MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/)
-   The Lounge (http://www.mmaforum.com/lounge/)
-   -   The National Defense Authorization Act signed by Obama (http://www.mmaforum.com/lounge/98554-national-defense-authorization-act-signed-obama.html)

M.C 01-03-2012 08:31 PM

The National Defense Authorization Act signed by Obama
 
Quote:

Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. It brought about changes in law enforcement that allowed agencies to search phones, financial records, etc.

One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. Congress passes this act every year to monitor the budget for the Department of Defense. However, this year the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.

Normally, this is just an act which details the monetary calls of the Department of Defense which is passed every year. However, the act passed for the 2012 fiscal year changes the bill and can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act. Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial.

In a country famous for the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, this is an upsetting change that is being foisted upon the American people with many unaware of what it means.

The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.

So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made arguments for this provision, stating that the law would apply for US citizens' turncoats who have aided Al-Qaeda or other associated organization. He gave a long-winded story of how a U.S. citizen might fly to Pakistan to receive terrorist training, then return home and shoot down fellow citizens a few miles from the airport.

It's a disgusting show that Graham is pulling. He has made an example of how a single U.S. citizen might become a turncoat and because of that possible risk, the citizen's right to a trial and jury has been abolished.

Supporter of the NDAA, Representative Tim Griffin stated in the Daily Caller:

Section 1022's use of the word 'requirement' also has been misinterpreted as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. This provision must be read in the context of Section 1022's purpose, which is reflected in its title and relates solely to 'military custody of foreign al Qaida terrorists.' The term "requirement" does not mean that detention of U.S. citizens is optional under this provision.

He merely states that the people have 'misinterpreted' the provisions within the bill.

This is a situation in which they are able to detain U.S. citizens, but they won't because that's wrong. I will repeat: "They are allowed through the NDAA to detain U.S. citizens, but they won't because that's wrong."

Similar to Griffin's response, President Obama has released a statement regarding the H.R. 1540
(NDAA):

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.

President Obama says that his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens. Yet Obama also said that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Obama also said he would recall the troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Obama also said he would end the Bush tax cuts.

It doesn't matter the reason these promises were not kept. What matters is that they weren't. Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit.

These implications grow larger as we know there is no single accepted definition of terrorism present in the United States. The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Under this definition, the entire United States can be seen as terrorists. The government had planned the operations in Iraq and has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths. It can also be said that the U.S. is changing views of terrorism throughout the world... influencing an audience. Terrorism cannot be specifically defined as attacks against the United States; therefore, the United States might have been terrorizing parts of the Middle East.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has stated that there are laws regarding terrorist suspects in America in place by the Department of Justice. Issues such as having an armed weapon or having a food supply lasting at least seven days can be grounds for terrorism.

I look to my well-supplied pantry filled with foods my loving mother had purchased from Costco. I'm not one to count it all, but I'd say it would last my entire family over a week.

My father legally owns a handgun. There's something about protecting his family that is important to him, so he keeps a gun nearby.

I am writing a story that is against what the politicians in Washington have voted for. Can I be seen as aiding Al-Qaeda because I am attempting to change the views of the public to something that is against government; because there is a gun in my home and we have a well-supplied pantry?

Can I be seen as a terrorist under the definition of terrorism? Yes I can. Will I? I hope not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alton-...b_1180869.html

A right to a trial? Gone. Innocent until proven guilty? Gone.

Phew, it's about time the government stopped these remaining "rights" that American's once had, they were really getting in the way of completely, 100% controlling us. It also opens up new doors, such as if American's ever decide enough is enough of this country, and rebel in order to get this place back on the right track, we can fall under the title of terrorists, so they can simply detain us and take us away. You know, to make sure we have no right to defend ourselves from the country we live in.

Good stuff.

oldfan 01-03-2012 09:44 PM

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?

M.C 01-04-2012 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldfan (Post 1528073)
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. I never argued against it or even mentioned it.





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




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?

Two things.

First - this quote:

Quote:

my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.
His Administration, not others. The right to detain is still there, he's the one that wanted it in.

Obama is a politician, he lies, he words his sentences in a way that try to cause as little damage as possible. Not only can citizen's be detained in such a way, but it was him and his team that wanted the ability to detain U.S citizen's in the bill in the first place. The first proposed form had no such captive abilities, Administration wanted it changed:



It is not illegal to lie in a "signing speech" or whatever it's called, once a bill has been signed. You are not forced to explain what is in the bill, or what isn't. I wouldn't trust Obama on anything, much less this, and his speech means nothing - you can pick many holes in it.

Second - You are right that a less "strict" version of this bill has been around since after 9/11, or more strict depending on how you see it. No one is saying, well that's not true, many are saying but they aren't really correct, that this is a brand new thing and that it's the end of America as we know it. That bill also allows U.S citizen's to be detained, so the concept is nothing new.

oldfan 01-04-2012 06:48 AM

Although he quoted it in his signing statement this is actual language from the controversial section of the bill.

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).
^^ so, it's like, you know, the law man.

what is the actual language in the bill which you think allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens?


This entire thing has been a song and dance orchestrated by Republicans to embarrass Obama and fool lazy Americans into somehow thinking that He is responsible for a law that they passed 10 years ago.

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note)

please tell me how this new bill affects you in a way that the old law did not?



Edit: M.C. I apologize if I sound a little strident towards you. I just get tired of Obama getting blamed for everything, even the weather. And that is what this is. A whole lot of machination so that the republican nominee can have a sound bite to throw at Obama.


It's political football. either he's weak on terrorism or he's trying to take away your rights.

Ps. I had a good laugh at the part about them not allowing us to rebel. :)

locnott 01-04-2012 09:26 AM

You and I are usually on the same page Oldfan, but this is something for everyone to be worried about. It does basicly remove all rights if thats the way they want it. Its looks pretty open ended with no limits to anything if that is what they want, Im a little concerned where it could go..

oldfan 01-04-2012 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by locnott (Post 1528235)
You and I are usually on the same page Oldfan, but this is something for everyone to be worried about. It does basicly remove all rights if thats the way they want it. Its looks pretty open ended with no limits to anything if that is what they want, Im a little concerned where it could go..

We should be concerned. Strict vigilance is needed on this as with everything our government does. In fact, that’s the only hope we have of making our government work for the people the way it was designed to. That requires people to pause MW3 every now and then and turn on c-span and focus on the real world. not much hope there.

I don’t want to quote the same language 3 times but the bill itself addresses both the need for vigilance and the method.

I honestly see nothing here that is new and would appreciate it if you could show me. It is my understanding that the dust up was cased by a well meaning but misguided (the definition of) Democratic congressman who ADDED NEW language to the same old bill that gets passed every year. Language that the Administration felt could be used to hinder counter terrorism.

I would like to point out that NOTHING gets added to a bill in a republican controlled house without republican approval. The house republicans who were not in favor of the new language allowed it to be added and then sat back with a nudge nudge wink wink, hey y’all watch this attitude Knowing that any president would want the language removed, they let Mr. Obama be the bad guy.

Also, EVERYTHING in the new law expires in 1 year. If there is something in there that you think is important, NOW is the time to start telling your congressman you want it changed next year.

It’s good to be concerned. Is it important enough for people to interrupt Skyrim and do something?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8 , Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2