New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention

[Kevin_Kennedy]

On Wednesday, the Virginia legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that forbids state agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise the indefinite detention without due process provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

HB1160 “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

The legislature previously passed HB1160 and forwarded it to Gov. Bob McDonnell for his signature. Last week, the governor agreed to sign the bill with a minor amendment. On Wednesday, the House of Delegates passed the amended version of the legislation 89-7. Just hours later, the Senate concurred by a 36-1 vote.

New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention – Tenth Amendment Center

Hopefully more states follow suit.

 

[LibertyForAll]

On Wednesday, the Virginia legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that forbids state agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise the indefinite detention without due process provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

HB1160 “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

The legislature previously passed HB1160 and forwarded it to Gov. Bob McDonnell for his signature. Last week, the governor agreed to sign the bill with a minor amendment. On Wednesday, the House of Delegates passed the amended version of the legislation 89-7. Just hours later, the Senate concurred by a 36-1 vote.

New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention – Tenth Amendment Center

Hopefully more states follow suit.

Kudos to Virginia!

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

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

 

[Full-Auto]

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

A return after voting for it in huge numbers.



Interested in any bridges? How about water front property?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's a good step in the right direction.

 

[Sunni Man]

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?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

A return after voting for it in huge numbers.



Interested in any bridges? How about water front property?

better late than never....are there any Democrat governors leading their states in protest of this.....?

 

[Emma]

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

That's odd.

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

In a report last month, The Washington Times notes that House Republicans working to bring an end to the indefinite detention of terror suspects face a "conservative backlash."

Facing a "conservative backlash?" Didn't conservatives support the Patriot Act and pretty much all the other Draconian laws passed during the Bush years to "keep us safe?"

(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 Obamahttp://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-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.

 

[Emma]

On Wednesday, the Virginia legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that forbids state agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise the indefinite detention without due process provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

HB1160 “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

The legislature previously passed HB1160 and forwarded it to Gov. Bob McDonnell for his signature. Last week, the governor agreed to sign the bill with a minor amendment. On Wednesday, the House of Delegates passed the amended version of the legislation 89-7. Just hours later, the Senate concurred by a 36-1 vote.

New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention – Tenth Amendment Center

Hopefully more states follow suit.

By the way, I'm glad my legislature and governor finally did something right.

 

[Emma]

A return after voting for it in huge numbers.

190 - 43 (8 didn't vote)

see my link above

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

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.

 

[Si modo]

I love the Commonwealth.

Really.

 

[Full-Auto]

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

A return after voting for it in huge numbers.



Interested in any bridges? How about water front property?

better late than never....are there any Democrat governors leading their states in protest of this.....?

This has been seen time and again.

Rally the troops, express outrage. Pass something meaningless.

6 months from now...NDAA who?

 

[Si modo]

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.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

That's odd.

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

In a report last month, The Washington Times notes that House Republicans working to bring an end to the indefinite detention of terror suspects face a "conservative backlash."

Facing a "conservative backlash?" Didn't conservatives support the Patriot Act and pretty much all the other Draconian laws passed during the Bush years to "keep us safe?"

(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 Obamahttp://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-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.

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....?

 

[Si modo]

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

That's odd.

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

In a report last month, The Washington Times notes that House Republicans working to bring an end to the indefinite detention of terror suspects face a "conservative backlash."

Facing a "conservative backlash?" Didn't conservatives support the Patriot Act and pretty much all the other Draconian laws passed during the Bush years to "keep us safe?"

(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 Obamahttp://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-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.

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....?

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]

 

[Emma]

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

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.

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.

 

[Emma]

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.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The NDAA should be struck down entirely. No party, person should have this power.

 

[SniperFire]

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.