EPTNational Defense Authorization Act - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Bowdz
United States202 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
I'm not hip on legal jargon, but from what I understand this is left wide open to what could have some terrible effects. You asked whether this would allow citizens to be held indefinitely, and it appears to me that c1 would say yes, unless you believe that the war on terror is not a perpetual one and will end anytime soon. Section b2 is one of contention by many, from what I've seen. Many things need to be defined or quantified there... what is "substantially supported", for example? It is also here where "dumb" posters like myself get worried that this could be expanded to start covering street protests since they can potentially be seen as "hostile" in nature. Is "belligerent act" defined somewhere? Precedents have been overturned by the Supreme Court before, and very recently in fact (Citizens United). Also: has anyone had a chance to see the provison that repeals the executive order that bans torture? | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Happylime
United States133 Posts
Try to keep it civil guys, I feel like we're close to a flamefest. And this is only page 2! | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 30 2011 23:24 Hypertension wrote: So basically we should get rid of the criminal justice system in favor of death squads who hunt down murderers and terrorist sympathizers? Interesting theory. You can't join a group the United States is at war with and think you can run around immune from attack because you were\are an American citizen  It wouldn't work if you had joined the Viet Cong or the Wehrmacht, and it won't work with Al-Qaeda. | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
| ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
" This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces. " what I'd like to know is how they define "a belligerent act" and "hostilities to america" "aid of enemy combat forces." Like if i swear in public and damn america, thats a belligerent act and hostile to the country. And obviously driving a plane into a building in the name of some god will be "aid of enemy combat forces." But where along that line do you cross into this category? how do they measure/quantify it? | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On December 01 2011 10:30 Romantic wrote: You can't join a group the United States is at war with and think you can run around immune from attack because you were\are an American citizen It wouldn't work if you had joined the Viet Cong or the Wehrmacht, and it won't work with Al-Qaeda. On the other hand, do we want internment camps like we did in WW2 for Japanese Americans, or McCarthyism again? | ||
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
On December 01 2011 10:26 travis wrote: Why should it be allowable to detain anyone indefinitely? So they don't get on a plane with a shoe bomb and blow everyone up. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On December 01 2011 11:00 ElMeanYo wrote: So they don't get on a plane with a shoe bomb and blow everyone up. So you agree with indefinite detainment on basis of pure suspicion.....? | ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
On December 01 2011 11:00 ElMeanYo wrote: So they don't get on a plane with a shoe bomb and blow everyone up. But then theres the case of "Mister ____ was interrogated and held in a cell for 6 months unable to see his family because the CIA made a mistake." | ||
|
davidohx
United States114 Posts
http://act.demandprogress.org/act/ndaa/?referring_akid=a3480225.518623.KwCMsk&source=auto-e This is really troubling and you know a path down can be a slippery slope  | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
If the former, why not simply change the bill to "terrorist=life without parole after conviction" instead of "indefinite detention"? If the latter...we have issues. Very large issues. From news articles, it appears Obama's threatened to veto it. Not sure on his reasoning, though. | ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On December 01 2011 11:08 acker wrote: Does the bill allow indefinite detention for people who have proven to be "terrorists", or people the US Government claims are "terrorists"? If the former, why not simply change the bill to "terrorist=life without parole after conviction" instead of "indefinite detention"? If the latter...we have issues. Very large issues. From news articles, it appears Obama's threatened to veto it. Not sure on his reasoning, though. This is what I'd like to know as well. Legal experts are claiming the latter, and I'd like to find the wording they're getting this from. The threat to veto will come with a price (if he actually exercises it). A veto on a military budget bill won't be very popular in this country and conservatives will surely play off of it. I'm sure of his reasoning either to be honest... after all, the administration has been spying on peace activist groups. Not that I'm complaining if he does veto it. | ||
|
Eriuc
United States11 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On December 01 2011 11:29 screamingpalm wrote: This is what I'd like to know as well. Legal experts are claiming the latter, and I'd like to find the wording they're getting this from. The threat to veto will come with a price (if he actually exercises it). A veto on a military budget bill won't be very popular in this country and conservatives will surely play off of it. I'm sure of his reasoning either to be honest... after all, the administration has been spying on peace activist groups. Not that I'm complaining if he does veto it. The budget for the military is tied to the appropriations bill (not this one), according to the NYT. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On December 01 2011 12:09 acker wrote: The budget for the military is tied to the appropriations bill (not this one), according to the NYT. Isn't the appropriations bill to determine the overall amount and this one breaks it down into how it is spent? Or do I have that wrong? | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
| ||
| ||
