MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - The National Defense Authorization Act signed by Obama

View Single Post

Old 01-03-2012, 10:44 PM   #2 (permalink)
oldfan
LONGHAIRED COUNTRYBOY
 
oldfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NC.
Posts: 7,440
Blog Entries: 1
oldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Materialoldfan Is Future HOF Material
It is pathetic what lazy lemmings some people are. the country waits for fox news to tell them what to think, now arrianna huffington is telling the rest.

what exactly are you so upset about? what does the law say that affects you? How does it affect you? You don’t know. All you know is the huffington post said cry about the bad people.

I actually read the sections of the law that have your panties wadded up. I can’t find anything to cry about. It simply affirms some conditions of the patriot act that have been in effect for a decade. originally part of Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) that’s right you should have wadded up and started crying a decade ago. except if you actually read that one too you probably would only be afraid if you are an actual member of Al-queda. And then after it needlessly re-afirms what we’ve been living with for a decade it states this.

Quote:
e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall 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.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organiza-
tions, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).


and then Mr. Obama attached this message to further confirm that nothing has changed.

Quote:
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Exactly what part of the law (hint theres more than what I pasted) has you upset and how do you think it should be changed?

or are we waiting for huffington to tell us?
__________________
oldfan is offline   Reply With Quote