iarneau 44 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 he's full of shit. bear in mind that he is not bound by the same laws as us. and he can shove his "desire for security" up his ass. fear not mindless american zombies, we will all be labeled "extremists" or "terrorists" at one point or another. its just a matter of when. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILLIEVEE 15 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 he's full of shit. bear in mind that he is not bound by the same laws as us. and he can shove his "desire for security" up his ass. fear not mindless american zombies, we will all be labeled "extremists" or "terrorists" at one point or another. its just a matter of when. I don't need to be labeled "extremists" I wear my "Right Wing Extremists" T-Shirt from Juggs all the time with pride and any desire for security starts with with me doing my part for my family and not the goverment or any elected official who are bound by the same laws as those they represent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
liberty -r- death 1,445 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 With screen name like mine.... I'm likely screwed. But, then again I'm not exaclty hiding my concerns or mistrust of the government. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MT Predator 2,294 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 well regardless if the government implements any of this or they dont, its still a blow to the constitution. and grants them the power of arbitrary arrest, or internment, no matter how they try to word it. and to the op, im glad you expressed your concerns. how did you feel about the response you recieved? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
robfromga 39 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 He's full of crap. But relax, he's from the government, he's here to help ya. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iarneau 44 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 well regardless if the government implements any of this or they dont, its still a blow to the constitution. and grants them the power of arbitrary arrest, or internment, no matter how they try to word it. and to the op, im glad you expressed your concerns. how did you feel about the response you recieved? I wanted him to know there's at least some people that'll "have none of it." I won't give any rights for security. Well he said it doesn't give the military the power to arrest US citizens, however I do realize that he wouldn't be the first politician to lie to benefit himself. I think the truth is that we'll have to wait and see. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fitty% 808 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) How I understand NDAA it says that the military "doesn't have to" detain or arrests US citizens, but still can do so if need be. Edited January 24, 2012 by blkhwkguy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reverendfranz 160 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 He is right, it doesn't give them that right. They gave it to themselves a long time ago. Lex Terrae. The significant parts are those hidden in the phrase "existing law," the parts about the constitution, well, thats just silly, remember that the Bush administration used constitutional law to justify all of its actions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 where can i find some of those shades, i need them to go with my tinfoil hat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 this is a little easier to understand for those who may have trouble reading and understanding modern law. In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law “does not apply to American citizens.” This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can’t even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under “existing authorities.” Let’s parse it intelligently, shall we? First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title: (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-…) SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows; (d) CONSTRUCTION. — Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the “or” operator. This statement essentially means: • Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. • Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the “authority of the President” to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section: (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. This section “e” is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying “protects American citizens” from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you’ll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here’s what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the “or” operator: • Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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. • Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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. In other words, section (e) only says that it does notalter“existing authorities” relating to the detention of US citizens. So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand “existing authorities.” What are those “existing authorities?” Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an “existing authority” that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don’t believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it’s widely recognized. Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a “secret panel” of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a “kill list” and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…) Importantly, as Reuters reports, “Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] — first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001.” Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they besuspectedof being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared. Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES…” In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama’s executive “kill list” justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action. They don’t just put language right out in plain view that says, “Americans may never be arrested or detained without due process.” Instead, they create a web of legalese statements that are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This isdesignedto hide their true intentions, not to make them clear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theorangeplanet 968 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 The Obama administration downplayed the wording in the act stating that they already had such authority to detain citizens and that nothing new was being introduced in the bill... So, somehow by them claiming to already be able to violate our constitutional rights makes it not an intolerable status?? While I don't believe this to be some sort of reptilian, new world order conspiracy to land black helicopters on Bubba's farm to get his slidefire stock... still the blatant erosion of out rights and the lack of outrage by Americans make me feel out of place in my own homeland. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jpanzer 1,265 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Sen. Rand Paul warned the entire Senate what was at stake. They slept through his entire presentation. The herd that considers themselves the "leaders" of this nation don't give two shits about Constitutional rights, all they care about is maintaining their hold on power. Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are the only politicians I've seen lately who stand for anything and have the best interests of the nation at heart, and the media labels them "kooks" as if they are out chasing fucking UFO's or something... 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dayofruin 425 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Yes! Some people will argue to no end that NDAA does not apply to citizens. Just in case it doesn't... we have the Enemy Expatriation Act currently being reviewed to remedy that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PFerris 76 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 The citizens of the USA really should be concerned about a bill that almost all the congress supported, both sides of the house, and the debate was closed to the public. When was the last time ALL OF THEM agreed on anything!! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theorangeplanet 968 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 And just to be fair... I truly don't believe that President Obama would actually indefinitely detain any US citizen... He's much more likely to blow your ass up with a drone... indefinitely! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PFerris 76 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Very valid point. IMO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.