Author Topic: NDAA  (Read 2755 times)

read please <3
thats not even the bill you handicap. i dont know where you found that but the rest of the world is reading this;

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

1021

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.
(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 organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).



1022

(terrorist group specifics cut)
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of 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.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 01:15:43 AM by Bisjac »

if it's an illegal alien and considered a terrorist, it can be thrown in with no jury, judge, etc.
legal aliens and citizens are unaffected

the reason people were spooked about NDAA was
Quote
we thought that citizens could be abducted by officials without trial

@bisjac: who's the handicap here? i know that wasn't the bill, that was an article.

if it's an illegal alien and considered a terrorist, it can be thrown in with no jury, judge, etc.
and with no proof?

and with no proof?
yes, that's the only issue i really have with it, otherwise i'm not that worried.

if it's an illegal alien and considered a terrorist, it can be thrown in with no jury, judge, etc.
legal aliens and citizens are unaffected

the reason people were spooked about NDAA was
@bisjac: who's the handicap here? i know that wasn't the bill, that was an article.
so you get your info from random people spewing opinions and you dnt even read the bill?
the bill clearly states that any US citizen can be simply deemed a terrorist without any cause. and it all applies to them as well.

yes, that's the only issue i really have with it, otherwise i'm not that worried.
MY NEIGHBOR IS A TERRORIST

cops come and take him away

put him in jail

no judge

no jury

cops aren't even required to inform his family that he was put in jail, how are you not worried about this?

EDIT: or what bisjac said

(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.

what the flying forget is this then? :L

(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.

what the flying forget is this then? :L
Where does it say this in bisjac's post?

I appologize if you are getting false information from Wikipedia, but I had really forgotten that Wikipedia is also part of them

he bolded it at the bottom.
highlighted it just for me :L

and it's not from wikipedia

he bolded it at the bottom.
highlighted it just for me :L

and it's not from wikipedia
I was able to find it quite quickly upon using ctrl+f

ah, its in both

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA

This should sort out this little dilemma we had, no?

again, even IF IT WAS NOT applied to US citizens, which it is, why the hell do we reserve the right to do whatever we want to anybody that isn't a citizen of the united states!?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 01:30:15 AM by soba »

(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.

what the flying forget is this then? :L

the president can waive that right. as detailed. if:

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.


the bills read like any standard legallize.
"if 1 then b, if b then refer to paragraph 2, fi the president 6 then paragraphs c and d dont count."

at the snap of a finger, the president can claim a whole protesting group is an unruly terrorist group. and these thigns apply.
they literally lose rights as citizens and are treated like any other terrorist.

by what i'm reading, it appears as if it only happens if the citizen is in relation with the terrorist acts :V

by what i'm reading, it appears as if it only happens if the citizen is in relation with the terrorist acts :V
Again, you don't need any loving proof that this person is in any way a terrorist to throw him/her in jail for the rest of his life

Quote
In the statement Obama gave with the bill's signing, he said that he will order the administration not to apply it to American citizens.
Quote
"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," Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.

Obama's signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans' constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes.

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or "associated forces" and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"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."

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.


Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-31-15-18-42
done and done.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 02:12:03 AM by Lil Robot »

if anything, you sound like the tribal here, how is it the more children are born, the more crime there is?
grasping at straws
it is tribal to say "mexicans come here for free healthcare" because not all immigrants are mexican!