Congress reaffirms indefinite detention of Americans under NDAA.

a reply to: crazyewok

Im not even a American (thank god)

We had a war to split from your country. You should be careful what you say. Your country keeps far better track of you then ours does. At least we have numbers and square footage to help us avoid the all seeing eye. You guys are packed in like sardines. I think we got all our good facial recognition stuff from you guys.

V

originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: crazyewok

Im not even a American (thank god)

We had a war to split from your country. You should be careful what you say. Your country keeps far better track of you then ours does. At least we have numbers and square footage to help us avoid the all seeing eye. You guys are packed in like sardines. I think we got all our good facial recognition stuff from you guys.

V

So what?
You might have had a war to split from the UK.

But least I still have a right to a fair trial.

And you can talk all big about your guns and chest beat about them but uless you have the spine to use them they are of no good, and your not useing them! Why are you not marching on congresd to arrest the traitors?

a reply to: crazyewok

We have the right but you would be surprised as we do not alway's get it and remember how they were trying to dispense with trial by jury, it seem's the same behind the scenes global powers or people are trying to perform a coup de gras over our nations and strip all personal rights except for the richest such as the curtailing of legal aid.
I have not read the rest yet but that last statement by Variable is correct in too many way's except it was not to split from us but to split from king george whom as not really royalty if we look back in our own history and also to split from unjust taxation which they were most certainly under at the time of the American revolt and to Variable remember they whom founded the republic were actually almost entirely British men with some irish and a few others so they still had family here and they were most certainly not fighting there family now were they and they never really wanted to split from there family, indeed more british settled there after the founding of the republic than before it, maybe to get away from unjust law and corrupt toff's with there unjust tax's eh.

originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: crazyewok

Im not even a American (thank god)

We had a war to split from your country. You should be careful what you say. Your country keeps far better track of you then ours does. At least we have numbers and square footage to help us avoid the all seeing eye. You guys are packed in like sardines. I think we got all our good facial recognition stuff from you guys.

V

Now now. Lets all take a step back... And look at the big picture here..

Both of us are no better than each other . we are both being striped of our rights .

I think unitity would be key here ...

LSH

a reply to: crazyewok because the minute we talk about getting our guns we get attacked by non Americans telling us we shouldn't have guns.



Peace.

It's so blatant now, and it's almost too late for peaceful resolution. Peaceful protests are met with violence, voices go unheard, rights violated, constitution turned into toilet paper, cops out of control and nobody's seems to be putting an end to it. Everyday there's some political rat sneaking in constitutionally illegal legislation, to serve their own interests.

Honestly, I see SERIOUS treason happening. From the mindless police, to the judges, banks and politicians.

a reply to: crazyewok
Dear crazyewok,

I really appreciate your passion. It enables us to do great things, but sometimes it clouds our judgment. The idea that it is a direct and clear violation of the 6th, confuses me. The 6th only applies to criminal prosecutions. It doesn't apply to prisoners of war. Local governments can enforce quarantines requiring people to stay in their houses. I know quarantines aren't the issue, but it's an example of the government restricting peoples' movements without going afoul of the 6th. Doctors can commit people to a psych ward for a 72 hour stay with no constitutional question.

It's not as clear as you think, Republicans and Democrats each opposed the amendment. If it was clear, it wouldn't have been close.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

We shouldn't even be having this conversation. Laws like this are completely unethical. They are bane to human progress and our condition.

They promote further militarism, which is a threat to society. Quite a large one actually.

No good of this can come. None. But hey, the Department of Defense, or more accurately referred to as the War Department, wanted this passed. The same with the patriot act, etc. Recognize the real problem. Whose acts get passed without question, and whose does not? Who is writing them?

You wanted transparency? How about that?

It is time we have a complete transparent look at the militaries budgets, with a very darn fine tooth comb. Then compare and contrast with the law, amplified by a billion so there is no wiggle room. All unconstitutional programs, or those in violation of treaty, should be immediately terminated. Those leading it, should be arrested and should be given trial. Guilty? We'll let the people decide.

The remaining military should be redirected back to constitutional law. Whose main mission is more aid and humanitarian focused. Never war. Only war as a last resort.

Civilization was to make it easier for the whole. Look at all the technology we are NOT using to progress our species. Instead of advancing into a golden age, we are using it as a method of tyrannical control.

And NO ONE is asking questions.

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere
Dear LightningStrikesHere,

Your "loophole" point is excellent. I wonder what the amendments actually said. Normally, they're not as simple and clear as that brief description. (I was too lazy to look up the amendments.) Scratch that, I found descriptions of the amendments. I might as well post them.

AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment requires the government, in habeas proceedings for United States citizens apprehended in the United States pursuant to the AUMF, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the citizen is an unprivileged enemy combatant and there is not presumption that the government's evidence is accurate and authentic.

AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment requires the Department of Defense to submit to the Congress a report every year containing: (1) the names of any U.S. citizens subject to military detention, (2) the legal justification for their continued detention, and (3) the steps the Executive Branch is taking to either provide them some judicial process, or release them. Amendment also requires that an unclassified version of the report be made available, and in addition, that the report must be made available to all Members of Congress.

That first amendment looks like a very powerful tool. Habeas Corpus petitions must be heard, and the government has got a fairly stiff burden of proof.

That second amendment? Poof. Once a year? That's a long time to be sitting in a camp.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Who is the enemy combatants? You.

You are the enemy. Trading with the enemy act. Read it.

They are saying it is OK to turn your right to life, into a privilege. There is a difference.

originally posted by: Wookiep
I've never supported this bill, this is the type of thing that was brought up during the elections as well. Many people tried very hard to show how bad this bill is, but I seem to remember the Obama supporters blinded in some kind of weird Obama trance that just made them refuse to see how bad it is. He signed it into law after all.

Most Obama supporters are against this, it wouldn't surprise me if most of the country is if you ask them about it in a politically neutral way to keep party bias out of it. The problem is that most people just don't see an alternative to the two major parties so as a defense mechanism they rationalize it away to avoid admitting their guy is bad and the other guy is too. People want to believe there's good choices for president, but they only pick those choices from bad parties. This leads to things like ignoring the evils of their side.

Obama was for this, Romney/McCain were for this. Until you get out of the major parties there was no choice here (and even if there were, bundling choices in party platforms means you might have to vote for something you dislike in order to vote for things you do like).

a reply to: Not Authorized
I'm known as Mr.Confusion, primarily for my reactions to posts such as this one.

To begin, why is it completely unethical to detain an "unprivileged enemy combatant?" On the battlefield, we shoot people we suspect of being unprivileged enemy combatants, is it so unethical to detain them if they are found within the US? "A bane to human progress?" Can you explain why you believe that? A law that hasn't been used, but has been in effect for years, is hurting us badly? Could you explain how?

If this law promotes militarism, can you give examples? We are pulling out of the Mid-east, trying to make peace with Iran, cooling toward Israel, reducing our equipment and manpower strength, and have reduced the military's budget.

Do you think this act passed the House without question? It was a very close vote, now the Senate is hacking it to bits with over 500 amendments. Oh, there are questions all over the place, I assure you.

I have no objection to carefully auditing the military's accounts, IF you look at all of the other government accounts as closely. The IRS recently admitted that they pay out about $13 billion dollars in fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit claims. That alone is four times our aid to Israel.

You mention that, Constitutionally, the military should be primarily interested in humanitarian aid. How do you get that from the Constitution? Humanitarian aid doesn't require missiles, rockets, grenades, machine guns, jet fighters or bombers. Should we get rid of those?

See why I'm confused by your post? Give me a hand here.

originally posted by: Lichter daraus
a reply to: crazyewok because the minute we talk about getting our guns we get attacked by non Americans telling us we shouldn't have guns.



Peace.

And you should care why?

Its your country and your rights that are being stripped.

In50 years time when the USA resembles north korea and your grand children ask you " but why didnt you stop them when you had the guns and means" you really think " cause some foreigners on a internet forum were anti gun" is a great excuse?

a reply to: charles1952

1.) Privilege is not the same as a right. How can anyone be more privileged than someone else? Is your life better than mine? My gender? My religion? No. Unprivledged, assumes you already do not believe in equal protection. Equal protection doesn't have exceptions. Someone who thought they were more privileged came to that decision to use that word to begin with. We know better than that.

Who determines who are the enemy combatants? You? Me? Someone treating you as a number? Understand the term mission creep?

It you can't prove it in a court of law, then you do not have enough independently verified evidence to be someone's prosecutor, judge, and jury. No one does. If you are worried about speed, then clean out the fraud in the real system, and it will operate faster. That is just the way it is. You can make it faster, but it must support all rights.

2.) I get the mission from Article 6, US Constitution. Treaties are the second supreme rule of the land. That includes UN Charter, Kellogg-Briand, others on torture, etc. I can read, and, I know what a signature means. History, also holds very valuable lessons.

I also remember the time at the end of the cold war through to Iraq 1. The US was to become a peacekeeping force only, ending wars like Vietnam. What happened? Can we at least try to go back to the feeling of that time?

3.) Our currency system is a sham. You have a right to a fair currency. We will not even need taxes if we switch to a tax free, or credit system setup to benefit us all. Yes, they exist.

Taxes are just usury. Are there no other more beneficial systems of currency out there we could use? This is the best we have when we come together?

Besides, it only takes about 30 billion per year to end hunger. What is our war budget again? Which would end all of these wars faster? Redirecting the war budget, and ending hunger by mass building of hydroponic's, which is quite easy with technology now, or making lots of drones designed to blow up everything on earth, including you? Hmmmm. I wonder.

I am astonished that I have to defend this.

a reply to: charles1952


Charles THANK YOU! For pointing this out .

I agree! Sitting around for a "year or years" gives them PLENTY of time to trump up charges .

And would the detainee get the right to a speedy trial? ...just saying.


*rolls eyes*


Humbly

LSH

a reply to: Not Authorized
Dear Not Authorized,

Forgive me for not being clearer. The term "Privileged Combatant" is used to designate someone who is fighting in accordance with the rules of war as described in the Geneva Conventions and elsewhere. Spies, child soldiers, and some others are not considered "Privileged." They are to be treated as prisoners of war and given the appropriate rights and treatment.

It you can't prove it in a court of law, then you do not have enough independently verified evidence to be someone's prosecutor, judge, and jury. No one does.

Again, I might not have been clear enough in pointing out that the first passed amendment that I gave indicates that the person has to be proved to be a combatant in front of a judge, and the government's word is not to be considered necessarily accurate.

Article 6 of the Constitution does say that treaties are also the supreme law of the land, you're quite right. But I certainly don't remember any treaty or Constitutional amendment that made the military a peace keeping force only. That position leads to some very strange results, as i mentioned earlier.

I'm not sure how taxes come into the question of indefinite detention. I don't like them, but they are Constitutional and ethical. By the way, if you can end American hunger with $30 billion dollars, I would be honestly pleased to find out how. Especially since we spent over $80 billion on food stamps alone in 2012.

Please don't think I was attacking you, I simply needed to understand more clearly what you were saying.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Dear Charles, I think the wording in the law can be twisted, quite horrifically. Can the AUMF change? Yes. Are you a "citizen" already? Yes. Could a person, who holds no value of life, thinking himself above you, because he or she is a "privileged" citizen non combatant, use other twisted wording in the AUMF to summarily execute you? Yes. Could that list change based on controlled public perception? Yes, in fact you could gamble on it.

If that is not a terrifying idea, I'm not sure what is. It is very bad wording, and assumes not one judge is corrupt. This is not a joke. The law will be used to justify killing people. Scrutinize it.

Very bad form as well on your part. Accepting someone else can summarily execute you based on mob mentality perception, instead of the black letter of the law that protects all. Very sad, what has happened to people and self worth?

As for mission, I always thought the best offense was a good defense? Isn't the best defense peace? Don't we have a right to tranquility? What is their purpose otherwise?

As far as peacekeeping only. That is up to people and congress what they do, so as long that no rights are violated in action or plan.

Solving hunger? I talk about worse hunger than food stamps. I speak of poor nations with no food.
www.nytimes.com...

For 80 billion, here, we could make warehouse like hydrophobic farms in every locality, churning out food in abundance. Driving down costs so far, that food becomes essentially free.

No money in it though. Sad, yeah?

Bed time, :-)

I believe this actually IS legal and I didn't know that myself until tonight.

United States Congressional Record

I'm a bit tired and bug eyed for going back in to find the many references now, but each year breaks down to the months and down to days. 2013/2014 were all I've been reading through the last several hours, but there is multiple mentions of the NDAA and this part of it, too.

More importantly though are the regularly renewed State of Emergency declarations (which is what I hadn't been aware of) related directly to 9/11 and coming from orders issued immediately following that. That is the authority, by the state of Emergency, this is apparently being done with. I believe it's an annual renewal of the declarations.

Anyway, I link it so others can go look. It's really very interesting because each day has a House link and Senate link. Within those are line items for each thing done in either house through the day. Including all their little speeches, indignant rants and "big proclamations" or whatever they get on about. When congressmen get to blathering though, it's always interesting and this was sure a part of the things in there being blathered about often enough.

Obama also has to issue statements about this, specifically, and those are part of those daily records too. (I'll get to more itemizing them myself tomorrow perhaps.)

a reply to: Wrabbit2000


Ah ! There is the "cookie jar "


Very interesting wrabbit thanks for posting I'll have a read !

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: crazyewok
Dear crazyewok,

I really appreciate your passion. It enables us to do great things, but sometimes it clouds our judgment. The idea that it is a direct and clear violation of the 6th, confuses me. The 6th only applies to criminal prosecutions. It doesn't apply to prisoners of war. Local governments can enforce quarantines requiring people to stay in their houses. I know quarantines aren't the issue, but it's an example of the government restricting peoples' movements without going afoul of the 6th. Doctors can commit people to a psych ward for a 72 hour stay with no constitutional question.

It's not as clear as you think, Republicans and Democrats each opposed the amendment. If it was clear, it wouldn't have been close.

With respect,
Charles1952

The 6th seems pretty clear. No ifs or buts every American Citizen has the right to a trial.

If they are non US Citizens? They need to be held as POW not some silly made up category of "enemy combatant"
If they don't fall under POW's then they too need to stand trial.

If US Citizens they need to stand trial. If they have acted against the USA then that is crime they need to stand trial for.

I see no grey area here.