S.1867 is the end of America
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
- Status
M
makare
QP, you also have to keep in mind that even if the senators do not read the bill there is an army of congressional aides that do.
So, Obama's a shithead after all and signed it into law, no question, no revision.
Fortunately, there are Senators already trying to pass another act to amend it, the Due Process Guarantee Act. Show support.
Fortunately, there are Senators already trying to pass another act to amend it, the Due Process Guarantee Act. Show support.
I really liked the Daily Show's take on it, where they point out that even if Obama never uses it, someone else will.
Of course he did. It doesn't change due process for american citizens one whit.
Please post the actual section from the version of the bill that was actually passed and signed that is evil.
Unless, of course, you're content just eating up the fanatic's take like every other bottom feeding media outlet out there.
From the bill:
How much more specific do they have to get? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be a smartass. A lot of bills are (rightfully) criticized for being vague in who it applies to, but I don't see how this one is. To me, this bill is doing it right. You may disagree with al-Qaeda/Taliban associates being treated this way, but I never see that being brought up in any of these discussions. It's all about how it's going to be used agains, say, college students protesting tuition increases or Occupy protestors or whatever. How? How is (1) and/or (2) going to apply to the average protesting college student?
I think this part is kinda vague...
"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"
What is considered belligerent? What are 'associated forces'? How tenuous can the link be? Can it be as non existent as the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and the Taliban when we invaded with the Iraq war? You see where I'm going here? What are the consequences for wrongful imprisonment or execution? That's the biggest problem with this, I feel. There has to be a consequence for abuses of power.
Also, who gets to decide what these things mean on a case by case basis? What sort of oversight do they have? What are the standards to determine conviction? Who gets to judge guilt or innocence? What sort of compensation do the victims of false and incorrect capture and imprisonment get?
There is no face palm macro big enough. Why are you guys lambasting the bill without reading it? Do you seriously eat the slop others are shoveling into your gaping maw?
Let's break this down:
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
does not extend to citizens of the United States.
What part of that are you having difficulty with?
I can usually argue logically with all y'all about this sort of thing, but you and others are supporting a position which has no basis in reality, nevermind logic. If you wanted to discuss a fiction created by some media source, start a new thread. If you want to discuss S.1867 as it was actually passed by congress and signed into law by the executive branch, then please help us find the passage or clause or section that is causing you so much angst.
What section, exactly, are you worried about in this bill? Please quote it, and provide a link to it on a government website (not a frothing at the mouth pundit "media" source).
Chances are good you'll want to look at subtitle D of the bill, if you're having a rough time finding your way around in it. I've quoted it as passed by the senate here: http://halforums.com/xenforo/threads/s-1867-is-the-end-of-america.26796/page-2#post-889483 but it might have changed in some small ways before being sent to the white house. Go ahead and read it as passed by Obama, quote the relevant bits, and then we can discuss the USA ending impact of the legislation.
They're not required to indefinitely detain; there's just nothing stopping them from doing so.
Hey. Gusto.
Come here.
Come here.
Now here is the problem that I am having with your arguement.
1. The ACLU doesn't agree with you http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
2.Amnesty international doesn't agree with your interpretation of the bill http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/house-passes-ndaa-white-house-wont-veto-indefinite-detention/
3. The president of the United States of America doesn't agree with your interpritation of the bill http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/01/04/promises-promises-president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement/
4. Congress and the senate stripped out wording that would have explicitly said that the NDAA indefinite detention doesn't apply to US citizens. http://gulagbound.com/24690/obama-announces-he-can-imprison-anyone-he-chooses-if-he-chooses-to-do-so/
So Congress disagrees with you, Obama disagrees with you, ACLU disagrees with you and Amnesty international disagrees that not requiring indefinite detention of American citizens isn't real protection from the NDAA. I think I'll go with their interpritations over yours no offense.
Why are people always harping on this (post not directed at you Krisken!)? Most people abroad already have a fairly set opinion on the US. If you look at worldwide nation approval polls, the numbers are pretty consistent. And contrary to popular belief, I've never been harassed or discriminated against abroad for being American. There will always be people who dislike the US for having overseas bases, for its espousal of universal rights, for its power over economic and political issues, for its "shadowy" CIA and so on. Those things rarely change no matter who's in power. I had a Chinese taxi driver bitch about the US government to me for Libya a few months back, without even realizing it wasn't even the US who initially spearheaded the idea. So you know what? The US should first and foremost look out for its own interests, whether or not it'll offend some dude in Greece, because you best believe that's what nearly every other nation does out there.
I have my own reservations about the bill, but I never think "What will foreigners think?" when dealing with national interests and security.
See, this is why I wish people would post the actual text of the bill.
The bill, as passed by Obama, does allow them to indefinitely detain American citizens if they are suspected of terrorism.
You can read the relevant section of the bill, as passed by the house, the senate, and the president here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:5438
The funny thing is that this merely codifies what we were already doing.
The nice thing is that this makes it easy for the judicial branch to weigh in on the process and test the constitutionality of it, whereas it was more difficult in previous cases to deal with this.
The bill, as passed by Obama, does allow them to indefinitely detain American citizens if they are suspected of terrorism.
You can read the relevant section of the bill, as passed by the house, the senate, and the president here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:5438
The funny thing is that this merely codifies what we were already doing.
The nice thing is that this makes it easy for the judicial branch to weigh in on the process and test the constitutionality of it, whereas it was more difficult in previous cases to deal with this.
Holding prisoners indefinitely is no different than what is allowed by the Geneva Conventions. POWs can be held for as long as hostilities last -- whether 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years. Why aren't you all protesting that? Why aren't you protesting the "depriving foreigner's of their rights" such as that prisoners lose their right to communication if they are a spy or saboteur considered a military security risk under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 5?
As far as U.S. citizens? It's right in the Constitution:
As far as U.S. citizens? It's right in the Constitution:
I'll now open the floor for discussions of what is meant by "aid and comfort" and how evil the US Constitution is because a section uses vague language like "aid and comfort" to charge people with treason.
Yes yes treason which requires a person to go in front of a jury of his peers to be convicted is the exact same as allowing indefinite detention of US citizens with no oversight or chance to prove the innocence of the accused or even be put in front of a judge to see if there is any real evidence of their wrongdoing. Once again unlike charges of treason that require at least 2 witnesses.
As for the indefinite detention of foriegners I don't really see anybody in the thread saying that it's a good thing. I've opposed the practice ever since it came out that the military was utterly incompotent in choosing who they would keep in GITMO. But that has long since been beaten into the ground where as their new ability to capture and hold any US citizen not captured in the US indefinitly is a new a troubling turn.
I really doubt that the ability to take action against US citizens engaging in hostile actions against the US while outside of the US is a "new ability". What do you think happened to Americans who fought for Germany, Japan, or Italy during WWII? Did they flash their passport over the trench and the American infantry went, "Oh, wait! We can't shoot that guy without a trial! He's an American!" Holding them indefinitely as a POW probably never came up because they ended up with a bullet in the brain as a traitor first.
As for treason:
If joining al-Qaeda and Friends isn't an overt act of treason, I don't know what is. And if you join a foreign enemy force engaged in hostilities against the U.S., I see that as not only an overt act of treason, but as essentially denouncing your U.S. citizenship and any protections it offers. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for you if you "adhere yourself to an enemy" of the U.S., and then cry about how your rights aren't being protected when you have to face the consequences of that choice. You're an American who wants to join al-Qaeda? Fine. Then you can suck it up and face the consequences with the rest of your new friends.
Excuse me what the fuck are you talking about?
I say how the US government can now capture a US citizen in a foriegn country and then throw them into prison without ever having to justify their actions and then you respond with non sequitor bullshit about how there have always been actions that the government can take against traitors.
Can you explain exactly where this non sequitor came from? I would love to point out exactly where your logic train went off the rails.
Great and once they have even a slight amount of judicial oversight I'd be happy to toss them into a pit myself. However with the NDAA there are no safeguards against grabbing a person off the streets of France and throwing them in prison without an ounce of proof that they ever "adhered themselves to an enemy.
An American joins the German army in WWII and there is no distinction made on the battlefield: they are treated as any other German soldier. Why should an American who joins al-Qaeda be treated as anything other than a member of al-Qaeda? Why should there be a distinction made between citizen and non-citizen when dealing with al-Qaeda? Like the guy who joined the German army, the American in al-Qaeda made his choice to "switch sides".
you can't declare war on terrorism, there is literally no battlefield
Which is part of the problem, and is why they have to put stuff like this into bills. It's not to "invent new ways to take away our freedoms!!!!", it's to codify what the procedures are in a situation that the Rules of Engagement haven't caught up to yet. Which is why I mentioned that "indefinite detainment" is also allowed by the Geneva Conventions in war between states: this is not a new thing.
Necronic
Staff member
I'm sorry I think you forgot that the battlefield is in the hearts and minds of American people.
<At this point an eagle call pierces the air and your computer screen turns into an american flag that the eagle tears through. There's also fire and stuff, and Foreigner is playing in the background.>
Except it's not indefinite, is it... while i don't recall anyone mentioning anything about "until the war on terror is over" even... and PoW's aren't considered criminals by default...
I can't think of any war that had an end date planned ahead of time, so, yes: "until end of hostilities" is indefinite. And is allowed by the Geneva Conventions.
And maybe you don't recall anyone mentioning it because you didn't read anything that Steinman linked to/posted in this thread (this was already posted on the first page of this discussion):
TitleX, SubtitleD, Section 1031.c -
I can't find anything in the bill that mentions "criminals by default".
Once again, the text of the bill can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1540:/ if you want to read it for yourself.
America's been dead for years
- Status