Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
Renegade:
NDAA 2012 gives the US govt the power to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone for *any reason*.
http://rt.com/news/terrorism-credit-cards-government-613/
-Renegade (December 26, 2011, 06:27 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't think that points to what you think it does. The smoking gun that was quoted there was distributed to military surplus stores. I don't think wal-mart is a military surplus store.
And as far as the NDAA 2012, that's the legislative branch giving away authority to the executive branch, not the other way around. Think about it- it made it through the house even as it stands. The Republican controlled house. What does that say?
And apparently (though not in as attention grabbing a headline) Obama has threatened to veto in its current form, so language is still being added to avoid a presidential veto.
More clarifications on the controversial terms.
Which, if true, would mean that Ron Paul and others who have supposedly read it, are either ignorant of these same facts (unlikely) or using the internet firestorm to their own advantage.
Which would be politics as usual.
Ron Paul can't save us now. We can only save ourselves.
-wraith808 (December 26, 2011, 09:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
The link you have there doesn't address the controversial terms. I refers to 1021/1022 when the real problem is 1031.
It sounds like misdirection to me.
From the article you posted:
The misinformation surrounding the 2012 NDAA is a result of the misinterpretation of provisions included in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act. These provisions are an important part of the 2012 NDAA and provide vital clarity for our Armed Forces defending America around the world. Our forces have officially withdrawn from Iraq and are on a timetable for a similar drawdown in Afghanistan. However, terrorists around the world continue to plot devastating attacks against Americans.
--- End quote ---
What total utter nonsense! I seriously just want to vomit. That anyone could possibly put forth such utter bold face lies is disgusting!
You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
If you read 1031, it clearly sets out a police state. The only offense you need to be suspected of is being "belligerent". Literally. It's very clear.
(I can't find the govt reference at the moment. I read it before, and it's crystal clear -- YOU are the enemy now. YOU are the "terrorist". It's sick and perverse.)
Like seriously, what kind of a douchewad (or idiot) would point people to 1021/1022 when the problem is 1031? Lies. Malicious lies. It's purely misdirection.
Obama never vetoed it. It went through. (At least as far as I've read on it.)
Am I missing something? Did the world change under my feet in the last few days. It would sure as hell be a welcome belated Christmas present!
wraith808:
Section 1031? I've read it, and it doesn't say that. To quote in its entirety:
SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.
In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.
--- End quote ---
Unless you mean another section 1031? But that's pulled directly from the bill's text. Perhaps section 1034 is what you mean:
SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.
Congress affirms that--
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.
--- End quote ---
But even that is limited, though the language is unclear. The intent is towards combatants in the 'war', and this unclear terminology is being used as a talking point.
That fact (and Ron Paul's usage of the talking point) is made a bit more clear in this bit by Politifact.com.
Paul’s debate warning ties to the House-approved language adding "associated forces" to the Taliban and al-Qaeda as permitted U.S. targets--not to the Defense Department’s budget, contrary to his wording.
Most significantly, the U.S. government has laid claim to such authority for about a decade. So even if the cited provisions pass into law, they would not change how the government prosecutes detainees. Also, we saw no evidence that the change would make American non-combatants vulnerable. We rate Paul’s claim Mostly False.
--- End quote ---
This is not to say that there aren't still problems with the legislation as written. My major point is that Ron Paul is a politician. Relying on him to 'save us' is just like relying on Obama to enact 'change that we can believe in'. Everyone is hampered by a lack of understanding that the politicians serve the people rather than themselves and special interests, so that the government is deadlocked. The people need to send a clear word to the politicians that we don't want washington to be politics as usual. But we don't. And whomever wins is spun to be a victory by the people, but the people had little to do with it, other than being directed by the spending and commercials to vote for the lesser evil.
Obama never vetoed it. It went through.
-Renegade (December 26, 2011, 11:04 AM)
--- End quote ---
From govtrack.us
Status: Passed Congress. Next: Having passed in identical form in both the House and Senate, this bill now awaits the signature of the President before becoming law. [Last Updated: Dec 22, 2011 12:00PM]
--- End quote ---
Senate vote details
House Vote Details
As the President is on vacation (and has been since before that update) it has not been signed.
J-Mac:
Sections 1031 and 1032 originally had wording that did allow the detention of American citizens if they were suspected of supporting terrorists, and specifically denied any rights to US courts/justice system. That was what made the bill such a hot topic. The final bill, as voted on, did not have that wording. Still that doesn’t appear to be clear to everyone and seems to be at the root of continuing debate.
Jim
Renegade:
Sections 1031 and 1032 originally had wording that did allow the detention of American citizens if they were suspected of supporting terrorists, and specifically denied any rights to US courts/justice system. That was what made the bill such a hot topic. The final bill, as voted on, did not have that wording. Still that doesn’t appear to be clear to everyone and seems to be at the root of continuing debate.
Jim
-J-Mac (December 26, 2011, 08:44 PM)
--- End quote ---
That makes sense.
Found the reference... It's moved from 1031 to 1021, so looks like I was out of date above and being ranty again. :D
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01540: < You need to drill down. You can't link to it directly.
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.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
...
(2) ...any person who has committed a belligerent act...
--- End quote ---
It's still there. It still says "anyone we feel like". "Belligerent act" is simply massively broad.
Also -- I was wrong about Obama passing it:
There are 7 versions of Bill Number H.R.1540 for the 112th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
1 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.1540.IH][PDF]
2 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Reported in House - RH)[H.R.1540.RH][PDF]
3 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.1540.EH][PDF]
4 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Referred in Senate - RFS)[H.R.1540.RFS][PDF]
5 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.1540.EAS][PDF]
6 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Print - PP)[H.R.1540.PP][PDF]
7 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.1540.ENR][PDF]
--- End quote ---
I take it that the next stage is for Obama to pass it.
wraith808:
It's moved from 1031 to 1021, so looks like I was out of date above and being ranty again. :D
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01540: < You need to drill down. You can't link to it directly.
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.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
...
(2) ...any person who has committed a belligerent act...
--- End quote ---
It's still there. It still says "anyone we feel like". "Belligerent act" is simply massively broad.
-Renegade (December 26, 2011, 09:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
No, it's not still there. Sections stay the same in bills, but can be dropped or added as needed, so you have to look at the final bill to see what is being voted on/passed.
This is the one that is being presented to the president (the same one in your quote on the 7th version). Note that section 1021 does not exist.
The situation that Jim pointed out is the truth of the matter. (Thanks for that Jim) Why it's being referred to as still being in the bill? I don't know...
And the link I posted above tells the exact stage that the bill is in.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version