The Mother Of All Trojan Horses: The 2012 NDAA

Submitted by: Squrlz4Sale 5 years ago in

On New Year"s Eve, our civil liberties took a horrendous hit. Most Americans haven"t noticed--yet.
There are 73 comments:
Male 11
I say this stuff is overblown. The president can still remove those additions later on, right? I don`t like either party but let`s be straight here. This time it`s the republicans who screwed us, tacking those lines in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
This and SOPA all at once. Goddamn.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Gerry: Very good point about how Obama could have used the opportunity to have ensured an election win. But I suppose (I guess?) the offending provisions might not have been in the bill in the first place if he and his administration weren`t pushing for it. Then again, Lindsey Graham (the R senator from SC) seems to have really wanted to be able to take away the rights of due process from U.S. citizens accused of terrorism. So, yes, I think you`re right: If Obama had been a different (and better) president, this could have been a HUGE opportunity to distinguish himself.
0
Reply
Male 646
This is much ado about nothing. The NDAA is being completely misrepresented by paranoids and wingnuts.
0
Reply
Male 626
Hopefully I can flee the country before they ban emigration. I imagine taking a raft to Cuba wouldn`t be very fun.
0
Reply
Male 40,207

The point is he did sign it. He could have veto`d it and sent Congress back to make a new one without those passages. If he spoke to the people and said "This bill burns the constitution up" He`d have guaranteed a win in November. As it is I have one word of advice for you...Emigrate.
0
Reply
Male 234
"It was attached to a military spending bill which forced Obama to sign it or stop the military budget, which is why he specifically said when he signed the bill that he rejected the clause about indefinite detention and he pledged his administration to it`s rejection. "

That`s funny, considering that his veto threat was actually that he was demanding it applies to American citizens at home, before he signs it.
Look it up.
0
Reply
Male 40,207

I guess the`ll have to reopen those interment camps americans were kept in during WWII.

There are frightening paralells between what is going on now, and 1930`s Europe.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: I`m not debating you on this. When I said "kind of like" I was only really referring to the signing of laws, but perhaps you`re correct that my comparison was a cursory one.

And the Harper gov`t is no stranger to illegal tactics, especially where matters of campaign financing are concerned.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]All he does is sign the laws, it`s just a formality, kind of like your president signing laws.[/quote]
Actually @Patchy: If the Governer doesn`t sign a bill, he gets fired! If the US President doesn`t sign, it`s not law! BUT the Congress can try to pass it again with a 2/3 majority, then it IS LAW regardless of the President.

So yes, our GG is a token of respect to the past, but the PotUS has actual powers, which Obama is expanding and exploiting (illegally I might add).
0
Reply
Male 40,207

nettech98 - [quote]Plus you have to get "Royal Assent" for your laws. The Queen. Yup. Nice democracy you have going there.... [/quote]
They have a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy.
You do know you don`t live in a democracy, don`t you? ...it`s a Republic. Always has been.

Now, go get a book and learn something.
0
Reply
Male 2,225
somehow you morons believe this is a free country.
0
Reply
Male 812
What will voting do exactly if every single one of those mofo`s are traitors to human rights? I don`t get it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Plus you have to get "Royal Assent" for your laws. The Queen. Yup. Nice democracy you have going there....[/quote]

You obviously have no idea how things work in a constitutional monarchy. The Governor General is basically the Queen`s representative in government, but is basically just a figurehead. All he does is sign the laws, it`s just a formality, kind of like your president signing laws.

Plus, the ATA was a response to 9/11 and YOUR country`s Patriot Act. So how`s about you swing your judgemental pendulum the other way to find that our government, for the sake of continued good relations, takes its cues from YOUR government. So, yeah, nice democracy YOU`VE got there.
0
Reply
Male 149
Bradley Manning = traitor
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Would we ever heard of Bradley Manning if NDAA was in effect at the time?
0
Reply
Male 928
@pigsnout5 Your lack of intellect astounds me yet again.

Not voting means you accept whatever you get and if that means indefinitely detained without trial to bad for you.

I will vote. Against every individual who supports this type of action. Get them out and get those who will repair the damage in.
0
Reply
Male 402
This kind of stuff has been happening for years.
The ruling class has always hated democracy and the constitution. It just seems that they`re really coming out of the closet about it and using fear of terrorism as an excuse. kinda like locking up Japanese U.S. citizens. Many of them were born here and no one cared about they`re civil liberties as us citizens because of the big pearl harbor scare. just lining up comparisons that this is kinda nothing new yet it surely is brazenly corrupt and sketchy.
0
Reply
Female 546
f*ck republicans. f*ck democrats. i`m not voting this year cause it doesn`t matter anyways. we`re all gonna blow up on 12/21/12 so who cares who becomes president!
0
Reply
Male 1,404
Unfortunately Congress has failed to exorcise there responsibility to deliberate over several persons clearly chargeable and most likely guilty of treason. The NDAA although technically does not remove this Constitutional responsibility from Congress it does allow them to an excuses not to act. Bottom line this is bad law and the President and Congressman who allowed this to pass are well versed in Constitutional law and knew what they were apart of and do not deserve your vote regardless of party affiliation.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Republicans are just as bad at looking after your rights as democrats.[/quote]
I never said they weren`t, but at least they`re not hypocritical about it.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Net: I think I missed the point of your last post, which is, fundamentally, appreciation for the laws and governing structure this country has. Cheers to that. It`s a great system and I`m grateful for it every day. That said, I`ve been increasingly worried that we`re moving further and further away from democracy and closer and closer toward corporatocracy, per the flag Gerry`s posted.

`night.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats:

Mmmmmmf! ~Squrlz pries at door with a jimmy bar~

C`mon, man, open up! Stop hogging all that national health care!
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Net: I certainly agree laws aren`t perfect. Any product of man, laws included, is bound to have errors. But the provisions in the 2012 NDAA go beyond minor details, here or there; they assault the very heart of the kind of democracy that this nation likes to see itself as promoting around the world.

Or in other words: Legally, Constitutionally, this is a VERY big deal.

Frankly, this country has gone wildly out of kilter in response to 9/11. Until this mad charade of "The War on Terror" is put behind us, I don`t see this country regaining equilibrium. Problem is, the War on Terror serves the ends of both politicians and war profiteers, and so they are loathe to end it.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
@poop: So just to be clear, if a US citizen left this country, joined al-Qaida, and was caught abroad and put in `indefinite detention`, you would stand up and say "That`s illegal! I demand you release him from military custody, try him in a Federal Court for treason, and sentence him to death in accordance with our laws!"

OK! I`m down with that!
0
Reply
Male 1,073
@squirlz: I can`t deny that our laws aren`t perfect, and even if they were, the application of them isn`t either.
We still have to be thankful we have a system that tries to be fair, tries to correct itself, and has checks and balances in place to prevent or correct abuses.
Our Constitution puts forth certain ideals, but yet is still not perfect. I personally think we have one of the fairest, most just systems in the world - notwithstanding that there are individuals that do their best to ignore or corrupt those principles.
So many people here talk about `our rights`. Most of what they preach about is from the 1st (through 10th) Amendment - the "Bill of Rights". But how many people realize that those rights were not even applied to the States - the `common man` - until at least 1897? That`s a mere 114 years ago that the First Amendment meant nothing to me and you.
I think it`s great that people are getting involved in discussions like this, but too many k
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Net (cont`d) -

That scenario I just provided, with the notebook drawings, is based on the premise of a well-intentioned government and it`s disturbing enough.

Now imagine the number of scenarios you could adumbrate with a corrupt government. The founding fathers had plenty of good reasons to create so many safeguards against the abuse of power.

What stuns me is that this affront to liberty was signed into law by a president who, on the campaign trail, crowed about having been a professor of constitutional law.
0
Reply
Male 400
@nettech98
I don`t understand your reasoning here. I feel it`s irrelevant how often an American citizen would be detained without benefit of trial or counsel. The point here is that it`s now LEGAL for it to happen. No one individual should have this much authority. I might be accused of being inflammatory for this, but I see alot of similarities between current life in America and Nazi Germany. Truth be told, as soon as I have the means, my family and myself will be leaving this country and renouncing our citizenship over crap like this.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Net: *Phew* There`s so much to this topic it`s daunting to even attempt to address some of these issues in the confines of the IAB 1000-char limit. But here goes.

History shows that even well-intentioned governments make mistakes. Think of all the convicted "murderers" who have been exonerated by DNA evidence (after serving 10 or 20 years). And the text of this law states that a person could be indefinitely detained for *planning* an attack on the United States. (Think "precrime.") If a Muslim college student has drawings in a notebook of bombs exploding at the base of the Washington Monument, does that meet the standard? Perhaps not to you or me. But on a bad day (say, a day when a real bomb has been detonated somewhere), I`m sure you could find any number of military officials who might think otherwise. And keep in mind: this law allows for "detention... without trial until the end of hostilities" (aka, the "War on Terror").

0
Reply
Male 1,073
For all you whiny Canadians, do you know about your own Antiterroism Act?? Some highlights:

"Highlights of the Anti-terrorism Act:

•It gives the police wide, sweeping powers to act on suspected acts of terrorism.
•It allows suspected terrorists to be detained without charge for up to three days.
•It makes it easier for the police to use electronic surveillance, which used to be seen as a last resort.
•It allows for preventive arrests.
•It allows judges to compel witnesses to give evidence during an investigation.
•It allows for the designation of a group as a terrorist organization."

Plus you have to get "Royal Assent" for your laws. The Queen. Yup. Nice democracy you have going there....
0
Reply
Male 1,073
@squirlz: While what you say in (1) is technically correct (which is what counts), for a US citizen to be found an al-Qaida collaborator on US soil AND to get the attention of the President of the United States to the point where he makes a decision about an individual is so far outside the realm of possibly happening, it`s -almost- not worrying about.

As for (2), I think you`re referring to the `speech` of corporations being protected as opposed to "all the rights and protections" of human beings? (forgive me I didn`t look up the language of that ruling!)

That being said, if such a person were to be detained, would the average person really care whether that traitor is held by the military indefinitely or processed through the criminal justice system under existing federal law for treason, etc.?
0
Reply
Female 87
You`ll have to tinker with that url.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
It`s going to be difficult to challenge this law when ALL the lawyers who take up the case are declaired terrorists, eh?
And any Judge who rules against the government is too.
0
Reply
Female 87
Sorry, but the gloating Canadians on here must be asleep at the wheel. http://pooharperdid.ca/
0
Reply
Male 41,079
*slams the door shut*

BWA!HAhahaha! That`ll keep the yankees out!
Oh wait, 3,000 miles of border and ONE door to stop them...
0
Reply
Male 40,207

QUICKLY! QUICKLY!
Everyone run north before Canada closes the border.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(2) I absolutely agree that this law is unconstitutional. And yes, one hopes that it will be challenged and struck down by the SCOTUS. But there`s no certainty that it *would* be struck down; this, after all, is the Supreme Court that ruled that corporations are due all the rights and protections of human beings. The questions is, will the SCOTUS, at the time of a ruling, be more allied to the government or the citizenry. If the case were to come up with the current bench, I`d be hard pressed to guess which way they`d side.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@nettech:

Hey, Net, how are you? Just getting to it here after a long day at the office. Anyway, to address your points:

(1) Unfortunately, it`s worse than you state. A president could, if he or she wanted to, use this law to have the military indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. The sole requirement here is that the detainee must be or have been a member of al-Qaida or must have planned, carried out, or attempted to carry out an attack on the United States. Oh, and one more thing: A civilian judge in a court of law won`t be determining if the detainee has met any or all of those criteria; the military will (under the direction of the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, aka the POTUS).

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]NDAA. when taken in the context of US citizens, would only affect those handful of people who leave this country and then turn against us.[/quote] ------------
You`re not paying attention.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
"If immigration to other countries were easier, I`d be on a plane to the UK right about now..."

Here you go.... Don`t let the plane door hit you on the way out...
0
Reply
Male 1,073
"this is infinitely more terrifying and threatening than the SOPA act ever could be"

I disagree - SOPA could affect millions of Internet users, and hundreds or thousands of Internet sites/providers.

NDAA. when taken in the context of US citizens, would only affect those handful of people who leave this country and then turn against us.
0
Reply
Male 1,735
Even he doesn`t abuse it, whose to say the next guy won`t. All it takes is someone to oppose him in some way and than he`ll be labeled a terrorist and tossed in jail for life. Same could be done with entire groups of protesters. Let that sink in, he could choose to toss hundreds or thousands in at once based on that law. That sounds like a Dictatorship to me.
0
Reply
Female 1,203
people haven`t noticed yet probably because they are so wrapped up in the damned SOPA act debate...this is infinitely more terrifying and threatening than the SOPA act ever could be...however, I agree that I don`t think this can last. But the fact that it was passed at all is absolutely horrifying. If immigration to other countries were easier, I`d be on a plane to the UK right about now...
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Yeah, Obama LOVES the military SO MUCH he just couldn`t veto it.
Frakkin liar.
0
Reply
Male 40,207

Welcome to the U.C.A. - United Corporations of America

0
Reply
Male 2,422
It was attached to a military spending bill which forced Obama to sign it or stop the military budget, which is why he specifically said when he signed the bill that he rejected the clause about indefinite detention and he pledged his administration to it`s rejection.

But the fact is that it DOES give him and subsequent administrations the AUTHORITY to do so. So his pledge not to use that authority is no guarantee that he won`t change his mind later. His guarantee is in no way binding on his Office as a function of government. All in all, it`s a bad thing.
0
Reply
Male 525
Have fun with your president, America. If he gets reelected, you DESERVE four more years of this crap. I guess the only bright side is that if (and arguably, when) he wins, he won`t be able to blame the old administration anymore--he and the socialists will get the blame for everything bad...finally.

Canada, FTW.
0
Reply
Male 3,343
One person will get detained under this law. The ACLU will take up the cause. The law will go to the supreme court. The law will be overturned.

Still crappy that it got passed, and we should be able to look at it and say that on it`s face it`s a violation of the Constitution, and therefore anyone who didn`t vote against it violated their oath of office to protect the Constitution. Anyone who violated their oath to protect the Constitution should be impeached and removed from office.
0
Reply
Male 180
@longlive289s: You may want to re-read that. It says the "requirement" does not extend to citizens of the United States. That does not mean that they can`t still permanently detain you without trial or reason, it`s just that it`s not a "requirement". It`s a choice at that point, a choice left to ONE Person, the President.
0
Reply
Male 29
Keep reading about people freaking out over this bill that passed and that us citizens can be detained now. 1)it`s an appropriations bill....people never read it 2)if they actually did they wont freak out. I quote: Sec. 1032 sub secti...on B "Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens" Section (1) of subsection 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."
0
Reply
Male 1,010
Obama is Der Führer. Get used to it.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
To be quite honest, what else is new? This sort of thing has been going on throughout the history of the world.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]There is only one candidate running that opposes this nonsense and his name is Ron Paul[/quote]
I would support him, if he weren`t a psychopath that would f*ck this country over, albeit in a totally different way and direction.

F*ck it, people, why don`t we just elect Cthulhu? Seriously, why do we keep electing the LESSER of the many evils when it comes to politics? How about we just get the worst over with and let the Elder`s Will be done?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
OldOllie, This bill got all the necessary republican support to reach Obama`s desk. You can hide in your fantasy world of republicans looking out for your rights because you`re white, straight and mid-western. But don`t kid yourself. Republicans are just as bad at looking after your rights as democrats. There is only one candidate running that opposes this nonsense and his name is Ron Paul. If you believe in liberty support him or STFU. It`s as much your fault as it is mine apparently.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
@squirlz: How did I know you posted this? LOL. When he reads it like this, he is much more clear with his interpretation, and I take no issue with how he states it.

Two points (not saying I agree or disgree with NDAA - just talking points):

1. Is it really such a `travesty, etc` to have such a law that can be used against such an incredibly small (handful at best) US citizens abroad under very specific circumstances where they have betrayed the US?

2. Just because it`s a law doesn`t mean it`s constitutional. If it is challenged it may be struck down. Unfortunately some bad guy is probably going to have to be detained under its provisions before we get a challenge.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
Sorry about this picture usa

0
Reply
Male 25,416
But im still bored.....
0
Reply
Male 3,482
I`ve already made plans with a friend to go for a little "vacation" somewhere out of country, then just conveniently "forget" to get the tickets round-trip.

If my location suddenly switches to "Asia," you`ll know why.
0
Reply
Male 300
"HOW DOES THIS HELP WITH MY BOREDOM?"

I would suppose that indefinite detention could be infinitely boring.
0
Reply
Male 373
HOW DOES THIS HELP WITH MY BOREDOM?
0
Reply
Male 2,516
so glad I live in Canada; so sad Canada is so close to USA
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]The critical thinking skills here at IAB are top-notch.[/quote]
No, that`s just OldOllie for ya.

He`s one of IAB`s longest running gags. I`m pretty sure no one takes him seriously anymore.
0
Reply
Male 79
Dem., Rep., I don`t give a poo. They`re all crooked bastards, and the American people are idly sitting by watching their Jersey Shore`s and 16 and Pregnant`s, and not seeing what is going on in this country. Our greatest enemy isn`t outside our borders, it`s right there, plain as day, in Washington D.C.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
...but let`s do that thing we always do where we take a minimal amount of information, and place all of the blame on people who don`t deserve it.

The critical thinking skills here at IAB are top-notch.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
(he also said that he refuses to allow the executive branch to enforce the parts of the bill he disagrees with)
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Obama has specifically said that he takes large issue with certain parts of the bill, but that so many other, necessary sources of funding, etc. were lumped in with the bill that he had to sign it or else a lot of sh*t would be f*cked.

Which I see as a huge problem in politics today. It`s completely unfair that you can take one law that you want to pass, even if it`s awful, and then pad the bill with a ton of "sweeteners" and things that NEED to be passed, in order to get your one piece of sh*tty legislation through. It`s awful.
0
Reply
Male 483
Oh hey, more finger pointing. Yeah, I`m sure conservative leaders have been forthright and never abused their power to control the masses. Wait a minute...THE PATRIOT ACT!

Grow up. You`re in your 50`s.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
Just wait; if Obama wins the next election, many "militia members" and "political agitators" will begin to disappear.

One Party. One Rule.
0
Reply
Male 412
Subtitles are funneh!
0
Reply
Male 81
Those captions suck.
0
Reply
Male 259
washington = moscow
land of the free
0
Reply
Male 15,832
As I`ve said, liberals have no problem with oppression as long as they get to be the oppressors.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Link: The Mother Of All Trojan Horses: The 2012 NDAA [Rate Link] - On New Year`s Eve, our civil liberties took a horrendous hit. Most Americans haven`t noticed--yet.
0
Reply