So there is no doubt about how the NDAA will affect American Citizens here you go

[bigrebnc1775]

This bill is no joke and will be used against any protester or anyone that voices a negative view towards the government. In committee they had taken the words in the bill that would have protected citizens of the U.S. until obama instructed that the words be taken out, according to Senator Carl Levin




Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans

Think that President Obama will stand by his word and veto the legislation that will allow the government to detain American citizens without charge or trial? Think again.
The Obama administration has insisted that the president will veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, a bill that passed through the Senate last week. Under the legislation, the United States of America is deemed a battlefield and Americans suspected of committing a terrorism offense can be held without trial and tortured indefinitely. Despite the grave consequences for citizens and the direct assault on the US Constitution, the act managed to make it through both halves of Congress but President Obama says he won’t let it become a law.


Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans — RT

 

[Steelplate]

section 1032.... Does not apply to American citizens...

Man, you are obsessed... and wrong....and scared....and paranoid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

section 1032.... Does not apply to American citizens...

Man, you are obsessed... and wrong....and scared....and paranoid.

you are wrong as wrong can be.

Here are the amendments for 1031 and 1032 and the reason that they should have been amended. Both amendments were voted down. Number 61 was amendment was for a clearifcation of the words.

61. S.AMDT.1125 to S.1867 To clarify the applicability of requirements for military custody with respect to detainees.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 11/17/2011) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 12/1/2011 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1125 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 55. Record Vote Number: 213.

Number 62 is the biggy.
62. S.AMDT.1126 to S.1867 To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 11/17/2011) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 12/1/2011 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1126 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 55. Record Vote Number: 214.

If American citizens were protected like you are saying they are why is the amendment worded "To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d112:./temp/~bdanNkA:1[1-381](Amendments_For_S.1867)&./temp/~bdlgl6

Are you a government troll?

 

[Steelplate]

file not available.

EDIT: as far as the government troll thing? Fuck you. I've already made my position clear on the OTHER thread you went full retard on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

file not available.

EDIT: as far as the government troll thing? Fuck you. I've already made my position clear on the OTHER thread you went full retard on.

Thats why I also cut and pasted number 61 and 62. it's there.

You do protest way to much.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Try this link and click on amendments

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:sn01867:|/home/legislativedata.php.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Recall that the legislation was recently amended:

Adam Serwer, who’s covered the ins and outs of the NDAA fight better than anyone, has a helpful piece today summarizing what the bill does (and just as importantly, what it doesn’t do).

[The NDAA] says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention — except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military.

It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill.

There’s been a fair amount of coverage this week, arguing that the bill, among things, empowers the executive branch “to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.” Adam’s reporting shows otherwise.

This is not to say the NDAA is a good bill. In fact, as Adam explained, the bill’s language “writes into law an assumed role for the military in domestic counterterrorism that did not exist before,” and though this president and this administration appear to have no interest is using the law the way Republicans would like, we don’t know how future presidents may implement the same provisions.

But it’s not quite as outrageous as some reports have suggested.

Political Animal - What the NDAA does

The authorization of the US military to participate in combating domestic terrorism is both troubling and potentially un-Constitutional, per Posse Comitatus and Ex parte Milligan (1866), the latter of which spells out specific criteria by which the military may function in a ‘law enforcement’ manner.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Recall that the legislation was recently amended:

Adam Serwer, who’s covered the ins and outs of the NDAA fight better than anyone, has a helpful piece today summarizing what the bill does (and just as importantly, what it doesn’t do).

[The NDAA] says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention — except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military.

It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill.

There’s been a fair amount of coverage this week, arguing that the bill, among things, empowers the executive branch “to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.” Adam’s reporting shows otherwise.

This is not to say the NDAA is a good bill. In fact, as Adam explained, the bill’s language “writes into law an assumed role for the military in domestic counterterrorism that did not exist before,” and though this president and this administration appear to have no interest is using the law the way Republicans would like, we don’t know how future presidents may implement the same provisions.

But it’s not quite as outrageous as some reports have suggested.

Political Animal - What the NDAA does

The authorization of the US military to participate in combating domestic terrorism is both troubling and potentially un-Constitutional, per Posse Comitatus and Ex parte Milligan (1866), the latter of which spells out specific criteria by which the military may function in a ‘law enforcement’ manner.

Not according to the government link with the amendments that I provided.

 

[Conservative]

This bill is no joke and will be used against any protester or anyone that voices a negative view towards the government. In committee they had taken the words in the bill that would have protected citizens of the U.S. until obama instructed that the words be taken out, according to Senator Carl Levin




Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans

Think that President Obama will stand by his word and veto the legislation that will allow the government to detain American citizens without charge or trial? Think again.
The Obama administration has insisted that the president will veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, a bill that passed through the Senate last week. Under the legislation, the United States of America is deemed a battlefield and Americans suspected of committing a terrorism offense can be held without trial and tortured indefinitely. Despite the grave consequences for citizens and the direct assault on the US Constitution, the act managed to make it through both halves of Congress but President Obama says he won’t let it become a law.


Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans — RT

To quote you... you take the word of one senator? Just because he 'said' it, doesn't make it true.

Show me a letter, email, video, or other actual proof the administration made them change the wording.

 

[Conservative]

file not available.

EDIT: as far as the government troll thing? Fuck you. I've already made my position clear on the OTHER thread you went full retard on.

his is a full retard, so he goes full retard. It's his thing.

 

[G.T.]

deff full retard.


also, i dont think he knows what "to limit" means.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This bill is no joke and will be used against any protester or anyone that voices a negative view towards the government. In committee they had taken the words in the bill that would have protected citizens of the U.S. until obama instructed that the words be taken out, according to Senator Carl Levin




Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans

Think that President Obama will stand by his word and veto the legislation that will allow the government to detain American citizens without charge or trial? Think again.
The Obama administration has insisted that the president will veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, a bill that passed through the Senate last week. Under the legislation, the United States of America is deemed a battlefield and Americans suspected of committing a terrorism offense can be held without trial and tortured indefinitely. Despite the grave consequences for citizens and the direct assault on the US Constitution, the act managed to make it through both halves of Congress but President Obama says he won’t let it become a law.


Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans — RT

To quote you... you take the word of one senator? Just because he 'said' it, doesn't make it true.

Show me a letter, email, video, or other actual proof the administration made them change the wording.

Big government conservative is just as bad as a big government liberal and you are that big government conservative. I blew your argument out of the water yesterday,

Here from your link that you posted from the other thread you ran from
Here are the amendments for 1031 and 1032 and the reason that they should have been amended. Both amendments were voted down. Number 61 was amendment was for a clearifcation of the words.

61. S.AMDT.1125 to S.1867 To clarify the applicability of requirements for military custody with respect to detainees.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 11/17/2011) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 12/1/2011 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1125 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 55. Record Vote Number: 213.

Number 62 is the biggy.
62. S.AMDT.1126 to S.1867 To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 11/17/2011) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 12/1/2011 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1126 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 55. Record Vote Number: 214.

If American citizens were protected like you are saying they are why is the amendment worded "To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

file not available.

EDIT: as far as the government troll thing? Fuck you. I've already made my position clear on the OTHER thread you went full retard on.

his is a full retard, so he goes full retard. It's his thing.

don't you have some government work to do troll?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

deff full retard.


also, i dont think he knows what "to limit" means.

ass hat your rap shit sucks.

 

[G.T.]

deff full retard.


also, i dont think he knows what "to limit" means.

ass hat your rap shit sucks.

i dont give 2 shakes what your daily dripping wet vagina has to say about anything, tbh.

you're a mess of a man, scared of his own shadow.

if i saw you in a bar, i'd pat your back and tell you it's going to be ok, tbh. sad, really.

 

[G.T.]

If American citizens were protected like you are saying they are why is the amendment worded "To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031"

umm, ass hole...


because you dont know what TO LIMIT means.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

deff full retard.


also, i dont think he knows what "to limit" means.

ass hat your rap shit sucks.

i dont give 2 shakes what your daily dripping wet vagina has to say about anything, tbh.

you're a mess of a man, scared of his own shadow.

if i saw you in a bar, i'd pat your back and tell you it's going to be ok, tbh. sad, really.

you aren't a rapper do something else. So you take up lying?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If American citizens were protected like you are saying they are why is the amendment worded "To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031"

umm, ass hole...


because you dont know what TO LIMIT means.

Apparently stupid bitch you don't

To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031

To limit the authority to detain

Stupid fucking moron. To keep the military detain or arresting citizms

 

[G.T.]

ass hat your rap shit sucks.

i dont give 2 shakes what your daily dripping wet vagina has to say about anything, tbh.

you're a mess of a man, scared of his own shadow.

if i saw you in a bar, i'd pat your back and tell you it's going to be ok, tbh. sad, really.

you aren't a rapper do something else. So you take up lying?

I'm whatever I say I am, limp dick puss-lips.


Why you scared though?


Gubbamint at your door?


BOO!!




I will be alive giggling and getting pussy while you're alive hiding in shadows from the THEY out there. BOO!!

 

[G.T.]

If American citizens were protected like you are saying they are why is the amendment worded "To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031"

umm, ass hole...


because you dont know what TO LIMIT means.

Apparently stupid bitch you don't

To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031

To limit the authority to detain

Stupid fucking moron. To keep the military detain or arresting citizms

-link the bill
-look up what limit means







-dry your pink taco off