Sure Shot
Well-Known Member
YouTube has literally wound back the view count on this video,
in order to try and keep this from going viral!!
[youtube]KdxXhn3We7U[/youtube]
National Defense Authorization Act? Is this serious?
- Thread starter VILEPLUME
- Start date
in order to try and keep this from going viral!!
[youtube]KdxXhn3We7U[/youtube]
beardo
Well-Known Member
You are wrong about this ^^^
That is not true- that is not what it says.
It says it is not applicable to citizens as a REQUIREMENT, its still optional and up to the executive.
What if they think you are a Muslim terrorist? You still for it? Because it doesn't matter what proof you have to show them you aren't, they won't even look at it, at no point will you ever be offered even a microsecond to say anything on your behalf. You are guilty no matter what and will spend the rest of your life locked in a small cage, slowly wasting away. It matters not if you are 100% innocent. They do not care.
Wtf . The bill is for people. Not Muslim people. Its for all of us. That includes you. There is no amendment specifying it to be used solely on Muslims. Good god.
Haha, Germany had the same stats in 1933, except for the obesity thing...
canndo
Well-Known Member
In answer to the question - is it serious - yes it is very serious. It lends even more power to a single branch of government and draws power from the other branches - we are one more step closer to having a king, The founders didn't much want the executive to have an unbalanced amount of power.
HOWEVER. I think it is funny. Consider this - the right didn't say squat when Bush gave himself the power to detain indefinitely, U.S. citizens and then Bush detained two of them - I will bet that most here didn't know that.
Now, the right is up in arms about this turn when a Dem gets this same power. But here is the kicker. This law cannot pass Constitutional muster but it is dependent on the makeup of the court. The more liberal the judges on SCOTUS the less likely it is that the law will stay on the books. The more conservative, the more likely that the law will forever be instituted. SO - If the right has it's way and elects a right leaning president, they are almost certainly likely to cement the law into fact, something that they CLAIM at least not to want. The best cure for this nasty little law is to keep Obama in office long enough to alter the makeup of the court to the left.
HOWEVER. I think it is funny. Consider this - the right didn't say squat when Bush gave himself the power to detain indefinitely, U.S. citizens and then Bush detained two of them - I will bet that most here didn't know that.
Now, the right is up in arms about this turn when a Dem gets this same power. But here is the kicker. This law cannot pass Constitutional muster but it is dependent on the makeup of the court. The more liberal the judges on SCOTUS the less likely it is that the law will stay on the books. The more conservative, the more likely that the law will forever be instituted. SO - If the right has it's way and elects a right leaning president, they are almost certainly likely to cement the law into fact, something that they CLAIM at least not to want. The best cure for this nasty little law is to keep Obama in office long enough to alter the makeup of the court to the left.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...8S02xx:e578148
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
canndo
Well-Known Member
the issue is upon whom is the burden of proof that one is a citizen or lawful resident. The Consitution makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens, in this country, if you are within our borders you are entitled to a major subset of constitutional rights, this law sets that on its head.
beardo
Well-Known Member
The word Requirement
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Yes because official documents such as birth certificates, green cards, and social security cards have no bearing on this "burden of proof." The fear mongering continues. The big bad government is going to get us.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Obama specifically DEMANDED the power to imprison citizens with nothing more than an accusation. You think he is the one who will nominate judges that don't follow his agenda to the letter? That's a bit of a stretch. I can't think of anything more dangerous than Obama with four more years and no concern for reelection. In terms of SCOTUS judges that follow the Constitution being instituted into our highest court, there couldn't possibly be a better President than Ron Paul. Constitutional scholars that follow the letter of the law, not activist judges and professors that think it's their job to bend the document to their particular brand of lunacy...right and left.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
McCain SPONSORED the amendment to the bill.
VILEPLUME
Well-Known Member
Well said.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
Bullshit. Learn to fucking read.....
"The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
So I see the word requirement but what exactly are you trying to say that means? I just really don't understand how that one word in your opinion trumps all others.