Topic: NDAA
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k started this discussion 15 years ago #15,663
What's your thought about it?Why are you still sitting at home, and not burning shit down on the streets?
I find it funny how SOPA hit the media like Rebecca Black hit youtube, while NDAA flew under the radar, even tho it's much worse than SOPA.
How does it feel trading freedom bit by bit for "more security"? LOL
#OnlyInAmerika :D
Pic related, my 3 Amperes fuse... lol...
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later[^] [v] #272,937
What's NDAA? Tell us more, my good man.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #272,938
> How does it feel trading freedom bit by bit for "more security"? LOL
How does it feel being a pretentious faggot with a worthless opinion?
How does it feel being a pretentious faggot with a worthless opinion?
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #272,939
@272,937 (B)
> An addition to the National Defense Authorization Act, Sections 1031 and 1032, will allow the United States government to imprison any person who commits any act they disagree with indefinitly and without trial.
> Section 1031 reads, "A covered person under this section" includes, "any person who has committed a belligerent act." All persons accused do not get a trial.
> The Feinstein Amendment, 1031 e, states that, "nothing in this section shall be construed." The Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe laws.
EDIT:
http://www.change.org/petitions/out-with-congress-ndaa-1031-citizen-imprisonment-agnostic-law-is-now-here
More here...
> An addition to the National Defense Authorization Act, Sections 1031 and 1032, will allow the United States government to imprison any person who commits any act they disagree with indefinitly and without trial.
> Section 1031 reads, "A covered person under this section" includes, "any person who has committed a belligerent act." All persons accused do not get a trial.
> The Feinstein Amendment, 1031 e, states that, "nothing in this section shall be construed." The Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe laws.
EDIT:
http://www.change.org/petitions/out-with-congress-ndaa-1031-citizen-imprisonment-agnostic-law-is-now-here
More here...
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #272,946
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #272,948
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #272,949
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #272,950
Green !6PPj7P5Iag joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #272,951
Maybe because it doesn't affect my country?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #272,954
@OP
Doesn't affect any country outside of amurrika so we don't care. Much.
Doesn't affect any country outside of amurrika so we don't care. Much.
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #272,960
@272,951 (Green !6PPj7P5Iag)
@previous (F)
Was aimed towards the americans, but I guess they are still asleep...
Looking forward to the "at least it's not genocide" replays.
@previous (F)
Was aimed towards the americans, but I guess they are still asleep...
Looking forward to the "at least it's not genocide" replays.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #272,962
lol its already like this in America, we're just makin' it official like our bros in China.
problem?
problem?
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,487
Ron Paul Furious About Indefinite Detention Act (NDAA)
Now that Ron Paul is mad about it, it might get from your ass to your brain.
America land of not sofree.
Now that Ron Paul is mad about it, it might get from your ass to your brain.
America land of not sofree.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,582
Probably because most reasonable people who've looked into it realize it doesn't mean what the bucket-shitters, libertardians, and lazy journalists think it means.
The bill specifically states that it does NOT impact any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens [...] or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." (section 1022 It does not impact habeas corpus (the right for anyone detained by the US to petition the court for a hearing) which is already available to anyone detained as a suspected terrorist.
It simply says that the President has the authority to detain suspected terrorists during time of war. That's it. This is already the case today, and has been since the authorization for use of military force in 2001. It doesn't expand any powers at all, or change who can be detained (see here or here).
Certainly a lot of people disagree with the status quo (I do), and it's not a good thing that the existing interpretation is becoming law. But if you're just now realizing what happened in 2001, you're pretty fucking uninformed, or really slow to react.
The bill specifically states that it does NOT impact any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens [...] or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." (section 1022 It does not impact habeas corpus (the right for anyone detained by the US to petition the court for a hearing) which is already available to anyone detained as a suspected terrorist.
It simply says that the President has the authority to detain suspected terrorists during time of war. That's it. This is already the case today, and has been since the authorization for use of military force in 2001. It doesn't expand any powers at all, or change who can be detained (see here or here).
Certainly a lot of people disagree with the status quo (I do), and it's not a good thing that the existing interpretation is becoming law. But if you're just now realizing what happened in 2001, you're pretty fucking uninformed, or really slow to react.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,586
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,587
@275,582 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
This is the same nation that put fucking Nelson Mandela on a list of suspected terrorists. The fact that it's becoming a law and not some crazed national fad to eventually blow off is what people don't like about it.
This is the same nation that put fucking Nelson Mandela on a list of suspected terrorists. The fact that it's becoming a law and not some crazed national fad to eventually blow off is what people don't like about it.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,591
@previous (I)
Certainly it's a problem that the status quo is becoming law, but that isn't where I've seen any outrage.
It's also a shame that some of the other provisions (like the ones effectively blocking the closure of Guantanamo Bay) have been drowned out by the outcry over shit that isn't even in the bill.
Certainly it's a problem that the status quo is becoming law, but that isn't where I've seen any outrage.
It's also a shame that some of the other provisions (like the ones effectively blocking the closure of Guantanamo Bay) have been drowned out by the outcry over shit that isn't even in the bill.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,594
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
That's also true. Nice to see most of the public outrage is at least currently aimed at something feasible though, i.e. stopping SOPA. You just can't control peoples' priorities.
That's also true. Nice to see most of the public outrage is at least currently aimed at something feasible though, i.e. stopping SOPA. You just can't control peoples' priorities.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,595
If this were to pass, would it mean the NDAA applies to American citizens who engage in terrorism? (Since they would lose their nationality.)
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,603
@previous (D)
Finally :3
Edit: inb4 this will never pass... but it gives you a picture of what could/will happen... stay classy USA
Finally :3
Edit: inb4 this will never pass... but it gives you a picture of what could/will happen... stay classy USA
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,604
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,606
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,608
@275,595 (D)
The authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants already exists, with limitations (cannot be indefinite, i.e. can only last as long as the active hostilities the detention was related to, and the prisoner retains due process rights). The NDAA would affirm this authority.
This bill looks batshit crazy and won't go anywhere.
The authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants already exists, with limitations (cannot be indefinite, i.e. can only last as long as the active hostilities the detention was related to, and the prisoner retains due process rights). The NDAA would affirm this authority.
This bill looks batshit crazy and won't go anywhere.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc double-posted this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,609
@275,604 (D)
I'm not sure it is unconstitutional. You can already lose your citizenship for fighting in a country's armed forces if they're at war with the US and that's been upheld as constitutional. This isn't that different really, it's just how broadly it could be interpreted that could be a problem imo.
I'm not sure it is unconstitutional. You can already lose your citizenship for fighting in a country's armed forces if they're at war with the US and that's been upheld as constitutional. This isn't that different really, it's just how broadly it could be interpreted that could be a problem imo.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,610
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trop_v._Dulles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
> You can already lose your citizenship for fighting in a country's armed forces if they're at war with the US and that's been upheld as constitutional.
Has it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trop_v._Dulles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
> You can already lose your citizenship for fighting in a country's armed forces if they're at war with the US and that's been upheld as constitutional.
Has it?
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous D double-posted this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,614
@275,609 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
> You can already lose your citizenship for fighting in a country's armed forces if they're at war with the US and that's been upheld as constitutional.
According to this you can lose citizenship upon "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States", but only if you do so "... with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality". Which is kinda different to just revoking citizenship as a punishment.
> You can already lose your citizenship for fighting in a country's armed forces if they're at war with the US and that's been upheld as constitutional.
According to this you can lose citizenship upon "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States", but only if you do so "... with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality". Which is kinda different to just revoking citizenship as a punishment.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,615
@275,610 (D)
Yes, none of these cases struck down the law itself as unconstitutional--they simply interpreted it.
If you read the cases, you'll note they both state that the government can't take away your citizenship involuntarily, but distinguish that there are acts which represent a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. It's simply that the actions in these cases (voting in a foreign election, deserting the Army) didn't show such an intent.
If it's shown you had an intent to renounce your citizenship in committing treason, an act of war against the US, etc., yes, you can lose it.
Yes, none of these cases struck down the law itself as unconstitutional--they simply interpreted it.
If you read the cases, you'll note they both state that the government can't take away your citizenship involuntarily, but distinguish that there are acts which represent a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. It's simply that the actions in these cases (voting in a foreign election, deserting the Army) didn't show such an intent.
If it's shown you had an intent to renounce your citizenship in committing treason, an act of war against the US, etc., yes, you can lose it.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,616
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc triple-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,617
@275,610 (D)
Vance v. Terrazas is also interesting--it creates a presumption that anyone who commits a defined act did so voluntarily, and sets a fairly low evidentiary requirement for showing intent. As far as I can tell it's still good law.
Thanks for pointing out these cases, I hadn't read them before, was just going off what I heard (and you're right that it's a bit more restrictive than I thought).
Vance v. Terrazas is also interesting--it creates a presumption that anyone who commits a defined act did so voluntarily, and sets a fairly low evidentiary requirement for showing intent. As far as I can tell it's still good law.
Thanks for pointing out these cases, I hadn't read them before, was just going off what I heard (and you're right that it's a bit more restrictive than I thought).
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,619
@275,595 (D)IF YEU DUNT LAHK THIS GLORIOUS NAYSHUN THEN YEU CAN JIST GEEEEEEEEEEET OOOOOOOOUUUUUUUT
Anonymous I double-posted this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,620
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,628
@275,615 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
@275,616 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining.
What I don't get is why everyone is so panicked about the NDAA if it doesn't really change anything, and just affirms existing powers? SOPA seems like a more important issue.
@275,616 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining.
What I don't get is why everyone is so panicked about the NDAA if it doesn't really change anything, and just affirms existing powers? SOPA seems like a more important issue.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 18 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #275,947
@previous (D)
Well if I had to guess, I think a big part of it is that many people don't realize that the President's (supposed) authority to detain people already extends to citizens. That fact is bad enough and probably does deserve more attention, I just wish it were accurately covered.
I'm not sure how a totally whackadoodle media frenzy gets started, but that happened here--the majority of what you read in the news about NDAA is totally clueless. The coverage seemed to start on ideological blogs awhile back, and I think the regular news just picked it up without doing much homework on it.
Also, it underwent a lot of revisions, and the initial drafts were much worse: the Senate version made military detention for terrorism suspects in the US a requirement (rather than an option), and the bit about NDAA not changing current law was also a relatively recent addition. It was a scarier bill a month or two ago, and if you weren't paying attention you may have missed that it's not as bad now.
Well if I had to guess, I think a big part of it is that many people don't realize that the President's (supposed) authority to detain people already extends to citizens. That fact is bad enough and probably does deserve more attention, I just wish it were accurately covered.
I'm not sure how a totally whackadoodle media frenzy gets started, but that happened here--the majority of what you read in the news about NDAA is totally clueless. The coverage seemed to start on ideological blogs awhile back, and I think the regular news just picked it up without doing much homework on it.
Also, it underwent a lot of revisions, and the initial drafts were much worse: the Senate version made military detention for terrorism suspects in the US a requirement (rather than an option), and the bit about NDAA not changing current law was also a relatively recent addition. It was a scarier bill a month or two ago, and if you weren't paying attention you may have missed that it's not as bad now.
(Edited 17 minutes later.)