NDAA 2012 gives the US govt the power to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone for *any reason*.
http://rt.com/news/t...ards-government-613/
-Renegade
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
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 Our forces have officially withdrawn from Iraq and are on a timetable for a similar drawdown in Afghanistan.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.
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....for_Fiscal_Year_2012If 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!
Recent Posts
