NDAA - Setting the Record Straight! (Congress, enemy, Taliban, illegal)

[Glitch]

I have noticed a seemingly willful ignorance being continually displayed in numerous threads concerning what is commonly referred to as "NDAA". Presumably this acronym is in reference to the "National Defense Authorization Act of 2012." More specifically, Section 1021 of that Act (HR 1540, Public Law 112-81).

The purpose of this thread is to set the record straight.

"NDAA" was enacted into law by a Republican controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate. In the Republican House the original bill passed 406 - 17, 1 Present (Roll no. 893). The House passed the Conference Report between the House and Senate 283 - 136 (Roll no. 932), and the Senate passed the amended bill 86 - 13. Record Vote Number: 230. Since the bill passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority, and the House with only 7 votes short of a veto-proof majority, there was no way the President was going to veto this law.

As for the content of Section 1021:

Subtitle D - Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. 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; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 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.

Congress is reminding everyone that the nation is still in a state of war, as defined by Public Law 107-40, which was enacted into law on September 18, 2001. As a nation that is still in a state of war, it is both necessary and proper for Congress to consider the disposition of Prisoners Of War.

Throughout history, when we have been in a state of war, we have detained the enemy when captured without charging them, if they have committed no other crime, held them in captivity until the war was officially over, and then returned them to their land of origin.

(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.

Section 1021(b)(1) seems pretty straight forward, and it would not matter the national origin of someone fitting this description. While Section 1021(b)(2) is a bit more nebulous with regard to the definition of what "substantially supported" means. However, I would say that anyone who is "associated [with] forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" falls under POW status if captured. American citizens engaged in hostilities against the US or its coalition partners captured by the US should be tried in the US as Johnny Walker was, but they do not have to be (see below), however, anyone not a US citizen should be held, without being charged (unless they commit some other criminal act), and released when the war is officially over.

Congress stated this in Section 1021(c):

(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.

Despite the conspiracy theories to the contrary, "NDAA" is not some power-grab by the President, and it only includes those who "substantially supported" those who were responsible for the 09/11/2001 attacks, or provided them with safe harbor (as Public Law 107-40 states).

When Congress enacted the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" in August 1964 they official declared war against Vietnam. When Congress repealed the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" in December 1974 they officially ended the war with Vietnam. Therefore, when Congress repeals Public Law 107-40 the "War Against Terrorism" will be officially over, but not until then.

For those who do not think American citizens should be detained indefinitely without being charged, let me remind you of the exception included with the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The US Constitution allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without being charged, while a state of war exists, and Congress has reaffirmed in "NDAA" that a state of war does indeed currently exist.

Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

[Gtownoe]

I'm not a lawyer. My question is this. Can American citizens be detained because of it? Can protesters be considered terrorist for doing nothing more than protesting?

[jimhcom]

First we are not at war in the literal sense, we are in a “government declared war”.
Second the NDAA act is purposely written so vaguely it can be, as liberals love to do, "be interpreted" to say almost anything.
Just what is a belligerent act?
The US has been in a constant government declared "state of war" ever since the 50's with the sole purpose of suppressing citizens’ rights and nullifying the Constitution.
Before the war on terror, we had the war on drugs, the war on poverty, cold war, even a war on cancer; we are in a perpetual state of war as can be attested to by the” military gold fringe flag” which has now gained a permanent position in our civilian courts and government buildings.
NDAA is the most egregious assault on the American public in our entire history. We have fought wars for our very survival that did not require a blanket absolution of the most fundamental of citizens’ rights.
We are no longer a free nation, but a tyranny where government is the master of people instead of the republic formed by our forefathers where the people were masters of government.

[Frank DeForrest]

setting the record straight and licking the kings boots at the same time!

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I have noticed a seemingly willful ignorance being continually displayed in numerous threads concerning what is commonly referred to as "NDAA". Presumably this acronym is in reference to the "National Defense Authorization Act of 2012." More specifically, Section 1021 of that Act (HR 1540, Public Law 112-81).

The purpose of this thread is to set the record straight.

"NDAA" was enacted into law by a Republican controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate. In the Republican House the original bill passed 406 - 17, 1 Present (Roll no. 893). The House passed the Conference Report between the House and Senate 283 - 136 (Roll no. 932), and the Senate passed the amended bill 86 - 13. Record Vote Number: 230. Since the bill passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority, and the House with only 7 votes short of a veto-proof majority, there was no way the President was going to veto this law.

Oh, riiiggggghhhht - so Obama is Pontius Pilate on this.
He also didn't work overtime along with his lackeys to extend the Patriot Act.

His hands are clean.
I'll pass this along to the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, they've been asking about it.
Those damn wascilly Wepublicans just forced his hand - no way he could take the moral high ground and veto it, oh wait, we're talking about Obama, of course he couldn't take the moral high ground - he doesn't even know what, much less where that is.

I bet somehow those wascilly Wepublicans are also responsible for Obama's use of drones and justification for using them against U.S. citizens abroad.

Originally Posted by Glitch

Throughout history, when we have been in a state of war, we have detained the enemy when captured without charging them, if they have committed no other crime, held them in captivity until the war was officially over, and then returned them to their land of origin.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

So it only makes sense that we know use military law against non-military citizens on U.S. soil. God I just want to thank you for making this all so clear. Its starting to all make sense now, so this is why the Posse Comitatus also should be ignored.

Originally Posted by Glitch

The US Constitution allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without being charged, while a state of war exists, and Congress has reaffirmed in "NDAA" that a state of war does indeed currently exist.

Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

Some more new information I was unaware of!

Here I thought that Obama may have engaged in an impeachable offense by committing U.S. troops to war without congressional authority under an official Declaration of War as required by the Constitution.

I just must have been asleep when Congress issued the Declaration of War. And here I was thinking the Obama Administration just lied where convenient to cover their illegal actions by calling the conflict a Police Action or a War where appropriate.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

I'm not a lawyer. My question is this. Can American citizens be detained because of it? Can protesters be considered terrorist for doing nothing more than protesting?

Yes, American citizens can be detained indefinitely, without being charged with a crime, but only if the government can prove that those citizens being detained have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any of its partners against the US and its coalition allies. See Jose Padilla as an example.

Peaceful protestors are not terrorists. Violent protestors can certainly blur the line between protesting and terrorism. Throwing rocks and bottles at police, like the violent left love to do, would not be considered an act of terrorism. However, setting off bombs at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago was without a doubt an act of terrorism, but it was also a protest against the Democratic Party support for the war in Vietnam. In any event, there still must be a correlation between the individual being detained and al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any of their supporters.

If they are peacefully protesting, then it cannot be construed as an act of terrorism. I have yet to see anyone on the left protest peacefully.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

First we are not at war in the literal sense, we are in a “government declared war”.

We are not at war, we are in a government declared war? Seriously?

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Second the NDAA act is purposely written so vaguely it can be, as liberals love to do, "be interpreted" to say almost anything.

NDAA, as I demonstrated above, was passed with a veto-proof majority (7 votes shy in the House), which means that both Democrats and Republicans supported this bill. It was introduced by a Republican controlled House, and amended by a Democrat controlled Senate. So this was not a partisan bill.

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Just what is a belligerent act?

A belligerent act is when any State, or armed force, joining and directly engaged with the US in hostilities, or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

Originally Posted by jimhcom

NDAA is the most egregious assault on the American public in our entire history. We have fought wars for our very survival that did not require a blanket absolution of the most fundamental of citizens’ rights.
We are no longer a free nation, but a tyranny where government is the master of people instead of the republic formed by our forefathers where the people were masters of government.

NDAA is perfectly constitutionally, and well within Congress' authority. It is the same practice we have always used concerning POWs in every war where we have been involved, from the American Revolution to the present day. I suppose what you want to see is someone who can take up arms against the US with impunity, right? You need to get a grip on reality.

[SourD]

I think Glitch is correct. It's a slippery slope when it comes to interpretation, but the foundation of it is solid.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Oh, riiiggggghhhht - so Obama is Pontius Pilate on this.
He also didn't work overtime along with his lackeys to extend the Patriot Act.

His hands are clean.
I'll pass this along to the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, they've been asking about it.
Those damn wascilly Wepublicans just forced his hand - no way he could take the moral high ground and veto it, oh wait, we're talking about Obama, of course he couldn't take the moral high ground - he doesn't even know what, much less where that is.

I bet somehow those wascilly Wepublicans are also responsible for Obama's use of drones and justification for using them against U.S. citizens abroad.

Do you really think any President, Republican or Democrat, would veto a bill enacted by Congress with a veto-proof majority? Why do you think they call it a "veto-proof majority?"

Or were you not aware that Congress could override a President's veto?

Originally Posted by jwm1964

So it only makes sense that we know use military law against non-military citizens on U.S. soil. God I just want to thank you for making this all so clear. Its starting to all make sense now, so this is why the Posse Comitatus also should be ignored.

Where did the bill mention anything about using military law? Or were you not aware that Congress enacts the laws that are applicable to all citizens, including this one?

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Some more new information I was unaware of!

Obviously!

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Here I thought that Obama may have engaged in an impeachable offense by committing U.S. troops to war without congressional authority under an official Declaration of War as required by the Constitution.

None of that has anything to do with NDAA. Try to stay on topic.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I just must have been asleep when Congress issued the Declaration of War. And here I was thinking the Obama Administration just lied where convenient to cover their illegal actions by calling the conflict a Police Action or a War where appropriate.

You must have been asleep since Congress passed Public Law 107-40 on September 18, 2001, officially declaring war against terrorism. Or are you like jimhcom who thinks we are not at war, but we are at war?

[JamesGTAIV]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

setting the record straight and licking the kings boots at the same time!

Pretty much.

For the most part, every one of us conspiracy-tards who are against it have read it thoroughly and understand it. It targets US. To say all of this is to protect us is downright dangerous as it clearly isn't.