Three myths about the detention bill

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency”

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.”

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

Great article about the detention bill. All three of those points are frightening. So essentially a person can be detained forever. They can be detained on very vague charges, and the govt. can detain a US citizen. Very scary times and I am very upset that this bill even came to be. I had thought people were overreacting to it until I read this.

Link

reply to post by Domo1


Did you see that thread where buddy was like "Hey, yo, they can't detain you. Relax!

The dude didn't even bother to read his own content that he posted, even after he was proven wrong he still acted like he was right. You're bound to have a few of them show up and tell you that this article is wrong, and the bill is perfectly fine. It's to help us

Don't you want to be safe?

reply to post by Truth4Thought


I believe I know who you are talking about and actually have a great deal of respect for him as a member. I think if anything he just didn't want to believe that it's gotten this bad.

reply to post by Domo1

I believe this bill shows a desperate need for something. We NEED a way for citizens to run a recall campaign on members of Congress. They rarely seem to represent their own states for anything more than pork spending anyway, so why hold their fate to only their state when their actions have helped negatively effect the whole nation?

I think we can start with pushing for the recall of those who wrote and sponsored THIS outrage. Right now...a Senator can write tripe like this in his first year of a another term..and have 5 more years to help people forget what he did. There just has to be something to call that same Senator to account for it A LOT SOONER when actions have completely gone beyond what a majority would consider Constitutional.

Why am I not surprised.

Oh, yeah, only evil people will be detained (or those that oppose stuff like this).

Damn tyranny to the deepest depths of hell!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

There just has to be something to call that same Senator to account for it A LOT SOONER when actions have completely gone beyond what a majority would consider Constitutional.

I completely agree with this.

reply to post by calnorak

Oh, yeah, only evil people will be detained

Exactly. Only the bad people will get in trouble. That wording in the second point is so vague it's disturbing.

Bumping so more people see. Think its important.

So can an American please just clarify something for me.

With all the madness[for lack of a better word] about the right to bear arms, which in my opinion is taken utterly out of context, but with that in mind, why arent people actualy using there right to bear arms against the government now?

This is what your constitution expressly tells you do, thats why your allowed to bear arms, so that when anything close to tyranny such as this violates your constitution you have the power to organise and remove it.

I just find it odd that with all the talks of militias, state independence, right to bear arms blah de blah de blah something like this actually happens with little response.

Now this is in no way a dig at Americans, I am just genuinely surprised people are not rioting in the streets right now, with there guns taking out federal agents.

reply to post by Domo1


Thanks for the thread. We can only hope that we are able to impeach Obama before the end of his term next year. There are petitions out to impeach him, I think that everyone in the US should sign one now. That, or lets hope that nothing major happens between now and the next election. My love goes out to everyone in the US, lets fight this to the core! Do not let them back us into a corner like hitler did in his country!

reply to post by Domo1

Exactly. Only the bad people will get in trouble. That wording in the second point is so vague it's disturbing.

Somehow I doubt members of congress will arrest themselves.

reply to post by Ixtab
in times like these, The pen is mightier then the sword, words can be used as bullets, it depend on who sees them how it is worded and what is written.

reply to post by thehoneycomb
No but 2 can bring charges against them, just how it is done, and what is said, and how it is said is the key.

reply to post by bekod


Odd then that the constitution would tell you to keep a gun handy when it comes to tyranny and not fine quills.

reply to post by Ixtab


The right to bare arms is in place to DEFEND against tyranny and so is a constitutional Militia. Hope that answers your question.

reply to post by Domo1


Every dead military man should be turning over in his grave right now ! They have all died in vein. Our own govt. is declaring war on us.

reply to post by WiindWalker

That, or lets hope that nothing major happens between now and the next election.

I'm a little concerned about that too. I don't want to see him declare himself the supreme ruler.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Sure did, Americans have chosen not to defend against this Tyranny, I still find it slightly puzzling given American attitudes your average greek was bombing banks and throwing petrol bombs in cops faces over "planned" austerity measures a while back, takin to the streets in hundreds of thousands. And they dont even have mad laws that tell them if the government violates the constitution, get together with all your guns, and take them out. Assaults on federal building should be a daily occurrence, mass strikes, non payment of federal taxes. It should pretty much be chaos in America right now, but nope.

reply to post by Ixtab


Again, it a a defensive measure. The American People do not cast the first stone.

If we were rioting in the streets like Greece, it would quickly lead to our defeat.

reply to post by Ixtab
that is used as a last measure not that it would be, for I think they TPTB have the ball rolling and "only out laws will have guns" that is to say how can you track the nonexistent.