It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Does the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allow a sitting president to arrest political foe

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
With the recent signing of the NDAA into law, does President Obama have the legal right to declare, say a Ron Paul, as an enemy of the state and put him in jail indefinitely?

Could this potentially be used to clear the government itself of all dissent?

Three myths about the detention bill (NDAA),

Ron Paul on the NDAA

Senators arguing for torture in the NDAA on the senate floor






edit on 29-12-2011 by dashen because: sp




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Good question...anything is possible in this twilight zone we politically live in now....



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
How much more evidence do people need in order to believe that this bill spells trouble?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Of course it does. No charges are needed, just suspicions which can be classified because of national security.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


In Ron Paul's case there is plenty of evidence. He openly wants to evicerate the US Federal Govenrment to a bare bones construct. So technically he wishes to destroy the government, therefore a threat to national security.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dashen
With the recent signing of the NDAA into law, does President Obama have the legal right to declare, say a Ron Paul, as an enemy of the state and put him in jail indefinitely?

Could this potentially be used to clear the government itself of all dissent?


No.

The 2012 NDAA does not change any of the President's powers to detain people without due process. I know people don't think that's true, but it is. The President has been able to detain people indefinitely without due process since 2001. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (UAMF) has been the basis for these powers, and the 2012 NDAA says specifically that it does not expand upon them.

The entire 2012 NDAA is available here as a PDF. The part we're interested in begins on the bottom of page 426. It's titled "Subtitle D-Detainee Matters."

Here is the part that everyone is so excited about:



16 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
17 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
18 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-
19 THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-
21 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
22 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
23 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
24 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-
1 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
2 under the law of war.
3 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
4 this section is any person as follows:
5 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
6 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
8 sible for those attacks.
9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
12 States or its coalition partners, including any person
13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
15 forces.
16 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-
17 position of a person under the law of war as described
18 in subsection (a) may include the following:
19 (1) Detention under the law of war without
20 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
21 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
22 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
23 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
24 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
25 84)).
1 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
2 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
3 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
4 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-
5 try, or any other foreign entity.
6 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
7 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
8 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
9 Force.
10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States.

15 (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
16 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
17 regarding the application of the authority described in this
18 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
19 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
20 subsection (b)(2).


Emphasis added by me.

I totally oppose indefinite detention or restriction of due process of American citizens, but it's clear that this bill doesn't change any of that. All of the bad stuff has been legal since the UAMF was passed on 9/18/01. That bill is only two pages. You can read it here as a PDF.

The NDAA describes the people to which the detention clause applies this way:



(1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
6 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
8 sible for those attacks.
9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
12 States or its coalition partners, including any person
13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
15 forces


The Secretary of Defense has to brief Congress "regularly" on who the detention clause is being applied to. So, no, it can't be used against political foes...



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 





The NDAA describes the people to which the detention clause applies this way:



(1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
6 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
8 sible for those attacks.
9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
12 States or its coalition partners, including any person
13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
15 forces


The Secretary of Defense has to brief Congress "regularly" on who the detention clause is being applied to. So, no, it can't be used agains


So what if he can prove a congressman funneled money to the Taliban?
Afghan security firms 'hand in glove' with Taliban



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


Well, yeah. If it can be proven that someone was funneling money to the Taliban, it sounds like they could be detained under this law. But, that's pretty much the point of the law, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to detain people who give money to the Taliban by means other than the criminal justice system.

Then again, that wouldn't be about the person being a political foe, it would be about them funneling money to the Taliban. Also, as I said, that wouldn't be a new power granted by the NDAA. They can do that now and have been able to for a decade.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dashen
reply to post by metamagic
 


In Ron Paul's case there is plenty of evidence. He openly wants to evicerate the US Federal Govenrment to a bare bones construct. So technically he wishes to destroy the government, therefore a threat to national security.

So let's take the other side and say that Obama and the republicans candidates apart from Ron Paul want to kill the US government with TOO MUCH DEBT and want to BANKRUPT IT to give it over to the bankers (which is the case really) and let's not mention all the unconstitutional laws they are passing...

So really, who's the REAL threat to national security here?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
don't worry, everyone's far to broke to take this Goliath to court, although it would be entertaining as hell to watch. something tells me SCOTUS would have a field day with it to say the least.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Obama will just have a drone fly over and blow RP up while Hillary and the rest of the crew watch live and drink coffee and hi five



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   


Wouldn't surprise me if they stage another OKC and blame Ron Paul for it.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11

log in

join