Trading more liberty for security????

[CityGirl]

There is much being written about Senate bill 1867 National Defense Authorization Act which has been introduced on the senate floor with particular emphasis on sections 1031 and 1032.. Here’s a link to a copy of the two offending sections, 1031 and 1032, which must be removed by amendment. It seems some blow off any need for concern because people like Alex Jones are spotlighting the issue and he is considered by some to be a crackpot conspiracy theorist...the old shoot the messenger not the message routine. But when you google search news related to the NDAA, it appears there are concerns across the political spectrum that this bill gives broad sweeping powers to the military here at home and grossly infringes on constitutional liberties. Take your pick of articles and headlines at the link below.

https://news.google.com/news/story?...sult&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQqgIwAA

What are your thoughts?

 

[Tim]

Here is a very good discussion on the topic. They shed a lot of light on the bill and what it means.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_face_indefinite

 

[Alien Allen]

just another drop of freedom being bled away if this passes.

It is ripe for abuse.

 

[Tim]

Obama has said that he would veto this spending bill if the provision remains... I won't hold my breath, but at least he addressed it.

And it's a fucking spending bill.... why the hell is crap like this being inserted into a spending bill? This is the crap that the American people are getting fed up with.

 

[Alien Allen]

agreed

way too many if not most bills are cluttered up with other crap so they can sneak it in

If they had tried passing Obamacare, TARP, and a host of other omnibus bills 20 pages at a time they never would have seen the light of day. Now the style is to make it over 1000 pages and rush the final passage. Remember it was Pelosi who famously said we need to pass it so we can see what was in it.

oye

 

[CityGirl]

Time to make some phone calls and send some emails.

 

[CityGirl]

I've made my calls and sent my emails...why does it feel like an exercise in futility?

 

[MoonOwl]

I've made my calls and sent my emails...why does it feel like an exercise in futility?

Because it is. The whole of Congress was overrun w/calls, emails, letters, etc to not do any bailouts. Didn't do any good. They have proven time and again, they feel their positions are secure enough (electronic vote fraud?) that they don't have to listen to those they actually work for.

Who'd have thunk we'd actually become a police state right in front of our eyes w/nary a thing we can do about it?

'Step out of line, men come and take you away' is about to get a whole lot more serious...

But hey, lets argue instead about gay marriage and abortion. That's what's really important cuz geez, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear right?

If this indeed passes, we can truly kiss the country we grew up in goodbye.

Cuz, yeah, talk about ripe for abuse....

That's what happens when you willingly give up Liberty for a bit of temporary 'security'... Ben Franklin was right. Has been right. Will always be right.

blah.

 

[JuggsBunny]

I actually had a conversation with a woman here on base about this bill. Her husband is in the USAF (as is mine) and her response was:

"This type of law is only a threat if you have something to hide." Are you fucking KIDDING me???

That seems to be the standard of late when it comes to Americans - many of us are now willing to put up with things we KNOW are wrong... getting treated like shit and groped by the TSA... the "Patriot Act" (the irony in that moniker makes my blood BOIL)... "Enhanced Interrogation" which is nothing more than a fancy description of "torture" (we're now known for our torture techniques worldwide)... Illegal wiretapping... Detention and jail without legal representation ("Homeland Security" seems to work outside the Constitutional rights given to citizens)...

I can go on. But people are far more worried about their goddamned President being Christian and supporting their "moral majority" agenda. Fuck sake!!!

 

[Joe the meek]

Who'd have thunk we'd actually become a police state right in front of our eyes w/nary a thing we can do about it?

An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

 

[Johnfromokc]

An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

Well, that was just a fucking brilliant statement Joe. That relates to the senate bill in the OP how?

 

[Alien Allen]

Joes point fits right in John

As far as giving up liberty. First they do this crap and then they disarm us.

Call me a cynic but at all seems to fit together nicely. Bush kick starts it going to war.. Obama ups the ante doubling down on Afghanistan and then you have the nonsense with the guns in Mexico that we supplied.

 

[CityGirl]

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.
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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)).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](e) 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).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](c) Implementation Procedures-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]

I think there is a lot of concern that this opens the door for the abuse of power even though the portion in red indicates this in not applicable to US citizens. No wonder they don't read the bills before they vote on them...they aren't written to be read!!!! All this stupid legalese....shall drive me crazy!!!!!!

 

[Johnfromokc]

Joes point fits right in John

As far as giving up liberty. First they do this crap and then they disarm us.

I disagree Allen. There are millions of well armed Americans - myself included - but that means nothing as far as our arrogant federal legislature taking our liberty away. All our semi-automatic weapons mean jack shit against military force. Hell - since the Patriot Act even the little Barney Fife sheriffs departments have SWAT paramilitary equipment now. The fucking Mayberry North Carolina sheriff could blast Joes ass right out of his own house and there is nothing Joe could do about it.

Call me a cynic but at all seems to fit together nicely. Bush kick starts it going to war.. Obama ups the ante doubling down on Afghanistan and then you have the nonsense with the guns in Mexico that we supplied.

Now on this I agree. People need to wake up and see what is happening right under their own noses. More war is on the horizion - and maybe a fucking big one. China and Pakistan are having joint military excercises together - there's been no mention of this on any of the main stream corporate media - and India is rightfully concerned. Shit is being stirred in Iran. Russia is telling us to leave Iran alone. The situation is ripe for the loss of even more liberty.

 

[JuggsBunny]

The "situation" is ripe for riots, shootings, and civil war.

The problems persist because a good portion of Americans are self-absorbed narcissistic idiots who don't care about anything unless it hits them in the wallet. Sad to say, but true.

 

[Alien Allen]

The "situation" is ripe for riots, shootings, and civil war.

The problems persist because a good portion of Americans are self-absorbed narcissistic idiots who don't care about anything unless it hits them in the wallet. Sad to say, but true.

I agree for the most part. I don't think most are narcissists though. Just apathetic and lazy. Like you said... until it hits their wallet. But then we have been conditioned to such a nanny state and expecting things from the govt that it ends up nobody is willing to give up anything.

Take for example the public sector unions. Nobody wants to pay for stuff they did not have to before. Well guess what. Most everybody else has had to pay into their retirement and health insurance for several years now. In the private sector people have lost jobs. They did not have the option of pay cuts or concessions. Yeah it sucks but reality is what it is. The sooner everybody realizes we ALL will have to pay the price the sooner we can recover.

I live in a heavily union area in the past. Detroit is exactly where this country is headed if people want to ignore the obvious.

The only hope is that with 24/7 news and the internet that more can be shed light on. There is a ton of waste and corruption going on in both the public and private sector. We need to not just vote in Novembers but also with our wallet. You don't like all the jobs going to China then quit buying shit coming from there. I am not speaking to you here but as a generality. We bark a lot but never bite if you catch my drift. We want to maintain jobs but ignore the higher costs to provide goods here and are unwilling to pay the extra price to buy local.

As usual this is all IMO

 

[Tim]

Here is an interesting fact I came across the other day.

If every American would purchase $20/month worth of US made goods, it would create 5,000,000 jobs here in the states.

 

[Alien Allen]

that does not surprise me

 

[JuggsBunny]

Yes, but you'd have to ask them not to shop at the Chinese-Manufactured Supply Store (Wal*Mart). People LOVE Wal*Mart (I never shop at that shit-hole. I'll pay more just for customer service - and for properly manufactured goods.)

I think Wal*Mart is a debate in and of itself!! :surrender

 

[Joe the meek]

I disagree Allen. There are millions of well armed Americans - myself included - but that means nothing as far as our arrogant federal legislature taking our liberty away. All our semi-automatic weapons mean jack shit against military force. Hell - since the Patriot Act even the little Barney Fife sheriffs departments have SWAT paramilitary equipment now. The fucking Mayberry North Carolina sheriff could blast Joes ass right out of his own house and there is nothing Joe could do about it.

John, I'm not sure if it's me or not, but your language seems to really have gone down the tube since you've come here.

The original comment that I replied to stated that we could do little about what was happening. I disagree. If you don't know what is worth dying for, you'll never know what is worth living for. Perhaps Patrick Henry put it best, but how many people will put their money where their mouth is, particularly in todays "age"? Too some extent, we have become a nation of sheeple, and as long as their TV and computer time isn't interrupted, no one probably will care what their government does.

By the way, I really don't think you are really well armed, you just have a couple of guns laying around that you never shoot anymore That said, I still regret selling most of mine.