrorist threat to be arrested and detained indefinitely. A person, regardless of whether they are alleged to have committed a terrorist act, or merely suspected of being a threat, must not be denied their right to a writ of habeas corpus. The invention of terrorist acts as "acts of war" by the Bush Justice Department is at the heart of the problem. And now, merely raising a suspicion is to be treated as such! This, however well intentioned, is bound to lead to further human rights abuses and criminal political activities. Though I realize that opinions differ on this point, in my personal opinion isolated terrorist attacks are NOT acts of war and should not be treated by the same rules as bona fide acts of war. Defining terrorist activities as acts of war was done during the Bush administration to circumvent habeus corpus and other indelicacies. Thus detainees were defined as enemy combatants and denied writs. Now, of course, those responsible would like to have their tracks covered for them by an Obama administration too eager to codify the detention without writs of not only actual terrorists, but also mere suspects; thus justifying, after the fact, what would otherwise have been the illegal denying of writs, had such not been summarily defined away be the former Attorney General. What is doubly egregious here is the potential denying of writs to U.S. citizens. It's a horrible precedent and a sad chapter in what is a long history of Bill of Rights abuses by various administrations. We ought not to stand for it, and the House is the proper body to put their foot down, but of course they are too dysfunctional to pull anything like this off. Were they to manage it, I'm confident they'd see no White House opposition. As a constitutional law scholar, President Obama understands full well that habeus is the bedrock upon which our protection from false imprisonment is built.
Huh????? The NDAA is the authorization for the defense budget. One of 'em goes through every single year. If you're saying that buried in one of the bills for one of the years is the stuff you're talking about, which year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look at the thread you start here. You see black people only going to vote. You never see crime . But you IMAGINE they are threat. But you do not say you SEE violence that day. Why do you hate so much? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------