The NDAA

[bendog]

There's a difference between having a law that might allow things ultimately found loathsome and unconstitutional, but perhaps necessary if there were concerted and repteated attacks, and saying we should do things that are xenophobic, counter productive and simply wagging the dog for cheap pol gain.

Yes there is. Saying we should do things that are crazy is meaningless as it is nothing more than idiotic rhetoric meant to draw in those that are not paying attention. Actually crafting the law is action and is actually committing to doing that kind of crazy shit. The latter is FAR worse.

I dunno. I'd hate to see it, but imagine ISIS or some other group having many active cells like were in France and all attacking at the same time. I'm ok with having a standby plan to basically nationalize law enforcement temporarily and curtail civil rights, partially to protect muslims from racist rioters.

It's another to vilify doctors and other professionals who do nothing but benefit America.

Then get a Declaration of War by Congress against ISIS.

And how that would affect our ability to deal with attacks on US soil?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There's a difference between having a law that might allow things ultimately found loathsome and unconstitutional, but perhaps necessary if there were concerted and repteated attacks, and saying we should do things that are xenophobic, counter productive and simply wagging the dog for cheap pol gain.

Yes there is. Saying we should do things that are crazy is meaningless as it is nothing more than idiotic rhetoric meant to draw in those that are not paying attention. Actually crafting the law is action and is actually committing to doing that kind of crazy shit. The latter is FAR worse.

I dunno. I'd hate to see it, but imagine ISIS or some other group having many active cells like were in France and all attacking at the same time. I'm ok with having a standby plan to basically nationalize law enforcement temporarily and curtail civil rights, partially to protect muslims from racist rioters.

It's another to vilify doctors and other professionals who do nothing but benefit America.

Then get a Declaration of War by Congress against ISIS.

And how that would affect our ability to deal with attacks on US soil?

The president, cloaked with his immense war powers, could intern all Muslims and ban them from entering the country.

 

[g5000]

While I sit here watching Dims and the GOP attack Trump for wanting to restrict elements within Islam from entering the country because they have declared war on it, something that is not unconstitutional, I can't help but think of past Constitutional violations both the Dims and GOP have inflicted upon us over the years.

FDR locked up Japanese Americans simply because they had a genetic link to a nation that was at war with the US. These were US citizens that had a right to due process and denied due process. Both parties were complicit with these acts. There was no major outcry from the GOP to stop FDR. SCOTUS did not come down from their high horse and declare it unconstitutional even though today all concede it was a violation of their rights.

Today we have a similar plight. Obama signed into law the NDAA which grants the US federal government to round up it's citizens, again without due process. They can just be taken and never heard from again if they are labeled "enemy combatants" by the political elite. Again, both parties are in bed together as they continue to violate our Constitutional rights. No candidate in either party is saying this, why? It's not like anyone can defend the NDAA as being anywhere remotely Constitutional, so they just ignore it altogether, much like the GOP did during FDR's rule.


Why is Trump not saying these things? Does he not know or does he not care? All the man has to do is point this out and the election is his. Hillary nor Bernie Sanders nor any other GOP candidate will stand up to the NDAA and it is an issue that they are not able to defend in any coherent manner.

And what about Carson? I thought these guys were suppose to be political outsiders . Why are they all silent? The election is theirs if they simply open their mouths and speak the truth.

Why do the rubes keeping citing Democrats to justify their behaviors? All they are doing is confirming what I have said many times. The whining pants shitting morons who suck up to Russia and who call themselves "conservatives" and "Republicans" today remind me of the whiny pants shitting liberals of the 70s and 80s who sucked up to Russia.

I guess that's why they keep citing FDR and Carter, instead of Republican Ronald Reagan, who allowed 11,055 Iranians into America during the height of tensions between the US and Iran.


FDR and the internment camps, eh? That's their justification? That's fucking amazing.

It just proves Two Wrongs Make A Right Wing Nazi.

 

[bendog]

There's a difference between having a law that might allow things ultimately found loathsome and unconstitutional, but perhaps necessary if there were concerted and repteated attacks, and saying we should do things that are xenophobic, counter productive and simply wagging the dog for cheap pol gain.

Yes there is. Saying we should do things that are crazy is meaningless as it is nothing more than idiotic rhetoric meant to draw in those that are not paying attention. Actually crafting the law is action and is actually committing to doing that kind of crazy shit. The latter is FAR worse.

I dunno. I'd hate to see it, but imagine ISIS or some other group having many active cells like were in France and all attacking at the same time. I'm ok with having a standby plan to basically nationalize law enforcement temporarily and curtail civil rights, partially to protect muslims from racist rioters.

It's another to vilify doctors and other professionals who do nothing but benefit America.

Then get a Declaration of War by Congress against ISIS.

And how that would affect our ability to deal with attacks on US soil?

The president, cloaked with his immense war powers, could intern all Muslims and ban them from entering the country.

OK, but I think you view the Congress as more willing to do bipartisan and loathsome duties in times of crisis that I do. I just don't trust the bastards.

 

[g5000]

Death score for 2015 so far:

Lightning: 78

Muslim terrorists: 19

Christian terrrorists: 18

Killer husbands, boyfriends, coworkers, acquaintances, and complete stranger Americans: 16,043.

The killer Americans have added another 52 murders to their score since I last posted this information yesterday! Lighting has taken another life since last Friday.

And yet Trump and the Ministries of Propaganda are all strangely silent about it.

 

[g5000]

52 murders since yesterday. Husbands killing wives, friends killing friends, relatives killing relatives.


The evidence shows you pants shitters are living in fear of Muslims WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY out of proportion to reality.

If you experienced fear in a proportionate amount to the other dangers out there, with your demonstrated fear of Muslims as the baseline, you should be shitting your pants every thirty seconds.

Instead, your ignorant bigotry makes you very selective.

Eek! A Mexican!

Eek! A homo!

Eek! A negro!

Eek! A Muslim!

Must...buy...moar...gunz...

Turn off your Propaganda Ministry. Just turn it off. Seriously.

 

[g5000]

Just to remind everyone of what the NDAA actually says.

This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.” The law affirms the executive branch’s authority granted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and broadens the definition and scope of “covered persons.” But because the “war on terror” is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.

You say you are going to remind us what the NDAA actually says, and then you don't. Instead, you take single words out of context, and then make up some bullshit.

Try again. Start by linking to the actual NDAA.

 

[g5000]

I will remind everyone, again, of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

The NDAA cannot, and does not, suspend habeas corpus for US citizens. It cannot, and does not, eliminate due process for American citizens.

End of story.

 

[Votto]

Death score for 2015 so far:

Lightning: 78

Muslim terrorists: 19

Christian terrrorists: 18

Killer husbands, boyfriends, coworkers, acquaintances, and complete stranger Americans: 16,043.

The killer Americans have added another 52 murders to their score since I last posted this information yesterday! Lighting has taken another life since last Friday.

And yet Trump and the Ministries of Propaganda are all strangely silent about it.

http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/10-Countries-That-Are-Worst-Hit-by-Terrorism-nid-141993-cid-1.html

Lets look at the countries suffering from the most terrorism in the world

10 Countries That Are Worst Hit by Terrorism

1. Iraq
2. Pakistan
3. Afghanistan
4. India
5. Yemen
6. Somalia
7. Nigeria
8. Thailand
9. Russia
10. Philippines.

What do all these countries have in common?

We just don't want to become like them is all.

 

[Votto]

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/islamic-terrorism-activity-statistics/

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pretty scary stuff.

Is there really a moderate Islam?

 

[g5000]

Just to remind everyone of what the NDAA actually says.

This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.”

Here is the NDAA for 2016: Text - H.R.1735 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

And here is Section 1021:

SEC. 1021. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUPPORTING LONG-RANGE PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL VESSELS.
Section 231(b)(2)(C) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting “by ship class in both graphical and tabular form” after “The estimated levels of annual funding”.

That's it. That's the whole thing.


Try again.

The law affirms the executive branch’s authority granted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and broadens the definition and scope of “covered persons.”

The phrase "covered persons" does not appear anywhere in the NDAA to which I just linked above.

 

[g5000]

Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.”.

I've just shown Section 1021 has nothing to do with what you claim.

The word "suspected" appears twice in the NDAA.

From Section 1038: Reports to Congress on contact between terrorists and individuals formerly detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

(a) In general

Section 319(c) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32; 123 Stat. 1874;10 U.S.C. 801 note) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(6) A summary of all known contact between any individual formerly detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and any individual known or suspected to be associated with a foreign terrorist group, which contact included information or discussion about planning for or conduct of hostilities against the United States or its allies or the organizational, logistical, or resource needs or activities of any terrorist group or activity.

From Section 1039: Inclusion in reports to Congress of information about recidivism of individuals formerly detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Section 319(c) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32; 123 Stat. 1874; 10 U.S.C. 801 note), as amended by section 1038, is further amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

(7)
For each individual described in paragraph (4), the date on which such individual was released or transferred from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and the date on which it is confirmed that such individual is suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorist activities.

 

[Votto]

Sec 1021 must have been a typo

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.
(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.
(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.
(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:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(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)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
foreign entity.
(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.
(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.
(f) 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).

 

[g5000]

Death score for 2015 so far:

Lightning: 78

Muslim terrorists: 19

Christian terrrorists: 18

Killer husbands, boyfriends, coworkers, acquaintances, and complete stranger Americans: 16,043.

The killer Americans have added another 52 murders to their score since I last posted this information yesterday! Lighting has taken another life since last Friday.

And yet Trump and the Ministries of Propaganda are all strangely silent about it.

http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/10-Countries-That-Are-Worst-Hit-by-Terrorism-nid-141993-cid-1.html

Lets look at the countries suffering from the most terrorism in the world

10 Countries That Are Worst Hit by Terrorism

1. Iraq
2. Pakistan
3. Afghanistan
4. India
5. Yemen
6. Somalia
7. Nigeria
8. Thailand
9. Russia
10. Philippines.

What do all these countries have in common?

We just don't want to become like them is all.

So you just want our governments to become like their governments instead.

 

[g5000]

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.
(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.
(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.
(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:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(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)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
foreign entity.
(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.
(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.
(f) 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).

Link? And I do not see the word "suspected" in there.

Here is section 1031 of the 2016 NDAA:

Sec. 1031. Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States

No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense may be used during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2016, to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who—

(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense.

 

[g5000]

Methinks Votto is regurgitating some shit from the 2012 NDAA...

 

[g5000]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, boys and girls.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

 

[Votto]

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/html/BILLS-112s1867es.htm

 

[Freewill]

“While I sit here watching Dims and the GOP attack Trump for wanting to restrict elements within Islam from entering the country because they have declared war on it, something that is not unconstitutional…”

This is a lie, neither are doing any such thing.

Criticism of Trump is both warranted and appropriate – he’s seeking ‘exclusion’ of all Muslims, including citizens and LPRAs, which is in fact un-Constitutional.

The thread premise fails as a red herring fallacy, what Trump advocates is wrong, reprehensible, and contrary to the fundamental principles of our Nation.

Those condemning Trump are absolutely correct.

What is needed is someone to actually post the part of the COTUS that they say a ban on Muslim, not citizens, that would violate. Instead of just opinion.

 

[g5000]

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/html/BILLS-112s1867es.htm

Yep. I was right.

You've been regurgitating shit from the 2012 NDAA.