It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NDAA Passes House, Important Amendments Don't

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:58 PM
The NDAA passed by a hefty margin — 216 Republicans and 109 Democrats voted for it and 85 Democrats and 13 Republicans voted against it. Here's some important amendments that didn't make it.

The War on Terror

Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced an amendment to sunset the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Hastily passed by Congress after 9/11 and signed into law by Bush, it was intended to give the President the authority to go after those responsible for 9/11. Here's the preamble for those unfamiliar:

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

It has since been used as the basis for the Bush and Obama administration's authority to do just about anything:

Indefinite detention without charge or trial including detainees in Afghanistan at Gitmo and elsewhere.

Post-9/11, the justification for locking people up indefinitely without charge or trial has come from the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Despite the fact that Obama has publicly announced his desire to repeal the AUMF, the administration continues to rely on the AUMF to justify indefinite detention for a remaining 154 detainees at Gitmo and another 50 or so under U.S. detention in Afghanistan.


The NSA spying on us (and everyone else)

This was cited by the DOJ in 2007 during ACLU vs NSA (ACLU lost in 6th Circuit, SCOTUS turned down appeal without comment) as giving the NSA authority to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant in the name of fighting the "War on Terror."

Drone strikes

First, these targeted strikes are legal. Attorney General Holder, Harold Koh and Jeh Johnson have all addressed this question at length. To briefly recap, as a matter of domestic law, the Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack. The Authorization for Use of Military Force — the AUMF — passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks authorizes the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9/11. There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against al-Qaeda to Afghanistan.


Military action in Yemen, Somalia and the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border, Philippines and elsewhere

It has been invoked to justify military action against groups far from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, from the Philippine Archipelago to Yemen and Somalia. And it is not clear what triggering event would shut down the authorization – neither the death of Osama bin Laden nor the decimation of core al-Qaida seem to have given us our victory parade moment.


In a statement citing the Authorization to Use Military Force, which was passed by Congress after the 9/11 attacks on America, the US military yesterday justified the Oct. 5 raid by US Navy SEALs that targeted a senior Shabaab leader in Somalia. But just four months ago, President Barack Obama called for the repeal of the AUMF, claiming that the law will "continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states."


I'm all for stopping terrorism but this s# is 13 years old and it's basically a blank check for the administration to do WHATEVER it wants under the context of fighting terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is long dead. This cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely and despite the President's continuing statements about it's need for "eventual repeal," it's still being used as the justification for all sorts of objectionable BS from the NSA spying on us to torture. Republicans, despite their vehement criticisms, don't really seem to be all that concerned with doing away with it. There's not a lot of difference between the right and the left except the rhetoric when it comes to a lot of things like the "War on Terror." As Ari Fleischer trolled on Twitter:

Drone strikes. Wiretaps. Gitmo. O is carrying out Bush's 4th term. Yet he attacked Bush 4 violating Constitution. #hypocrisy" .

The voting breakdown for H.Amdt.680 to H.R.4435 was 191 ayes and 233 noes and 7 no votes. 164 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for the amendment, 203 Republicans and 30 Democrats voted against it. Final Vote Result

Guantanamo Bay

Adam Smith (D-WA), Jim Moran (D-VA) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) introduced an amendment to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by December 31, 2016. H.Amdt.675 to H.R.4435 received 177 ayes, 247 noes and 7 no votes. 171 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted for it, 244 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted against it. Final Vote Results

These are two amendments that I had been aware of, I haven't had an opportunity to go over the rest but here's a link for those who are interested.
edit on 2014-5-22 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:09 PM
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?????? PLEASE, straight to the POINT

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:10 PM
edit on 22-5-2014 by spartaocean because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:14 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian


I haven't seen eye to eye with you on many topics, but here you have my full backing.

Both parties cry about this bill yet no one does a damn thing about it.

I'm starting to take Alex Jones a little more seriously. Not that I don't believe he's in it just for the money, but sometimes I see to much truth in what he says.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:18 PM
a reply to: spartaocean

Well, in posts I've seen he's a pretty liberal guy, he's complaining that Obama can use this bill, that he called Bush out on, yet uses it himself.

So I'm going to say his point is our elected officials are up to no good, and I fully agree.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:19 PM
Thank you for bringing this up. This bill was an abhorrence when it was first passed and look at what it has accomplished. They have been quietly stripping away our rights and privacy; all the while mind-f-ing us into total paranoia with false "terrorist" alert levels, constant surveillance, TSA, military drills over heavily populated areas, NSA, et al. It makes me want to scream!
No one I talk to seems to want to lift the blinders to see what these power mongering crooks are doing.

Hey, maybe when the veil (of ignorance) finally lifts, we will all have a good laugh at our folly.

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:49 PM
a reply to: spartaocean
My point is that the despite the President saying publicly that he thinks the AUMF should be repealed, his administration still uses it as the basis of their authority to do all sorts of things, many of them unconstitutional, just as Bush did.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are fond of criticizing the Obama administration on camera for everything under the sun, and many of the things done under authority granted by the administration's interpretation of the AUMF, but then when given a chance to do something about it, they vote OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST doing anything about it. To me, that certainly smacks of complicity.

If the President uses it just as Bush did and the GOP doesn't do anything about it, how much disagreement is there really?
edit on 2014-5-22 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 11:16 PM
The idea is to make us think they are doing something to correct a problem but then they don't. We assume they did though because the normal person does not completely read them or follow through to actually see what happened with it.

new topics

top topics


log in