NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Mysteriously Stripped From Bill

page: 1
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+7 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Mysteriously Stripped From Bill


www.huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.

The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 was added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but there was no similar language in the version of the bill that passed the House, and it was dumped from the final bill released Tuesday after a conference committee from both cha
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Well isn't that an interesting development,.

Removed that passage and added one that's even more vague and open to interpretation.

If I were american, I would demand that bills be written in easy to understand, and non negotiable language to prevent this sort of nonsense.

The language in question:


Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.


Thoughts ATS?

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

I think that's been the status of AUMF detentions for ages, thus we keep people we capture outside the United States in places like GITMO.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
just our dear govt
putting it to us once again....

i agree, i think ALL bills should be one bill,
10 pages or less in plain english, no attachments
allowed of any kind...

but we all know sadly that would never happen...

one bill one vote, no hidden crud or mixed language..



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

If I were american, I would demand that bills be written in easy to understand, and non negotiable language to prevent this sort of nonsense.



Jesus it is really that easy? I wish someone would have told us. Shoot we could start demanding all sorts of things!

Of course this is par for the course, I doubt anyone is surprised. If they have the ability to detain American citizens indefinitely against our own laws, what makes you think us demanding clear and concise language being used in the laws created to harm us would work?

I never realized you weren't from the U.S., but surely you have read enough at ATS to know that governments, at least in their current form don't work like this?

Is there a government in the world that still works like this? People demand things, and government give it to them? I don't know of any, but I certainly don't know about all governments.


+17 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Their agenda is pretty clear Tenth,,,,I am a veteran who distrusts my government more than than the punk drug dealer standing on a street corner...At least the drug dealer has a purpose and isn't hiding it. My government on the otherhand?

I never thought I would live to see the day that my fellow countrymen would act so stupid and selfishly by following the laws dictated to us by criminals who only care about us when it is time to get our votes. The rest of the time, they cater to the banks and corporations!

I am one tired old man, and I am DONE with those who wish to destory the country that I grew up in and took an oath to defend, to cater to their facist and selfish ways.

The America I grew up in is dead..........



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



The America I grew up in is dead..........



Sadly seeker, you said it all right there.....
i feel for the younger generations, not only do they
not have what we did growing up, but they cant even
comprehend what it was... story books is as close to
a real american life as they will ever get the way things
are going....



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Yes there is, plenty of them.

Iceland and Switzerland come to mind off the top of my head.

And honestly, you get the politicians, you ask for and get the legislation they are worth. Crappy legislation comes from crappy politicians who come from crappy constituencies.

~Tenth



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
From the Congressional Record (if you don't know, it is all the written record of your Congress....learn it, love it and use it!)

This is Senator Feinstein's initial call to the dangers of the detention provisions.


I view the detention provisions of this bill as real pernicious, as an attack on the Executive power of the President, and contrary to the best interests of this Nation...


As she continued on, she reads from a joint letter from the Senate Judiciary Committee and reads in part,


...taken together, sections 1031 and 1032 of subtitle (d) are unprecedented and require more rigorous scrutiny by Congress. Section 1031 needs to be reviewed to consider whether it is consistent with the September 18, 2001, authorization for use of military force, especially because it would authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial .....


The Amendment is No. 3018 (Feinstein-Lee Amendment) The Amendment, given the roll-call, should have passed: Congressional Roll-Call Amdt 3018

If you follow the link, it includes the letter in the Record.

Here is the Senate Record relating to the amendment in question:
Congressional Record

Here is the starting of the debate regarding the amendment: Congressional Record

The article the OP linked is a bit confusing and accurate while not accurate at the same time. The bill itself hasn't yet been voted on, but I agree that there should be outrage that the Joint Congressional Committee
handling the bill is moving to strike the language of the passed amendment from the bill.

This bill, in both the Senate and the House is still being debated and is in conference.
H.R. 4310
S.3254



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Yes, lets pull this wool while everyone is occupied with 2012 mayan hoopla, Sandy Hook
and christmas shopping
So what is it,.?
Fiscal cliff?
Complete social breakdown due to financial crash?
couple that with DHS and their ammo purchase.........
edit on 19-12-2012 by Lil Drummerboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


"shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws."


it says clearly that it wont strip the rights of habeas corpus or constitutional rights of people granted those rights aka citizens of the united states, in a court of law.....


what they dont tell you is if brought up on these types of charges it doesnt go before a normal court of law it goes before a secret tribunal or military court if you will, in those cases you dont get hebeas corpus and are stripped of any provission. in most cases you are lucky if you get a defense lawyer.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
^^^ Widowmaker already made my point, i suggest ignoring my post in favor of his. I wasn't paying attention, silly me.
I have yet to read the NDAA in full. I've only watched Cardinal Virtues (youtube pundit/philosoper) take on this and he is your run of the mill public polciy major (he has his masters on the subject) . I don't agree with everything he says but the man has a sound head on his shoulders.

I was under the impression that the NDAA that was passed was incapable of overriding any pre-existing laws on the detainment of american citizens. I was also under the impression that Obama asked Congress to rectify any language that would suggest that american citizens could be denied Habeas Corpus or detained indefinitely.

If that is the case then this doesn't mean the government couldn't loophole around these though. We need to remember that any law or "right" is only as useful as the people enforcing it.
edit on 19-12-2012 by DeathShield because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-12-2012 by DeathShield because: Widowmaker already answered it, Accidentally posted without giving reason on first edit, hence the second one. Also gave a little background info on my current understanding



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
What's going on and why is the NDAA so important for the president. I can think of three scenarios why they are trying to sneak the provisions past congress and the American people.

First, we need the NDAA in place to imprison the nearly 1.5 million Iranians when we finally go to war with Iran. This is just a preparation for a war where nukes or nuclear pollution from bombing reactors might result. I can imagine the Iranian community here in the US protesting and becoming violent when the death toll climbs into the hundreds if thousands. And while preppers are paranoid and think that they the target of fema camps and the NDAA, I believe its really a provision for internment like they did with Japanese during WWII.

Second, that there already citizens being held presumably under an executive order signed under an emergency power or under the congressional authorization on the war on terror. The NDAA is the codification into law of that executive order which is necessary because the emergency powers of the president are meant to be temporary and I would say that the 911 emergency has long passed. A lot of the legislation under Obama that has passed recently that assaults the constitution seems to be the codification of executive orders from W Bush that will be exhausted once the emergency is gone

Third, and this one is a little conspiratorial and based on the video footage of a missile hitting the pentagon and the lack of plane wreckage. The lack of wreckage begs the questions where is the plane. Likewise with flight 93, where are the bodies, the seats, and the wreckage. Assuming that the 911 planes were landed elsewhere and the passengers detained to hide the false flag, that detainment would have had to be authorized by executive order. The NDAA would be the law that codifies the executive order into law and enables the continued detainment of these people. Imagine the public furor if it were revealed that these people were still alive and that would make the NDAA the most important legislation for the presidency, ever.

Either way, the NDAA is super important and it should not surprise anyone that they will try a legislative slight of hand to keep it.

IMO I believe that we have been under a continuous string of declarations of emergency for decades, possibly extending back to Roosevelt or even FDR and that there are many secret and classified executive orders that have greatly enhanced the powers of the president to the point where the constitution is now threatened. If we could have a decade or two of peace, I believe we would see a great change in the country for the better.
.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


We can demand till we are blue in the face, and it won't change a thing. As was made clear last month, we no longer have real, free elections; we have cheating, and fraud, and intimidation, and illegal actions to "elect" the person TPTB wanted. The wrong people obtained power, and they are not planning to let it go.

Something like this is no surprise at all, and it fits nicely with the current gun-grabbing tactics they are using. Disarm the people, remove their rights in the name of "security", and you have the perfect formula for a dictator to seize total control.

The only question now is whether they can be stopped or not.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


"shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws."


it says clearly that it wont strip the rights of habeas corpus or constitutional rights of people granted those rights aka citizens of the united states, in a court of law.....


what they dont tell you is if brought up on these types of charges it doesnt go before a normal court of law it goes before a secret tribunal or military court if you will, in those cases you dont get hebeas corpus and are stripped of any provission. in most cases you are lucky if you get a defense lawyer.



Game Show Dingx5 Widowmaker! I believe as you might that
the UCMJ kind of sets us all up for the final loophole
".. , in the absence of such laws." Like maybe Martial Law, as
already available to be declared solely by POTUS opinion?
Another great job done on us under military justice [is] the
defense can't even access the evidence against his client, if
I'm not mistaken... half of the clotheslining of LtCol Lakin.
No full discovery either... looks like the 5th took a powder too.
Welcome to Rome.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.




It's like reading a #ing Shakespeare play



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

If I were american, I would demand that bills be written in easy to understand, and non negotiable language to prevent this sort of nonsense.



I believe we have attempted to demand this, but were ignored as 'We the People' do not write the checks of our congressmen/women. Now, on the other hand, if bankers demanded such a thing, they'd do it before the ink dried.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


I could not agree more sir.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Well, i just shot some emails to the NY reps, giving them my 7 cents on this crap. Not that I think it will do any good, but I have to tray at least.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by derfreebie
 


Its because they think we are cattle and for the most part are correct. Also they could care less for us in the end, because there is always a loophole for them to wiggle out of. So they write in things like I outlined to make it seem like they have put protections in for us but if you know the complete picture(military courts) you realize real quick its just fluff because there are no "rights" in those types of courts. Also with this type of provision, they could lock you up in gitmo, while you "await" trial as a military combatant for life while no one even knows where you are till years later. Or after the new election is over, or the opponent you were up against wins, or the topic you were protesting passes ect ect. Same thing they do in south America, Africa, Nazi Germany, numerous middle eastern countries ect.

This is nothing new, they are basically setting up a system of Gestapo rules and making them into law so they cannot be considered breaking "constitutional rights".





new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join