Obama Signs NDAA

  • Thread starter Thread starter smndtupidisaftr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dale_M said:
:confused:

I think President Obama did the wrong thing by signing this bill, but lets face it… it was initiated and passed by the US Congress. And leadership in both political parties are to blame.
Click to expand...
He could have vetoes it. But why would he veto a bill that essentially gives him dictatorial power? Its what he wants.

This bill, and this bill SPECIFICALLY, is why I don’t support the Republicans anymore. They are as treasonous as the Democrats. For those of you who think this bill is a good thing, shame on you. May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget your were our countrymen. :mad:
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
He could have vetoes it. But why would he veto a bill that essentially gives him dictatorial power? Its what he wants.

This bill, and this bill SPECIFICALLY, is why I don’t support the Republicans anymore. They are as treasonous as the Democrats. For those of you who think this bill is a good thing, shame on you. May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget your were our countrymen. :mad:
Click to expand...
The bill that Obama signed into law was the APPROPRIATIONS bill for the Department of Defense. The detention provision was snuck into it … AT HIS REQUEST.

Now, we need to get everyone aware of it, so the detention portion can be rewritten with proper safeguards.

The point that Senator Levin made was that Obama demanded the detention provisions or Obama would refuse to sign the Defense spending bill.
 
jilly4ski said:
Perhaps, but my understanding is that the holdings are restricted to those captured on the “battlefield.” And all those captured (citizens and non citizens) must go through hearing to determine whether they actually are an “enemy combatant.” Citizens would also get more constitutional rights (though possibly actual charges like treason) than non citizens. This however, could be my understanding of the changes that occurred after the patriot act, cases and new laws, etc.
Click to expand...
And who determines where the “battlefield” is?

Section 1031 authorized detention

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.

(e) 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.

Section 1032 REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY

(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.

As section 1031 states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens…”

***The question is, what does EXISTING law say about the detention of American citizens. ***That is what we need to be concerned with. If existing law states American citizens can be detained indefinitely, by the military, that is the law or laws that need to be changed. NOT this current law.
 
SamH said:
And who determines where the “battlefield” is?

Section 1031 authorized detention

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.

(e) 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.

Section 1032 REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY

(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.

As section 1031 states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens…”

***The question is, what does EXISTING law say about the detention of American citizens. ***That is what we need to be concerned with. If existing law states American citizens can be detained indefinitely, by the military, that is the law or laws that need to be changed. NOT this current law.
Click to expand...
I looked elsewhere and also found that sections 1031 and 1032 DO protect American citizens.

However, Senator Levin goes into quite an emotional “rant” that President Obama demanded that protections for American citizens be removed:

digitaljournal.com/article/317209

and click on the video

So, my question sort of is: Is the text of 1031 and 1032 that we have … is it the ACTUAL text of the document that President Obama actually signed into law?

And, if Senator Levin is accurate in his statement, then … did someone “sneak” the protection of citizens back into the printed bill before the President signed it?

[Why did Senator Levin make such a major point about the protections for citizens having been removed?]
 
SamH said:
And who determines where the “battlefield” is?

Section 1031 authorized detention

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.

(e) 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.

Section 1032 REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY

(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.

As section 1031 states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens…”

***The question is, what does EXISTING law say about the detention of American citizens. ***That is what we need to be concerned with. If existing law states American citizens can be detained indefinitely, by the military, that is the law or laws that need to be changed. NOT this current law.
Click to expand...
Obama and many of the senators who worked on the legislation are of the political opinion that the power to detain United States citizens indefinitely already exists given the requirements of wartime as per the Supreme Courts ruling on the detention of Japanese citizens during WW2. Obama further clarified that he had this belief in his signing statement (his claim that he would not use the power implies that he believes it is there, in fact such a claim in a signing statement would actually help courts who look at it later to interpret the bill as granting this power since signing statements are often used to decide how legislators and the President intended a law to be read) and the congressional records during the debate show that people like McCain and Levin who were majorly involved in the legislation also held this belief. (There are even youtube videos of them making pretty condemning statements in about it)

The reason that changing existing law is not viable and that this law is the focus of such attention is because the existing precedent is a Supreme Court decision which is not easily changed. However without this legal declaration or a significant officially declared war the President would have been unable to exercise this power, by essentially declaring the US a battlefield of a quasi-official war indefinite detention is moved from a clear constitutional “Now you can not do this” to a vague grey area.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
I looked elsewhere and also found that sections 1031 and 1032 DO protect American citizens.

However, Senator Levin goes into quite an emotional “rant” that President Obama demanded that protections for American citizens be removed:

digitaljournal.com/article/317209

and click on the video

So, my question sort of is: Is the text of 1031 and 1032 that we have … is it the ACTUAL text of the document that President Obama actually signed into law?

And, if Senator Levin is accurate in his statement, then … did someone “sneak” the protection of citizens back into the printed bill before the President signed it?

[Why did Senator Levin make such a major point about the protections for citizens having been removed?]
Click to expand...
The final bill is this HR 1540, I believe the section actually appears in 1021 and 1022 in this version. There is no clear exemption for US citizens and based on Obama’s signing statement he clearly feels that US citizens are not exempt.
 
This bill lays the groundwork for Martial Law. As much as he trys to soft peddle this thing, it makes me very uneasy…as it should!!
 
I confess, all I really know about this bill is what I saw from Colbert lambasting it (half tongue-in-cheek, but also apparently with some sincerity), Obama, Congress Republicans and all; I don’t see much room for excusing anyone, try as some may on both sides to exempt their favorites. I don’t very much like the looks of it, at any rate.
 
Now we can devote more money to the social safety net instead of defense 😃
 
socialcath101 said:
But my job is to have the government help them… I would lose my job if I kept them away… 😛
Click to expand...
😃

Your in a pickle then.

I’ve seen more poor go from dirt poor, I mean barely a pair of shoes to their name to business owners than I have those who were on government assistance. I don’t mind a little state assistance, I am totally against Federal assistance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top