Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd be okay with it. But don't call it "Repeal NDAA" because the bill's primary purpose is something else... and has been for about 50 years. That would be relying on emotional response, populism over rationality.
Who do you (and Ron Paul) think inserted that provision? Perhaps it is also time for Ron Paul to speak loudly in favor of line-veto, not oppose it.
I didn't call it NDAA I called it "NDAA.......Indefinite detention of American Citizens amendment". I didn't have room for everything in the subject heading so I used...... to continue it into the post. (Picky, Picky!)
That you cheerlead for the federal government to take away the basic right of due process in the courts is ignorant at best.
What do you think is appropriate step for dealing with citizens assisting enemies during war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
I didn't call it NDAA I called it "NDAA.......Indefinite detention of American Citizens amendment". I didn't have room for everything in the subject heading so I used...... to continue it into the post. (Picky, Picky!)
And there we go again... emotional, populism based "concern" than one on rationality. NDAA implies what it does. You have a problem with a provision inserted into NDAA. Otherwise, why weren't you screaming about it earlier when NDAA has been signed every year for 50 years now?
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 01-19-2012 at 08:54 AM..
I'd be okay with it, although the problem is on the issue of treason. Personally, I feel that someone assisting enemies of the state ought to be treated as an enemy, but afforded civilian trial (a key piece that was missing in the original legislation that Obama threatened to veto on). But don't call it "Repeal NDAA" because the bill's primary purpose is something else... and has been for about 50 years. That would be relying on emotional response, populism over rationality.
Who do you (and Ron Paul) think inserted that provision? Perhaps it is also time for Ron Paul to speak loudly in favor of line-veto, not oppose it.
It is public knowledge that Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator John McCain who a lot of you posters probably voted for in the last election were two of the authors AND it has been documented that Obama insisted the verbiage be such that it INCLUDE the detention of American Citizens. His statement after his signing that he would never use the power was just for show.
What do you think is appropriate step for dealing with citizens assisting enemies during war?
Citizens on US soil and charged for actions on US soil (not in foreign theaters of war) but not procecuted should receive due process under the law, arrest, access to legal representation & trial; as it has been long before the current so called "war on terrorism".
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
What do you think is appropriate step for dealing with citizens assisting enemies during war?
And there we go again... emotional, populism based "concern" than one on rationality. NDAA implies what it does. You have a problem with a provision inserted into NDAA. Otherwise, why weren't you screaming about it earlier when NDAA has been signed every year for 50 years now?
This is a new provision, specifically requested by the President.
He's talking about repealing the 1032 provision which I guess you are OK with? You think the government should be able to send the military to your house; arrest you and detain you indefinitely for no reason? You think that is appropriate in a FREE society?
He repeals it by getting Americans to hold their selfish members of Congress who voted for it to change their minds and REPEAL IT. That is how.
You apparently have never read the law, because it does nothing that you claim.
Quote:
SEC. 1032. NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE TO DENY SAFE HAVENS TO AL-QAEDA AND ITS VIOLENT EXTREMIST AFFILIATES.
(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve interagency strategic planning and execution to more effectively integrate efforts to deny safe havens and strengthen at-risk states to further the goals of the National Security Strategy related to the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(b) NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE.—
(1) GUIDANCE REQUIRED.—The President shall issue classified or unclassified national security planning guidance in support of objectives stated in the national security strategy report submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a) to deny safe havens to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates and to strengthen at-risk states. Such guidance shall serve as the strategic plan that governs United States and coordinated international efforts to enhance the capacity of governmental and nongovernmental entities to work toward the goal of eliminating the ability of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to establish or maintain safe havens.
(2) CONTENTS OF GUIDANCE.—The guidance required under paragraph (1) shall include each of the following:
(A) A prioritized list of specified geographic areas that the President determines are necessary to address and an explicit discussion and list of the criteria or rationale used to prioritize the areas on the list, including a discussion of the conditions that would hamper the ability of the United States to strengthen at-risk states or other entities in such areas.
(B) For each specified geographic area, a description, analysis, and discussion of the core problems and contributing issues that allow or could allow al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to use the area as a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support, including any ongoing or potential radicalization of the population, or to use the area as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support.
(C) A list of short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals for each specified geographic area, prioritized by importance.
(D) A description of the role and mission of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury, and State and the Agency for International Development.
(E) A description of gaps in United States capabilities to meet the goals listed pursuant to subparagraph (C), and the extent to which those gaps can be met through coordination with nongovernmental, international, or private sector organizations, entities, or companies.
(3) REVIEW AND UPDATE OF GUIDANCE.—The President shall review and update the guidance required under paragraph (1) as necessary. Any such review shall address each of the following:
(A) The overall progress made toward achieving the goals listed pursuant to paragraph (2)(C), including an overall assessment of the progress in denying a safe haven to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(B) The performance of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance.
(C) The performance of the unified country team and appropriate combatant command, or in the case of a crossborder effort, country teams in the area and the appropriate combatant command.
(D) Any addition to, deletion from, or change in the order of the prioritized list maintained pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).
(4) SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘specified geographic area’’ means any country, subnational territory, or region—
(A) that serves or may potentially serve as a safe haven for al-Qaeda or a violent extremist affiliate of al-Qaeda—
(i) from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support; or
(ii) for use as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support; and
(B) over which one or more governments or entities exert insufficient governmental or security control to deny al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates the ability to establish a large scale presence.
Even a token attempt at stopping it is better then not even bothering.
I would guess "political inconvenience". With the eye on nomination as a Presidential candidate, it can be a losing proposition to vote against a bill whose purpose is to fund defense. It is easier to oppose when you're not going to be questioned for not supporting the military but stand to gain for opposing the controversial measure inserted into the bill.
It is public knowledge that Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator John McCain who a lot of you posters probably voted for in the last election were two of the authors AND it has been documented that Obama insisted the verbiage be such that it INCLUDE the detention of American Citizens. His statement after his signing that he would never use the power was just for show.
Clearly, the public knowledge is based on lies and misinformation. The original verbiage insisted on mandatory military tribunal, which President Obama took offense to. It was the premise of his threat to veto the bill. You've got it backwards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
