National Defense Authorization Act - Page 5
Forum Index > General Forum |
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
Step by step. "Enemy is at the gates, gather around, I will protect you." One step closer. "It's all for the greater good". One step closer. "They are the enemy!". One step closer. And one day you wake up and ask yourself: "How did we get here?". You walked there, silly. All by yourselves. | ||
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
| ||
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights | ||
adacan
United States117 Posts
| ||
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
mmp
United States2130 Posts
(Washington, DC) – US President Barack Obama’s apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the military’s role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation. “By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.” The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act. The bill would also bar the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo into the US for any reason, including for trial. In addition, it would extend restrictions, imposed last year, on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to home or third countries – even those cleared for release by the administration. There are currently 171 detainees at Guantanamo, many of whom have been imprisoned for nearly 10 years. As one of his first acts in office, Obama signed an executive order for the closure of Guantanamo within one year. Instead of moving quickly to close the prison and end the use of the discredited military commissions, he supported modifications to the Military Commissions Act. “It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights,” Roth said. The bill also requires the US military take custody of certain terrorism suspects even inside the United States, cases that previously have been handled by federal, state and local law enforcement authorities. During debate over the bill, several senior administration officials, including the secretary of defense, attorney general, director of national intelligence, director of the FBI, and director of the CIA, all raised objections that this provision interfered with the administration’s ability to effectively fight terrorism. In the last 10 years over 400 people have been prosecuted in US federal courts for terrorism related offenses. Meanwhile during that same period, only six cases have been prosecuted in the military commissions. “President Obama cannot even justify this serious threat to basic rights on the basis of security,” Roth said. “The law replaces an effective system of civilian-court prosecutions with a system that has generated the kind of global outrage that would delight recruiters of terrorists.” | ||
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote: nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die Are you fucking kidding me? I really hope this is a joke. | ||
Macabre
United States1262 Posts
| ||
Coramoor
Canada455 Posts
| ||
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On December 16 2011 01:15 Coramoor wrote: one has to assume that the ACLU will be taking NDAA to court immediately, meaning that it won't be able to be used for quite some time, and if the supreme court isn't obscenely corrupt it would have to overturn the NDAA or water it down to the point that people wouldn't care ![]() User was warned for this post | ||
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
I really need to make sure that I resist the temptation to keep living in this country after I graduate college. | ||
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
By making it a law, when people whine, good ole Sam just tells them to take look at the law books and it'll be there explaining why what he's doing is 'legal'. After that, they better keep quiet, or else Old Sammy's gonna take his belt off for a whipping. | ||
Klamity
United States994 Posts
| ||
Fjodorov
5007 Posts
On December 16 2011 14:12 Klamity wrote: Thanks for this write up. It's hard to find unbiased information. Holy crap, dont you care even the slightest about your basic human rights? Any mediocre hacker could hack your facebook account and post some suspicious stuff, throw away some emails and the next day you could be imprisoned indefinitely. No trial. Just you staring down a gun barrel. Why would you do this to your self? I beg you to do some research and not blindly trust the OP because the NDAA is no small matter. Do some research and you will find that you are being stripped of your rights, not only as an american, but as a human being. | ||
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote: nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die Just think of the ways the gov't could abuse this power. Good luck doing any kind of occupy protest This bill will pass whether we want it too or not. | ||
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On December 02 2011 22:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: Hopefully Obama will veto this BS. That's our only chance. Can't believe 44 of our Republicans voted FOR this violation of the U.S. Constitution. I mean technically if it's against the constitution it can't be used. Also, if they don't vote for it, the adds at election time are gonna say "This republican wants TERRORISTS to EAT OUR BABIES AND/OR KILL AMERICAN CHILDREN AND TAKE YOUR JOBS" Edit: Because they didn't vote for that bill, or act or whatever. | ||
IntoTheBush
United States552 Posts
On December 24 2011 09:51 Marcus420 wrote: Just think of the ways the gov't could abuse this power. Good luck doing any kind of occupy protest This bill will pass whether we want it too or not. Exactly. Which is another reason why I am embarrassed to say I'm a U.S. citizen. Honestly our Constitution isn't even worth the paper it's written on anymore... Also with the NDAA being passed it gives the President the right to arrest, detain, and even assassinate anybody(yes even American citizens) who are considered a threat to national security. I honestly think that once they are able to censor the net anybody who opposes what is going on in Washington will be handled accordingly. | ||
![]()
motbob
![]()
United States12546 Posts
On December 24 2011 10:07 IntoTheBush wrote: Exactly. Which is another reason why I am embarrassed to say I'm a U.S. citizen. Honestly our Constitution isn't even worth the paper it's written on anymore... Also with the NDAA being passed it gives the President the right to arrest, detain, and even assassinate anybody(yes even American citizens) who are considered a threat to national security. I honestly think that once they are able to censor the net anybody who opposes what is going on in Washington will be handled accordingly. You didn't read the OP. The entire point of the OP is that the government does not have the right to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens no matter what laws Congress passes. You cannot extend constitutional authority by simply passing a law. | ||
Ympulse
United States287 Posts
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism A good quote from the article “The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.” | ||
| ||