NDAA

i'm trying to figure out why this isn't a bigger deal. did it get lost in the cloud of this payroll tax debate, is it because obama's president now and it's time to be complacent on constitution trampling bills?

i find it very disturbing that the obama administration specifically asked for the bill to changed to apply to american citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jHaJrnlqCgo

this is a little old because it passed the house and senate, but it talks about the biggest problem of the bill.

you can now be declared a member of al qaida and be swept away into an indefinite detention center all by the executive branch with no access to a lawyer or basic human rights. this bill alone should make obama ineligible for president in the eyes of his past voters. i mean he and his supporters rallied against all the crap bush did now he pulls this.

if you think about how all these orwellian laws can be applied its frightening. nsa wire tapping to scan the airwaves for political dissidence, go after them without warrants and imprison them indefinitely. sounds very american.

 

I dont think it is correct that Obama administration "specifically asked for the bill to changed to apply to American citizens."

He did back down on his veto threat after Congress agreed to add the White House recommended language: nothing in the bill may 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.”

The added language is still subject to interpretation and the last I read is that Obama will use a signing statement to explicitly state that the provision in question is unenforceable.

I have also read the Sen. Feinstein will also introduce clarifying legislation next month that would bar indefinite military detention of US citizens in all cases. We'll see if the Republicans will sign-on.

On a broader level, I get a little frustrated to hear the outrage by republicans/libertarians about trampling on rights while they assault womens rights with draconian anti-abortion legislation at the federal and state level, place barriers on voting rights that disproportionally impact minorities and seniors, etc.

 

did you watch the youtube of carl levin saying the administration specifically asked for it? obama is playing both sides of the fence on this. saying he would veto then getting it changed to include american citizens behind closed doors. why should we even believe what he says about it not being enforceable? his promises are like words written on water. they don't specifically change the wording in bills just for the fun of it. the wording in the bill is painfully clear despite what obama may claim.

why is the woman's issue even relevent? this is a much more serious mater. i mean i understand your concern, but they are coming for ALL of our rights, all races, all genders, all ages, all religions, all political persuasions. i would think there would be a consensus among everyone that this bill is terrible.

so are you for or against this bill? i wouldn't think your view on it should be affected by the views of libertarians/republicans on unrelated matters.

 

The specific language that the White House requested and to which Levin referred was the language I cited above.

I would have preferred that Obama veto the bill despite the fact that it passed both the House and the Senate with veto proof margin. Although I dont particularly like the use of signing statements, I will accept the signing statement that would invalidate that provision along with the Feinstein bill that would explicitly limit actions against citizens.

And women's issues and the aggressive assault on women rights by the right will impact far more people than this legislation...so that makes it relevant in my mind.

I just find it to be disingenuous of the right to scream about trampling on rights while aggressive attempting to trample on rights.

 

I just read the 'controversal' passage in question

Tixle X, sub btitle D, Section 1021 a-e

I got no problem with it, it gives the President and the milirtary the authority to detain TERROIST suspects indefinatley, even if they happen to be American. I wouldn't have had a problem if Bush had this power (maybe he did), and that guy fumbled through his term.

My thing is that if you peak the interest of the military to the point that you are an American terroist suspect, there has to be something there to indicate you did something worthy of that kind of attention. I'm not saying the power can't be abused, lesser powers are abused every day. But if a concensus of military experts say watch this guy, I'd say he prolly bears watching. And if they find something linking you to Al Queda, I have no problem with them locking your ass up, and dealing with you later.

Set aside colateral damage and incidents of poor intelligence (for both administrations) and look at who we've directed our might. How often have we been just dead wrong? I find the odds acceptable.

 

I agree with samcol to the extend that citizens in the US should not be held indefinitely by having the executive branch classify them as enemy combatants, but the Supreme Court decided otherwise. The Court also said Bush's military tribunals were unconstitutional and those citizens cannot be denied basic due process rights.

IMO, the added language to the NDAA I cited in effect affirms those rights and even more so if Obama issues a signing statement to that effect so I just dont see how citizens can be held indefinitely w/o access to basic due process. I will concede that it is murky but could be resolved if Feinstein does in fact introduce legislation that would prohibit military detention of citizens under any (or very narrowly defined) circumstances...and if enough Republicans would support it (perhaps Ron and Rand will co-sponsor in the House and Senate respectively).

 

iraq?

the problematic sections of this bill---and there are a few of them, some of which were addressed in obama's signing statement (but not the really problematic and entirely unnecessary language authorizing the military to act against us citizens on us soil) this really isn't about whether the military would be capable of tageting the "correct" people, but rather whether the military should be allowed to take on police functions at all. this seems a ridiculous extension of the main strategic error of the bush administration--treating the attacks as an act of war and not as a criminal action. so engendering a costly, useless protracted and brutal military response. unfortunately, at this point thining about how differently a police-oriented response would have looked is a simple exercise in counter-factual "history." insofar as this section of the bill itself is concerned, i'm hoping that obama does as dc outlines above. but i find it bizarre that this is actually law.

 

I think until Congress repeals the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html ), presidents can and will use it as cover to demonstrate how tough they are on the terrorist boogeyman.

I just dont see that happening anytime soon.
--- merged: Dec 27, 2011 9:07 PM ---
Barbara Lee introduced such a bill on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, with 18 co-sponsors, all Democrat.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2859

BTW samcol, she was the only one who voted against the AUMF in 2001 giving these powers to the executive branch. Ron Paul voted for it.

 

yes i am aware. i think he got caught in the whole patriotism/fog of war that was surrounding 9/11. he wised up for the iraq war lies, and the rest of the bill of rights trampling anti terror bills though.

 

Set aside the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in the Iraq invasion and the falsified intelligence that justified the invasion in the first place ... anything else you want to rationalize away before I continue?

 

Yeah, set that aside.
First hundreds of thousands is a bit much, we may have killed tens of thousands of innoccents, and I readily acknowledge that it's a horridly high number of people to mistakenly kill. Additionally, had we been more surgical in our strikes, many of those would be with us today. but many of those weren't our fault, some were used as sheilds, both knowingly and unknowingly, and when it's decision time in war, some of those decisions can be unpleasant. But that's what I ask that you set aside, those incidents where someone had to decide t0 shell a complex/building/etc even though there might be innocents there. I haven't been to war but I would wager that it's not as simple as it's portrayed. Look at the bombed out building of the last world war, do you think there was an orderly evacuation of those towns before war broke out? Casualties happen.

On your second point, I never said false or falsified intelligence, I said poor intelligence. The difference is huge.

Both casualties and poor intelligence lead to mistakes,, grave mistake, but mistakes non the less.

the point of the line you quoted

was that aside from those 'mistakes' (and I continue to use the word because a better one escapes me), where ever we have aimed had been the 'enemy'. I just don't think that if your are Joe Blow going about your business, that you'll be targeted by the US or any other western government erronously, that often. I'm guessing way less than one percent, and I still like those odds.

 

i dont understand why they want to do that. what gives them the right to come to my house and detain, arrest whatever the poroper term is, me? it seems as if it was rewritten so we (whoever) dont racial profile people to be a terrorist?? didnt the term citizens arrest used to me something good, now it seems that citizens isnt the right word anymore, its communisium.

 

That's why I specifically said falsified intelligence. The intelligence that purported to justify the war was all lies. It was called out by other countries and by the UN. At least in the US and British governments, it was known to be a lie.

 

Just to be clear, Obama did not ask for language in the bill to detain US citizens.

And the Levin video that has so many folks outraged excluded much of what Levin said.....particularly where Levin said the NDAA provisions do not apply to US citizens.

Never let the facts get in the way of viral videos.

When you do, you get this.....from a Tea Party/Ron Paul supporter:

 

It just seems a little too easy for you to acknowledge tens of thousands of dead people, and then move right along.
The number is in the hundreds of thousands.
But it doesn't matter. How many dead humans, killed by violence, have you personally seen? Have you ever been in a room with one? How about 10 or 100?
Now imagine 100,000 physically shattered, dead humans.
Now imagine they're all dead because we fought an unnecessary war fabricated on total lies.

 

come on, really?

Please go back and read what I wrote in it's entirety, then read MSD's response/question.
Next read my attempt at clarity in response
Then come back and show me where I was callous in acknowledging dead innocents (questioning the amount doesn't count). And if you have the time and are inclined to do so please also show me where I demostrated support for the war in any way.

My point was that although mistakes were made, grave mistakes......maybe i should say that louder...GRAVE MISTAKES, the likelyhood of you or I being detained or arrested without SOME indication of our involvement in a terroist act is low and I accept the odds.
Am I willing to live in police state? No. Am I willing to support our police or military to detain my neighbor who's been buying bomb parts and who subscribes to Al Queada's monthly terrost newsletter? yes.

To offer a bit more clarity here's my veiw on the war on terror.
Instead of going after Saddam, we should have (as a police action), not asked for help or even made public note of what we'd do, we should have sent in GI effin Joe and laid waste to any and all who had the slightest connection to Al Queda.
Newsstories shouldn't have been "America declares WAR ON TERROR" it should have been:
Number 2 Al Queda found dead with his own AK shoved up his ass and his head blown off from the inside
Al Queda opperative found frozen to death naked in the Alps
US claims no knowledge concerning the sudden and unexplained deaths of thousands of members of former terrorist group Al Queda

 

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, so GI effin Joe would have been pretty bored.

 

What he said
But would it be atrotious to lay waste to your attacker?