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

[bigrebnc1775]

This is what's so confusing about the NDAA One paragraph the New York times says

The most disputed provision would require the government to place into military custody any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies. The provision would exempt American citizens, but would otherwise extend to arrests on United States soil. The executive branch could issue a waiver and keep such a prisoner in the civilian system.


And then in the next paragraph the New York Times says
A related provision would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens. It is intended to bolster the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which lawmakers enacted a decade ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/u...ilitary-custody-for-terror-suspects.html?_r=3
No matter what one part of the NDAA may have been written if another portion contridicts the provision that says U.S. Citizens are exempt.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Representative Justin Amash 3rd district Michigan made a comment to Ian Zatkin-Osburn on the Representative's face book page

Ian Zatkin-Osburn posted

There is nothing unconstiutional about the NDAA. Section 1031, subsection (e) limits the detaibment without trial clause. No American citizen, or anyone arrested in the United States is subject to unconstitutional detainment.

Rep. Amash said

*Ian, you are wrong: The Truth About the New Detainee Policy in the NDAA | Facebook. Have you not been following this issue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

#52- A couple years ago, after the legislature passed a bill making it legal...

You guys give me a serious headache. Are you allergic to reasearch.

From Wiki:

The White House had previously threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[4] arguing that "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people... Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk." The White House also argued that provisions requiring military detention of terrorism suspects on American soil were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.” After a Senate-House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, and removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[17]

What, exactly, do you think this proves? If I take the article exactly as it is written all it does is let the President decide what to do with people. The part Obama objected to was not being able to detain American citizens under his own authority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you're Al Qaeda, you should worry, otherwise not so much. Plus Obama wants to get reelected. Another BS Pub propaganda trap. Makes no difference from what they're already doing, for years.

Or if you are a member of any group the government labels a terrorist group, which includes Hamas and Hezbollah, or give them substantial support, whatever that means, but I do thank you for playing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you're Al Qaeda, you should worry, otherwise not so much. Plus Obama wants to get reelected. Another BS Pub propaganda trap. Makes no difference from what they're already doing, for years.

Or if you are a member of any group the government labels a terrorist group, which includes Hamas and Hezbollah, or give them substantial support, whatever that means, but I do thank you for playing.

Even those pesky OWS protesters

 

[logical4u]

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

Can you say Hugo Chavez??????????????
(Same methods)

I was thinking more along the lines of how Hitler came to power.

Chavez just modernized the methods to slowly wrest powers from the government to himself.

 

[logical4u]

If you're Al Qaeda, you should worry, otherwise not so much. Plus Obama wants to get reelected. Another BS Pub propaganda trap. Makes no difference from what they're already doing, for years.

Why???? Joe Biden has just declare tea party members terrorists and said that Al Qaeda is not our enemy. If Obama gets re-elected Iran will become even more aggressive (who will stop him? Surely not the lecturer in chief). The country will go farther in debt, and the country's wealth will be given to third world dictators (to make up for all the imagined ill Obama's "father" told him the English did). Your choice: the end (Obama) or hope for the nation.

 

[logical4u]

#52- A couple years ago, after the legislature passed a bill making it legal...

You guys give me a serious headache. Are you allergic to reasearch.

From Wiki:

The White House had previously threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[4] arguing that "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people... Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk." The White House also argued that provisions requiring military detention of terrorism suspects on American soil were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.” After a Senate-House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, and removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[17]

What, exactly, do you think this proves? If I take the article exactly as it is written all it does is let the President decide what to do with people. The part Obama objected to was not being able to detain American citizens under his own authority.

Like Chavez with his political opponents????

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I had thought obama's reason for threatening a veto on the NDAA was because certain provision's in it would take away rights guaranteed in the bill of rights. That's actually not the reason. He's isn't given the power that he seeks.


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICYH.R. 1540 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012
Detainee Matters: The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 which, in purporting to
affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion
regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive
consideration before possible inclusion..........
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr1540r_20110524.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]