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.
First you need to understand that NDAA is a bill used for last 50 years to fund defense. What kind of nuttiness would it take to repeal the budget for defense?
So you're saying the funding is done correctly? or Since it's a funding bill for the military its automatically good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Second, what you're talking about is really a provision inserted into NDAA. Now which one? That remains unclear to me at this time. I picked one likely candidate, and that is defined in section 1021, which simply reaffirms a law that Ron Paul and nearly 100% of the Congress supported and signed up for, in 2001. In fact there was only one person in the entire congress to vote "No", and that wasn't Ron Paul. That was Barbara Lee (D-CA).
And finally, where in the world do you see a direct reference to Bin Laden in Public Law 107-40? Do you see "exceptions" for traitors?
I wonder if sometimes these laws are written in a purposely confusing manner?
"the main difference between the new and old versions of the NDAA is the insertion of one paragraph between the “Implementation Procedures” and “Effective Date,” which is found in the new version. That paragraph reads:
(d) AUTHORITIES. – Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody."
Ron Paul -
"Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of presidential authority under 2001 authorization for the use of military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law. Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely, no right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court. This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas."
"Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language, radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has substantially supported certain terrorist groups or associated forces. No one has defined what those terms mean. What is an associated force?"
So you're saying the funding is done correctly? or Since it's a funding bill for the military its automatically good?
No, it is automatically stupid to go for sensationalism.
Quote:
I wonder if sometimes these laws are written in a purposely confusing manner?
"the main difference between the new and old versions of the NDAA is the insertion of one paragraph between the “Implementation Procedures” and “Effective Date,” which is found in the new version. That paragraph reads:
(d) AUTHORITIES. – Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody."
Ron Paul -
"Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of presidential authority under 2001 authorization for the use of military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law. Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely, no right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court. This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas."
"Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language, radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has substantially supported certain terrorist groups or associated forces. No one has defined what those terms mean. What is an associated force?"
How's it different than the vague language used in Public Law 107-40, granting excess power to the President, that Ron Paul thought was a great idea in 2001? This bill simply re-affirms that law.
No, it is automatically stupid to go for sensationalism.
How's it different than the vague language used in Public Law 107-40, granting excess power to the President, that Ron Paul thought was a great idea in 2001? This bill simply re-affirms that law.
No it doesn't. Did you even read my post? I pointed out the difference as well as the vagueness. The original version was 1031. The final version has it at 1021. I alluded to it in my other post when I said "I wonder if sometimes these laws are written in a purposely confusing manner?" Probably should have expanded on it.
Is that where the confusion is or is it the blinders?
As far as sensationalism that is your misguided perception. Yea that's Ron Paul a huge media wh*re, big sensationalist. LMAO.
What next? The insane things people bring up who are not Ron Paul supporters continues. I guess when the ones they support have done so much wrong to ruin this country economically they grasp at anything to defend their candidate.
Feelings hurt? Tough, my country and my equity hurt much worse.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 01-20-2012 at 02:27 PM..
No it doesn't. Did you even read my post? I pointed out the difference as well as the vagueness. The original version was 1031. The final version has it at 1021. I alluded to it in my other post when I said "I wonder if sometimes these laws are written in a purposely confusing manner?" Probably should have expanded on it.
Is that where the confusion is or is it the blinders?
As far as sensationalism that is your misguided perception. Yea that's Ron Paul a huge media wh*re, big sensationalist. LMAO.
What next? The insane things people bring up who are not Ron Paul supporters continues. I guess when the ones they support have done so much wrong to ruin this country economically they grasp at anything to defend their candidate.
Feelings hurt? Tough, my country and my equity hurt much worse.
There are two critical pieces to the insertions into the NDAA: 1021 and 1032. We can discuss either but first tell me, why voting for PL 107-40 and whining about its reaffirmation defines "greatness"? Is there no vagueness in that law?
Obama doesnt support the bill he was forced by congress to pass the bill with a 100 votes in the senate. He signed Presidental seal of dissapproval which means he is basically going to ignore that part of the law.
ifyou have a problem with the law call your local senator
Unless I miss this piece of the news. But the news I did read is Obama WILL NOT signs the NDAA unless the clause of indefinite detention for American is included.
Unless I miss this piece of the news. But the news I did read is Obama WILL NOT signs the NDAA unless the clause of indefinite detention for American is included.
Well, you read a lie. Obama took issue with the bill mandating military tribunals. He wanted to remove that mandate and ensure civilian courts are involved. But hey, you would rather hate him for asking that.
Well, you read a lie. Obama took issue with the bill mandating military tribunals. He wanted to remove that mandate and ensure civilian courts are involved. But hey, you would rather hate him for asking that.
What make you think I hate him? Let me guess, he is black and whatever someone dislike his action, it is racist.
The fact is he signed it into law with a big smile. What he should have done is veto it and do a PR campaign to kill it.
Yet, he signed it with a smile while the whole country is celebrating the New Year.
There are two critical pieces to the insertions into the NDAA: 1021 and 1032. We can discuss either but first tell me, why voting for PL 107-40 and whining about its reaffirmation defines "greatness"? Is there no vagueness in that law?
He's not whining. You candidate is built on a house of cards, so you have to make things up about other candidates.
If Ron Pauls integrity and honor amongst thieves doesn't qualify define him then you're lost.
Why do I have to tell you first? Why are your actions dependent on mine? It never ends with this control does it? If you don't want to answer mine fine, but quit whining and telling ME I have to do what YOU say.
You keep asking the same question. I've already answered your question. What part of American citizens don't you get?
"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section* does not extend to citizens of the United States." now "The military is not "required" to hold us indefinitely."
Do you actually think bills are passed with the intention of re affirming? This time we really, really mean it!!! That's silly.
*section, meaning, not the entire bill
Cenk does a good job with it
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 01-20-2012 at 09:35 PM..
Well, you read a lie. Obama took issue with the bill mandating military tribunals. He wanted to remove that mandate and ensure civilian courts are involved. But hey, you would rather hate him for asking that.
I think the reference is to the statements made that the administration specifically had the language removed that would have exempted American Citizens.
So you're saying the funding is done correctly? or Since it's a funding bill for the military its automatically good?
I wonder if sometimes these laws are written in a purposely confusing manner?
"the main difference between the new and old versions of the NDAA is the insertion of one paragraph between the “Implementation Procedures” and “Effective Date,” which is found in the new version. That paragraph reads:
(d) AUTHORITIES. – Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody."
Quote:
Ron Paul - "Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of presidential authority under 2001 authorization for the use of military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law. Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely, no right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court. This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas."
"Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language, radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has substantially supported certain terrorist groups or associated forces. No one has defined what those terms mean. What is an associated force?"
Nazi Germany anyone?
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.
