Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Mysteriously Stripped From Bill

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingster129


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


Plain English Translation:

The government will not be allowed to claim that any part of the wording in AUMF or NDAA really means that the government can deny a US Citizen or Resident their habeas corpus rights or any other Constitutional rights in our normal court system as is laid out in Article III of the US Constitution, basically pretending those two new laws don't exist.

Might I suggest:

Side-by-side of all three courts

So, assuming some other bill isn't out here that says its a-ok to try us in the non-Article III courts then we should be fine, just fi........oh, wait, wasn't there part of NDAA that redefined the concept of enemy combatant or material support? What bill was that?

Seems that this law is a backflow filter on our legal system: the citizenry may, under circumstances not detailed here, flow into the military courts; but, the military legal system may not flow back into our Article III courts. In other words, the military can (based on other laws passed) drag you kicking and screaming into their court system, but they can't muscle they're way into civilian courts and change how a criminal or statutory proceeding is handled.....yet. Give it time.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by derfreebie

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.


Such laws = NDAA and AUMF

In the absence of such laws" means "as though they weren't ever even brought into play / in spite of the two laws we're talking about" ....so, US citizens get have constitutional protection within the normal court system, independent of whatever legal jargon in those two laws might negate the constitution...but once you ain't bein tried in the Art. 3 courts no more, all bets are off.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Sphota because: Auto correct autocorrects my correct words too?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


"It's a Big Club & you ain't in it! You & I are not in the Big Club!"

The entire world should be on alert cuz these western Govt are out of control. It's amazing they continue to prove to the people what they really represent & it ain't me.

"Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you" -George Carlin



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
We have government by "committee" instead of by the people's true representatives. The conference committee is complicit in tacit treason methinks.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

I am fairly new to ATS and am not an Alex Jones Fan. When I come across threads like this, I have to shake my head in the no direction.

How would it look to the world if good old Uncle Sam just started locking up American Citizens.
Oh say, citizens from Mexico?
Saudi Arabia?
Iran?
Iraq?
Pakistan?
India?
China?
yadda yadda?
Or is it as Alex says and its only White Anglo Saxon Protestants that will be locked up.

Hummm, now hold the phone a minute. Maybe I am on to something. Internment camps but instead of Japanese in WW2 it might be the Arabs in this country that get locked up..........suddenly reason comes to a thread locked up with Alex Jones Paranoia. Ya Think?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by racer451
 


What are you talking about, Alex Jones? The OP didn't source or discuss AJ, the source is the Huffington Post. So yeah....



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


all the same paranoia though, isnt it.

but seriously, will only the non working class be locked up?
only the "Trailer Trash" ?

US now has its biggest population of Muslim Arabs in the country YTD. Surveys say a percentage of those are extremist.

Now what do you reasonably think NDAA is really about? WW3 is right around a corner. Whats NDAA really all about?
you keep thinking with paranoia and well I will stay cool...'K?


edit on 20-12-2012 by racer451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
www.nytimes.com...
Judge Rules Against Law on Indefinite Detention

Its not legal in any case.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I still understand it. I think it still covers our ass...

I dont know. Is there anyone who speaks legalese around?

EDIT:
NM already addressed.....

edit on 20-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by racer451
 


reply to post by racer451
 


Ugh, your points of view are odd and exaggerated. First of all, you're okay with the US Govt having the power to spy on everyone while also having the right to detain them indefinitely? You're okay with Obama promising not to sign the detention of Americans but then going against his word and signing it at 11:30 pm New Years Eve? Paranoia? I'll call it ignorant and or naive if you believe Washington DC is looking out for your safety.


Last I checked the US does NOT have the largest population of Muslims, let alone claiming most of them are extremist. I dunno where you get your information but its of my opinion you're cometely wrong & spreading false information.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


A NY Judge did rule it unconstitutional but Obamas lawyers had that ruling suspended, last I read.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


while making your grandstand argument please include that my comment is that Muslim Arab Immigrants are at a record high in the US. IE: READ A POST with critical thinking engaged

Spying, any body can on anybody and do you know exactly where your tax dollars are spent. NO!!!!

get off your high horse and be way less paranoid while you're at it



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 

The "Greatest Generation" who grew up in the Depression and knew the value of a dollar and came together to fight evil in foreign lands are dying off daily....the "Baby Boomers" (the offspring of the GG) are entering retirement age. The generation coming to power next is being set up to surrender their individual rights for the needs of the collective....



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by racer451
 


Oh I see what now what you were saying, the US now has it's largest Muslim population it's ever seen. Yeah I definitely did it read as saying the US houses the largest Muslim population. No need for you to get upset over I assure you. But as far as my soapbox and high horse I'm sorry if you're upset I'm not at all okay with our politicians being corrupt and increasingly eroding my American rights to fight their boogy man, the terrorist. You do know the very same Gov't is supporting, funding, arming, feeding, and training these terrorist right? They allowed them to take over Libya and now Syria, but to be honest they've always supported them while denouncing them and making them the root cause for the erosion of our rights.

So enjoy your dictatorship fueled by lies, murder, greed, you know corruption. Now I'm gonna take my soap box and horse and go home!
edit on 20-12-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


There is a cure to "indefinite detentions".

Don't let them take you alive - they won't detain you at all then.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
And people still cannot grasp what the 2nd amendment is for. Wow. Too many people still do not realize that what is happening right now, for instance this indefinite detention crap, is just a precursor to worse things to come...And eventually people may have to use their Constitutional rights and do what our Founding Fathers urged future generations to do in times similar to what we may face in the future.

But to some it apparently is not obvious that the government attempts to get away with smaller things, over time, because people become accustomed to it, and by the time they want to strip us of our basic human rights, we cannot fight back. People look and say, the government would never do that to its citizens...But its happened throughout history, and its still happening today. Just because the current government would not do it does not mean that it will not be done in the future.

Few people know about the plot in the early 20th century that took place by those with money and power, and they almost got away with overthrowing the government and instituting their own. That is another threat. But anyone who says that the people do not need protection from their government are either naive or stupid...Or both. Our Founding Fathers said this exact thing, and they were more intelligent and had more precognitive skill than the majority of those in this country today. Many of them were geniuses, and they understood that no matter the era, people will always need a way to protect themselves from their government. So some of you need to get off your high horse and wake up, because your anti-gun rants are really starting to show how little you understand the principles this country was founded on.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


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)


Scary as hell. Doesn't surprise me this was done by the Left.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


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)


Scary as hell. Doesn't surprise me this was done by the Left.


You're kidding right? Dianne Feinstein (D) was the one to put that specific language in.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
It's quite interesting how I brought up the subject of this bill to my Poli Sci professor, ex-Marine, served and was involved with past presidents such as Reagan and George H W Bush, (basically a real "patriot"), and he nearly kicked me out of the class. He told me our government would never do that to its own citizens and its designed to protect us. I wish he, along with many others, would realize that this provision practically eradicates the First Amendment. If the government doesn't like what you're saying or doing, they just walk into your home, take you to wherever they choose so you're never heard from again. And it's all "legal" as long as you're a "threat".



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


Demoncrap, Republican't, who gives a crap. The two party illusion has been crumbling in front of our eyes for years, some people refuse to see it though. Don't look behind the curtain, you will find a bumhug.
edit on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:54:12 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join