Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
National Defense Authorization Act bill
Sunday, November 27, 2011 3:41 PM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:27 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:50 PM
PIRATENEWS
John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!
Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:59 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA on-line petition against indefinite military detention
Sunday, November 27, 2011 5:44 PM
Monday, November 28, 2011 4:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Well, I'm not really sure what your issue could be.
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Yes, this is a real ACLU link. No, it isn't spoofed. If you don't believe me, go to the ACLU website and do a search using the phrase "National Defense Authorization Act".
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: But I admit, a lot of people have been added to government watch lists due to the US 'Patriot' Act for completely trivial reasons. Perhaps this is THE petition that will land you on a list.
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: You're right. You should just crawl under a rock and hide. It's the only way to be safe.
Monday, November 28, 2011 6:16 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: for Geezer: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867: btw - you have to add the ":" at the end of the link for it to work
Quote: SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined-- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary 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. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. (c) Implementation Procedures- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section. (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows: (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States. (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session. (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country. (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished. (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
Monday, November 28, 2011 6:26 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: for Geezer: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867: btw - you have to add the ":" at the end of the link for it to work Thanks. Per Sect. 1032 of the legislation: Quote: SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined-- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary 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. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. (c) Implementation Procedures- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section. (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows: (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States. (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session. (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country. (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished. (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date. So this version indicates that military custody is not an option for U.S. citizens. This section is the only one that contains 'detain' or 'custody' in the title. Unless you can find somewhere else that contradicts this section, looks like the ACLU may be jumping the gun. "Keep the Shiny side up"
Monday, November 28, 2011 11:02 AM
Monday, November 28, 2011 12:18 PM
CANTTAKESKY
Monday, November 28, 2011 12:29 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Or you can just shrug off the Bill of Rights piece by piece in order to protect your 'freedom'.
Monday, November 28, 2011 12:32 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: So this version indicates that military custody is not an option for U.S. citizens.
Quote: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112NRRpIl:e460991: SEC. 1031. 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) 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.
Monday, November 28, 2011 12:34 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: My intent was to have a discussion to find out what exactly was in the Bill since I'd not seen anyone here post anything about it - considering the ACLU's concerns I was very surprised by that, seems like people here would be all over it.
Monday, November 28, 2011 1:07 PM
Monday, November 28, 2011 1:26 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Monday, November 28, 2011 1:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Pizmo "My intent was to have a discussion to find out what exactly was in the Bill ..." which was easily discovered by reading the text. And yes, people discussed.
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Now, as far as I can tell, you're position is that the link was spoofed, no one should speak up, the ACLU is just trying to stampede people to send them money, and as long as it's only 'those people' it's all good. Have I got that right?
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: I hate to tell you this, but this sounds an awful lot like a military dictatorship, something you seem eager to see go forward, or at the very least excuse.
Monday, November 28, 2011 2:00 PM
Monday, November 28, 2011 2:06 PM
Monday, November 28, 2011 2:29 PM
Monday, November 28, 2011 2:34 PM
Monday, November 28, 2011 4:14 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire: This would change the current system, it is potentially dangerous, lets not do it.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:05 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: I can imagine no vision for America that includes stripping a person of the fundamental rights we claim to hold dear.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:09 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Much of this seems to be distaste directed towards online petitioning.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: "Sites can be spoofed, databases can be jacked, what good is a list of names against this? Move on over (under the rock). ... chances are good this is just the ACLU trolling for concerned citizens (suckers) to fill their database. Seems of little possible value. ... there seems very little to gain from signing this and this (and a lot?) to loose. As in "using FEAR to generate a mailing list." Looks like it might be aimed at illegal immigrants since it keeps stating "lawful resident" as the exception." "Now, as far as I can tell, you're position is that the link was spoofed, no one should speak up, the ACLU is just trying to stampede people to send them money, and as long as it's only 'those people' it's all good. Have I got that right?" "How do you draw that conclusion from what I said?" From your posts.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Much of this seems to be distaste directed towards online petitioning.Right. I read that Pizmo really hates online petitioning. Not that he was gung ho FOR the bill.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: But military custody is still an option. That is what ACLU is protesting, the POSSIBILITY that US citizens can be detained without trial under military custody. Anyone covered under Sect 1031 is a potential target. Quote: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112NRRpIl:e460991: SEC. 1031. 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) 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. Note there are no preclusions for US citizens. THAT is the problem.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Don't know where you got this exerpt (and the link doesn't work), but it's not the current form of S.1867, which has no Sect. 1031 in it.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:43 AM
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: "If I criticize the ACLU (and I did) then put me immediately in the: I must hate immigrants box - right?" No. Not a all. In fact, not even on the target, let alone close to a bull's eye. What I see is a persistent, repeated bias of criticism. On the one hand you posted repeated, increasing wildly speculative criticism of the ACLU based on no facts at all, and let me repeat that, based on no facts at all, simply based on your wholly unfounded speculations. And on the other you posted only one cautious criticism of the provision of the bill, even though there are available, if changing, actual facts. By tallying your posts and their basis, I conclude you think the ACLU is a bigger problem than any provisions in the bill. The anti-immigrant comment was based on your comment about how the bill was aimed at illegal immigrants, with the implications that it couldn't be unconstitutional or worrisome for us 'real' people who are, presumably, the only people who count when it comes to constitutional protections.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Don't know where you got this exerpt (and the link doesn't work), but it's not the current form of S.1867, which has no Sect. 1031 in it.If Sect 1032 references Sect 1031, it stands to reason Sect 1031 MUST exist. In fact, it is right above Sect 1032, imagine that. You just have to click on the right link. 1. Go to this link. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867: 2. Then click on Subtitle D--Detainee Matters. This link is right above the link to Sect 1032.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:07 AM
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:39 PM
DREAMTROVE
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: I think you may be looking at a cached version of yesterdays. Today, 1031 no longer exists except as referenced in 1032 of course.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:35 PM
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire: So, is DreamTrove saying it passed? I hope not. "A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: If Sect 1032 references Sect 1031, it stands to reason Sect 1031 MUST exist. In fact, it is right above Sect 1032, imagine that. You just have to click on the right link. 1. Go to this link. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867: 2. Then click on Subtitle D--Detainee Matters. This link is right above the link to Sect 1032.
Quote:SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES. Congress affirms that-- (1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad; (2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note); (3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who-- (A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and (4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:19 AM
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Yes, that is it. Did you click on Subtitle D? It is at the top of the page if you click on Subtitle D.
Thursday, December 1, 2011 5:20 AM
Thursday, December 1, 2011 5:31 AM
Thursday, December 1, 2011 7:55 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 5:03 AM
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 5:09 AM
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:07 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:13 AM
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 8:34 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 8:52 AM
Quote:December 3, 2011, New York – The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) issued the following statement calling on President Obama to honor his promise to veto the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed on Thursday by the Senate. More at http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/president-obama-must-act-promise-veto-national-defense-authorization-act debate over terrorism suspects on Thursday divided Democrats, with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., squaring off over the language with Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Democratic opponents of the provisions, who offered a series of amendments to strike or water down the language, appear to face an uphill effort to find the votes to amend the detainee language as almost all Republicans and most Armed Services Committee Democrats support it. By moving ahead with the bill without a deal—the White House threatened to veto the bill earlier Thursday—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reduced the leverage and ability of opponents to force changes. Feinstein said she isn't confident the bill can be amended, saying only that she strongly opposes the provisions. She declined to comment on Reid’s decision to press ahead with the bill but several Democratic aides said his move caught Democratic opponents of the provision by surprise. The aides said Reid told Democrats he is eager to move ahead with the bill in the face of pressure from Republicans and his own desire to clear “must pass” bills that are ready for the floor. The Obama administration threatened to veto the major defense authorization bill because of language paving the way for many terror suspects to be put under military custody, a sharp escalation of its battle with Congress over the future course of the war on terror. More at http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-threatens-veto-of-defense-authorization-bill-20111117]
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 10:51 AM
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 5:34 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL