NDAA Signed - US seems destined for some fun

[Shu]

This scares the crap out of me, and of course they have dramatic music. But you don't understand .. this encroaches on every civil liberty that made America in the past America.

Welcome to Hell.

 

[CassinoChips]

Yeah, I've read the actual text of the bill, and it's really not that bad. Unless you're a member of the Taliban or al-Qaida, or are substantially supporting them financially. I understand somewhat the reaction to the wording of "belligerents," because that could be applied to anyone at a stretch, but I think the scope of the bill is so narrow that it won't ever be applied in that manner. And, frankly, I think the first time a case on this bill makes it the Supreme Court it'll be significantly changed.

 

[Shu]

I'm just hoping this doesn't reinforce the patriot act some how. I just hope it doesn't corner the system and allow SOPA to ban DNS's even more, or do any internal spying left and right. If I want to say.. Hey I think our government blows openly, and here's why.. and get 200,000 people to follow me.. I should .

But seriously.. it's only if they act further on it. I'm still a little bit of a libertarian. Though we'll see what happens.

 

[CassinoChips]

Yeah, I think that's the crux of the argument, what the NDAA "could" be used to do. And I will grant that it could be interpreted in a bad way by future PotUSes which would lead to a police state type atmosphere. But. I think the knee-jerk reaction to it is overly harsh, as knee-jerk reactions tend to be. The main thing that I see is that it doesn't recuse the government from having to offer due process. It just says people can be "detained." Well, while they're awaiting the process of a trail, they're detained, are they not?

 

[Richard B Riddick]

or do any internal spying left and right

They already do internal spying via warrantless wiretapping(echelon, carnivore, etc) as intelligence is wired directly into major ISP's.

Wikileaks & the bureau of investigative journalism released documents relating to mass surveillance being available for major services like gmail & products like iphones spanning multiple countries..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/01/julian_assange_surveillance/

Its almost as uncool as posting about super, secret, spy stuff on message boards is. Almost.

It just says people can be "detained." Well, while they're awaiting the process of a trail, they're detained, are they not?

It says: detained indefinitely without a trial, oversight or accountability.

If your uncles, aunties, cousins, barber is a confirmed terrorist they can detain you for 10 years & its perfectly legit.

 

[CassinoChips]

It says: detained indefinitely without a trial, oversight or accountability.

Actually the only word in that sentence that appears in the text of the bill is "detained." And possibly "it."

It says "detained until the end of hostilities," and mentions nothing about trials, oversight, or accountability. Thus by not removing those requirements, it still maintains them.

If your uncles, aunties, cousins, barber is a confirmed terrorist they can detain you for 10 years & its perfectly legit.

........ Which is different from before... how exactly? If they're a confirmed terrorist, they've committed some sort of crime and/or have aided and abetted terrorism in some form, so they would be detained anyway.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Actually the only word in that sentence that appears in the text of the bill is "detained." And possibly "it."

It says "detained until the end of hostilities," and mentions nothing about trials, oversight, or accountability. Thus by not removing those requirements, it still maintains them.

"Detained until end of hostilities" = detailed until terrorism no longer exists in this world.

Its vague and ambiguous & means: indefinitely.

........ Which is different from before... how exactly? If they're a confirmed terrorist, they've committed some sort of crime and/or have aided and abetted terrorism in some form, so they would be detained anyway.

What you're asking is: what's the difference between a system of incarceration containing checks & balances & one that doesn't.

I think you've answered your own question.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

What you're asking is: what's the difference between a system of incarceration containing checks & balances & one that doesn't.

I think you've answered your own question.

thats not really what he's asked considering you even used "confirmed" yourself. checks would surely have to be in place before you could change someone's terrorist status from "suspected" to "confirmed"?

im not an american, but this kind of legislation is passed everywhere all the time and its always what it can be used for we tend to (and quite rightly) focus on. because thats usually the agenda to begin with. the government wants to know what youre doing, regardless of which government you live under and theyre determined to find out. theyd just prefer if their methods were deemed legal

 

[The Witch]

"an imperfect document"

Jesse, you seem to have read the document... may I have a link to it? I can't seem to find it when I google I want to read it(as much as I can that is) before I really start to get scared.

The problem I have with this bill is who they determine to be a terrorist and how they arrive at that accusation.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

thats not really what he's asked considering you even used "confirmed" yourself. checks would surely have to be in place before you could change someone's terrorist status from "suspected" to "confirmed"?

im not an american, but this kind of legislation is passed everywhere all the time and its always what it can be used for we tend to (and quite rightly) focus on. because thats usually the agenda to begin with. the government wants to know what youre doing, regardless of which government you live under and theyre determined to find out. theyd just prefer if their methods were deemed legal

Basic law 101.

-You don't sign contracts with vague terms.

Anything legal which contains vague & ambiguous terminology such as "detailed until end of hostilities" are forms of entrapment.

If you wanted to rent an apartment and your landlord gave you a contract that said: "renter will be required to occupy apartment until cessation of terrorist hostilities" you wouldn't sign that contract, right?

If you did, you could be stuck with that for a very long time considering terrorism has been ongoing for decades.

A lawful and good contract will specify specifically how long you're required to abide by the contract -- for good reason.

....

Now consider if vague and ambiguous terminology are illegal in rent contracts -- why should they be considered acceptable or decent simply because its legislated on a broader scale in the NDAA?

It should be illegal & there should be massive outcry and criticism.

....

As for the last part of your spiel...

Yes, vague and ambiguous legislation is widespread, that is why people in britain have government surveillance cameras in their homes, their freedom of speech is being trodden upon by super-injunctions, etc. Its also why their country is infested with CCTV's, they can't own guns & their countries are going to shit.

The EU and euro are ridiculously massive failures on the brink of collapse due to the fundamental failures of government to properly legislate.

No big deal, though. :T

You guys run your countries the way you think they should be run.

Hopefully, we don't follow your failtastic example...

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Basic law 101.

-You don't sign contracts with vague terms.

Anything legal which contains vague & ambiguous terminology such as "detailed until end of hostilities" are forms of entrapment.

you seem to make a point of ignoring the part of your post i respond to. ttt didnt ask the question you thought he asked at all. if you are a confirmed terrorist the government would detain you even before this legislation was passed. there would be checks in place that would have to be performed before you could change someone's status from being a suspected terrorist to a confirmed terrorist presumably. i know we're talking about america here but come on...

If you wanted to rent an apartment and your landlord gave you a contract that said: "renter will be required to occupy apartment until cessation of terrorist hostilities" you wouldn't sign that contract, right?

i would have to question why he cared about terrorist hostilities when all i wanted to do is rent his flat.

As for the last part of your spiel...

Yes, vague and ambiguous legislation is widespread, that is why people in britain have government surveillance cameras in their homes, their freedom of speech is being trodden upon by super-injunctions, etc. Its also why their country is infested with CCTV's, they can't own guns & their countries are going to shit.

You guys run your countries the way you think they should be run.

Hopefully, we don't follow your failtastic example...

firstly i dont know what crackpot conspiracy theories youve been reading but we dont have government cctv in our homes

our freedom of speech isnt trodden on anymore than any other "free" country's freedom of speech.

we can own guns.

and our countries aren't going to shit anymore than yours is.

gun culture has always been different in britain than in the states. that really is nothing new

 

[Richard B Riddick]

you seem to make a point of ignoring the part of your post i respond to. ttt didnt ask the question you thought he asked at all. if you are a confirmed terrorist the government would detain you even before this legislation was passed. there would be checks in place that would have to be performed before you could change someone's status from being a suspected terrorist to a confirmed terrorist presumably. i know we're talking about america here but come on...

A. I never, ever, said they wouldn't detain you.

B. You say there would be "checks" in place to make the system accountable. What you're missing is -- there are none. One of the main reasons americans are against guantanamo bay has to do with United States intelligence detaining people without checks & balances.

The fact that the NDAA uses ambiguous and vague language such as "until cessation of hostilities" indicates there are no checks and balances regarding how long they can detain you.

Your "checks" that are performed before someones status could be changed to terrorist suspect are imaginary.

They don't need probable cause, nor a warrant. There is no oversight & no accountability - that's the problem.

i would have to question why he cared about terrorist hostilities when all i wanted to do is rent his flat.

You're avoiding the topic.

Does good legislation contain vague and ambiguous terms such as "cessation of hostilities" or does it not?

Is vague and ambiguous phrasing a bad thing?

If the NDAA contains it, then is the NDAA not bad legislation on a fundamental level?

firstly i dont know what crackpot conspiracy theories youve been reading but we dont have government cctv in our homes

our freedom of speech isnt trodden on anymore than any other "free" country's freedom of speech.

we can own guns.

and our countries aren't going to shit anymore than yours is.

gun culture has always been different in britain than in the states. that really is nothing new

I think, I could prove you wrong about everything, there.

It might take me some time, though.

Usually, people don't bother trying to discuss things with me.

They just make up nonsense and spread rumors about me & backstab me.

Because they can't begin to come up with a way to substantiate their own beliefs

If that's your way of doing things -- because you can't discuss something like an adult, or can't handle someone making an attempt to disagree with you in a reasonable and informed way -- so be it.

 

[ribbit]

B. You say there would be "checks" in place to make the system accountable. What you're missing is -- there are none. One of the main reasons americans are against guantanamo bay has to do with United States intelligence detaining people without checks & balances.

The fact that the NDAA uses ambiguous and vague language such as "until cessation of hostilities" indicates there are no checks and balances regarding how long they can detain you.

Your "checks" that are performed before someones status could be changed to terrorist suspect are imaginary.

They don't need probable cause, nor a warrant. There is no oversight & no accountability - that's the problem.

This part is what people seem to be missing. Now, while the actual bill does in fact state the following:

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.

This bill here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-1698 seeks to strip your nationality away if you're labeled a terrorist. Do they need proof? No they do not. I believe this bill here is more of the problem, because it causes the NDAA to affect the citizens of the US. It's modern day McCarthyism. Back when Obama said he was going to veto this bill, I had some faith in him. I now have lost faith in Obama, and I didn't like him much to begin with.


f a r f a l l a Here's the bill in its entirety: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf The sections that have been considered controversial are sections 1021 and 1022. Haven't bothered to read the rest; a lot of stuff about al-Qaeda, terrorists, and military funding.

 

[AJP82]

there would be checks in place that would have to be performed before you could change someone's status from being a suspected terrorist to a confirmed terrorist presumably. i know we're talking about america here but come on...

This is actually part of the controversy: whether or not any such checks exist. In this bill, the checks are all predicated on checks that already exist in previous bills. The issue is whether or not this bill can be construed to keep people under indefinite detention without trial and, if not, what the deadline on said detention without trial is.

I'd like to show you something. This is a bit of text from section 1021 that's being heavily quoted, but not in its entirety, in relation to this bill.

Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The issue here is that detention "until the end of hostilities" uses the previous Authorization for Use of Military Force as its reference, thus indicating the "War on Terror" as the hostilities in question. Now allow me to link you to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a law from 2001 that was very well defined and not at all vague.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html

Do you see anything in there about a deadline? I don't. Do you see anything about when said hostilities end? I don't. Do you see anything specifying the conditions for the end of hostilities? I don't. Do you see anything that specifies said hostilities will end at all? I don't.

As for whether or not this bill grants the Executive Branch the power to detain citizens by declaring them terrorists, the fact that there is no trial to determine whether detainees are actually terrorists should tell you something immediately. If not... well, there WAS a last-minute appendage to the bill that was passed. It reads like a half-assed effort to convince citizens reading the bill that it doesn't apply to them. Here is that text:

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.

Essentially, it does NOT say the bill doesn't apply to citizens; it says that previous laws still apply to citizens. This seems meaningless in light of the thousands of such existing laws governing detention of citizens, many of which contradict each other. However, this ties in with my next source: the Udall amendment, which would have replaced the provisions of subtitle D.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73053672/...uthorization-Act-Revising-detainee-provisions

This amendment: (a) would have required the Executive Branch to provide a statement within 90 days clarifying the boundaries of existing law on the matter of detention, and (b) potentially been construed to strip the power to detain citizens indefinitely without checks or trial. In short, it could have been an actual declaration that indefinite detention of citizens without trial is not a power conferred by the NDAA. Unfortunately, this amendment was killed (that means voted down, if you don't know) by the rarity known as a United States Senate bipartisan effort: 38 yeas (35 D, 1 I, 2 R) vs. 60 nays (44 R, 1 I, 15 D) with one D and one R abstaining. Source: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210 30% of voting Democrats actually broke with the majority of their party to vote against this amendment. Ron Paul and one other Republican did, however, break with theirs to vote in favor of it.

Conclusion: the Senate is, in fact, capable of creating a bipartisan, filibuster-proof majority - as long as it strikes down something beneficial to the rights of the American people.