New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,351
    Likes Received:
    1,409
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +1,442 / 21 / -0
    New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention – Tenth Amendment Center

    Hopefully more states follow suit.
  2. LibertyForAll
    Offline

    LibertyForAll Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St. Louis, Mo
    Ratings:
    +140 / 0 / -0
    Kudos to Virginia! :clap2:

    I wonder how far the Fed will go to force compliance if it comes down to it.
  3. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,794
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,398 / 0 / -0
    One of the most encouraging fights happening in the Republican Party right now is the GOP-controlled House's efforts to strip President Barack Obama's National Defense Authorization Act of its indefinite detention provision.
    ...

    The House Republicans who are now challenging the NDAA and indefinite detention represent a conservative movement that is rediscovering its traditionally conservative constitutional fidelity. This is the conservatism of Sen. Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, not the right-wing authoritarianism of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that was mistaken for conservatism from 2001 to 2008.

    And it is the Left that now becomes the most authoritarian. Once a critic of our foreign policy and highly questionable "national security" measures, Obama has signed into law an act so unconstitutional it makes Bush and Cheney look like ACLU lawyers. When signing the NDAA, Obama declared, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." So in other words, while Obama concedes that the NDAA does indeed give him the power to lock up citizens without trial indefinitely, we can trust him not to do it. I don't trust him. I know few liberals who would have trusted Bush or Cheney with such powers either.

    There are a good many liberals who oppose the NDAA and this Democratic president's most recent violence against the Constitution. I applaud them. I also applaud the House GOP members who oppose NDAA for acting like conservative Republicans.

    House Republicans return to valuing civil liberties | Jack Hunter | Charleston City Paper
  4. Full-Auto
    Offline

    Full-Auto Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,555
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,614 / 0 / -0
    A return after voting for it in huge numbers.



    Interested in any bridges? How about water front property?
  5. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +1,966 / 1 / -0
    It's a good step in the right direction.
  6. Sunni Man
    Online

    Sunni Man Patriotic American Muslim

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    30,153
    Likes Received:
    3,793
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Dar al Harb
    Ratings:
    +3,882 / 233 / -0
    Pres. Obama knows what's best for America and it's people.

    Why can't people just allow him to rule over us unfettered by the Constitution and other such nuisances? :doubt:
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2012
  7. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,794
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,398 / 0 / -0
    better late than never....are there any Democrat governors leading their states in protest of this.....?
  8. Emma
    Offline

    Emma Evil Liberal Leftist™

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    On the street, acting all loud and tumultuous and
    Ratings:
    +757 / 0 / -0
    That's odd.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

    (from the linked Washington Times article)

    The indefinite detention provision denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants. In hopes of quelling the furor, lawmakers added language that said nothing in the law may 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.”


    When Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31, he issued a statement saying he had serious reservations about provisions on the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Such signing statements are common and allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent.


    “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”




    ---


    So ... it was a-ok when a Republican had these powers, but not so much when a Democratic president is in office. Gotcha.
  9. Emma
    Offline

    Emma Evil Liberal Leftist™

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    On the street, acting all loud and tumultuous and
    Ratings:
    +757 / 0 / -0
    By the way, I'm glad my legislature and governor finally did something right.
  10. Emma
    Offline

    Emma Evil Liberal Leftist™

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    On the street, acting all loud and tumultuous and
    Ratings:
    +757 / 0 / -0
    190 - 43 (8 didn't vote)

    see my link above
  11. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Likes Received:
    2,931
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +3,080 / 9 / -0
    When did a Republican president authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens? Oh, they didn't? Gotcha.

    You can shut up now.
  12. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    39,179
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +5,762 / 0 / -0
    I love the Commonwealth.

    Really.
  13. Full-Auto
    Offline

    Full-Auto Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,555
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,614 / 0 / -0
    This has been seen time and again.

    Rally the troops, express outrage. Pass something meaningless.

    6 months from now...NDAA who?
  14. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    39,179
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +5,762 / 0 / -0
    Virginia really does have a great history of exercising its sovereignty, when appropriate. Anyone recall the straw purchases of firearms in Virginia by NY agents?

    Love it.
  15. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,794
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,398 / 0 / -0
    it is not a-ok.....there are dummies on both sides of the aisles....who wreak havoc on our Constitution step by stupid step....

    but this NDAA goes way overboard.....locking up US citizens without trial...

    Why is it so many (not all) of the former Democrats....who so loudly opposed Bush and the Patriot Act.....why are they are being so silent now....?
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    39,179
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +5,762 / 0 / -0
    And, after this administration's denial of due process leading to the execution of an American citizen, I am even more concerned about giving this administration ANY more rights along those lines. They've demonstrated the capability in one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution I have seen in a long time.

    Yeah, I know the guy was a piece of shit, but when I weigh one piece of shit against the Constitution, I know which has more weight for me.

    [/soapbox]
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Emma
    Offline

    Emma Evil Liberal Leftist™

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    On the street, acting all loud and tumultuous and
    Ratings:
    +757 / 0 / -0
    PRESIDENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIVE/PPD-14

    SUBJECT: Procedures Implementing S e c t i o n 1022 o f the
    N a t i o n a l Defense A u t h o r i z a t i o n Act f o r F i s c al
    Year (FY) 2012


    http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/ppd-14.pdf



    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 pursuant to
    the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
    50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 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:
    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
    the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
    or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
    al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
    in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
    including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
    has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
    forces.
    (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
    person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
    include the following:
    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
    the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
    Use of Military Force.
    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
    Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
    (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
    tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
    of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
    (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
    or expand the authority of the President
    or the scope of the
    Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (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.


    (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
    RESIDENT ALIENS.—
    (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.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

    So you can stfu too.
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2012
  18. Emma
    Offline

    Emma Evil Liberal Leftist™

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    On the street, acting all loud and tumultuous and
    Ratings:
    +757 / 0 / -0
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


    • This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.


    • (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    • (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

      • (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

      • (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    Approved September 18, 2001.
  19. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +1,966 / 1 / -0
    The NDAA should be struck down entirely. No party, person should have this power.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Likes Received:
    1,215
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,215 / 0 / -0
    This is not a black and white issue, as we all would wish, Constitutionally speaking.

    Article 1, Section 9 details circumstances under which 'The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus' shall be suspended.

    Then it boils down to an intrepetation of what constitutes a rebellion or invasion. Not here to defend or refute the laws in question, just pointing out their is more complexity than meets the eye.

Share This Page