Something frightening I found in the NDAA. Please Read!

So last night I decided to look into the definitions of words used in the NDAA. I came across this.

Pay attention to the words in caps. NDAA -"any person who was 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."

Definition of Belligerent- inclined to or exhibiting ASSERTIVENESS, hostility, or combativeness

Definition of ASSERTIVENESS -this affirms the person's rights or point of view without either aggressively threatening the rights of another (assuming a position of dominance) or submissively permitting another to ignore or deny one's rights or point of view.[1]

So if you even disagree with the point of view of the government without threatening or being aggressive towards them they can pick you up under the ndaa.

But don't worry, President Obama has promised not to enforce that part of the law, right?

Right?

I think the key to this is "in aid of such enemy forces" .. I don't think what you found grants them as much power as you think since it still has to be "in aid of such enemy forces" ..

Besides, dangerous wording has been included in countless bills over the years.. often to never be used, and if it does get used it's often challenged by and defeated in the supreme court ...

Though it still stinks that they try in the first place.. in this instance I don't think it's as bad as it sounds.

reply to post by miniatus


It depends how the word "or" is used. It can go either way. The word "or" can be used as an alternative. Separating one statement from the next. You know how these lawyers are, they can bend twist and turn any statement.

reply to post by miniatus


I agree. This legislation didn't single handedly nullify the first amendment...

Remember, if a President was willing to institute martial law and suspend our freedoms..... Do you think he'd care where in the Constitution it gave him the right to?

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
But don't worry, President Obama has promised not to enforce that part of the law, right?

Right?

Yep. Just like he promised not to sign it.

reply to post by 0DeepSpace0


Yeah, no worries.

I can't believe that the public is not in an uproar about this.
But then again, its not that surprising.

reply to post by logicalthinking
May i suggest that you do NDAA 2012 search there are several threads and post that i my self have made to this very subject, as i see no one still cares, but time will tell

reply to post by miniatus
go right a head and turn a blind eye to law this is what they want so when they come and get you for acting or well here...INCLUDING ANY PERSON who has committed a BELLIGERENT ACT or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." OWS might fall under this BTW what is up with them?

reply to post by bekod


Anyone who doesn't agree and lets it be known can fall under this. Amazes me.

Well they already let us know with the patriot act (twice) that it is whatever the hell they interpret it as, so it really doesn't matter what it says or what particular words they use.

Basically they'll do whatever they want regardless of the concerns of American citizens and justify it with semantics.

So the word "or" is what makes the difference between us having unalienable, god given rights and us not having them. Yea okay, whatever. Bull#.

reply to post by logicalthinking
this is just the start wait 5 or so years, the NDAA DHS and TSA will look like child's play

reply to post by RSF77
few know that if the GOV wanted too the ACLU OWS er 99% and others would , like MSM ATS yes ATS could be under the naad 1021 1022 sub sec D be deemed Belligerent and giving aid too the enemy of the State

reply to post by bekod


Yea I know, it's blatantly obvious the bs they are up to. There is no rule of law, only the rule of "that's just the way it is".

reply to post by RSF77
or as they say it is, for your own good. You can not decide for your self, nor think for your self they must tell you how to think, act or buy. Just think the NDAA will be the rule of how we behave in public or on the net web or face book

one must know that the USA is now a Battle field that is we are at war within, this is why the Drones will be flying over head, to know who is a target who is not and the ones that will be easy to heard a sheep, no guns no protest no free speech and no complaining speaking of ...no free speech HR 347 need to see what this is all about

this thread will die out too as so did the others it seems less and lees are concerned about freedoms, so with that the next you decide to go and protest when the POTUS is around or at a Fed building think again www.govtrack.us... it is law that you have no right to voice or protest you views to the POTUS

reply to post by bekod


Be patient, brother.

This website is what it is.

reply to post by RSF77
always am as long as one reads it, 10 will and that 10 will be 100 so on and so on. wonder what other bills will become out before election time to keep the masses sheep... any thoughts?