Does The Defense Authorization Act give the government the power to detain US citizens?

[Cutlerzzz]

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/editorials/article_7323c450-2155-11e1-8154-001871e3ce6c.html

Can anyone refute this article?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

[Sematary]

First:


There is a virtually nil chance that you or your neighbors will be swept up off the street and locked up in “indefinite detention” unless you are indeed engaged in war against the United States.

the term "virtually nil" means there is still a chance. It means you have to put your trust in the government to not overextend the meaning of something. I can't give this or any government that type of trust.

However, if you don't believe that there IS a chance that an innocent person could be picked up and detained forever, perhaps Rand Paul can convince you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R3G9UeIS-0

Now - the author of the article you cite goes on to say this:


Moreover, we would encourage everyone to think about the oath of office that many federal officials take, including all members of Congress. Remember, they are sworn “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The author has it wrong in this point - the oath is to support and defend the CONSTITUTION. Fighting enemies foreign and domestic is just part of their job but protecting that actual constitution, well, that is what their oath is all about.

Finally - the author uses the most disturbingly fallacious argument that ever was uttered from John McCain or any other neocon talking head:
We often disagree with the government, but that is not the same thing as being at war with it. Let’s not scare people into lessening the few protections we have against those who are dedicated to destroying our way of life.

Note in the above video that John McCain goes on after Rand Paul has spoken, to equate NOT Passing this bill with allowing terrorists to walk free (another fallacious argument we've heard from this sector). And, not including this section is not lessening our protections, it is increasing the size and scope of what government can do and (as I explained to my daughter) nothing can or WILL prevent the legislation from being changed in the future. And, since Obama has already determined that it is legal to kill Americans without trial, is it so difficult to believe that they would have a problem with locking up people indefinitely? It is simply the next logical step in the government's war on our freedom.

[Sematary]

P.S. - again on this one point
Let’s not scare people into lessening the few protections we have against those who are dedicated to destroying our way of life.

The people he refers to are NOT the people we should be worrying about. The terrorists did some material damage to our country and killed a few thousand people but blowing stuff up cannot destroy our way of life. The ONLY people that can destroy our way of life our our representatives in Congress and they are doing a FINE job of that. And people SHOULD be afraid. And it is up to us to warn them of what is going on because the MSM won't.

[Cutlerzzz]

Thanks, I just realized what my error was. The provision in section 1032 that states that the law/rule cannot be used on Americans does not apply to section 1031 (I think).

[Sematary]

Thanks, I just realized what my error was. The provision in section 1032 that states that the law/rule cannot be used on Americans does not apply to section 1031 (I think).

The article you looked at is propaganda trying to convince us that "everything is ok". "If you've don'e nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about". ETC... Sound familiar?

[-C-]

Thanks, I just realized what my error was. The provision in section 1032 that states that the law/rule cannot be used on Americans does not apply to section 1031 (I think).

The Obama administration threatened to veto the bill if the provision, that barred the use of it on Americans, wasn't removed.

Its only going to get worse when the black suburbans with ninjas start snatching people from their beds. Remember, everything Hitler did was perfectly "legal."

[pcosmar]

"unless you are indeed engaged in war against the United States."

Ever notice that Constitutionalists and other Patriots that want to restore a Constitutional Republic are commonly called "Anti-Government".
And the MIAC Report described "Domestic Terrorists" as third party supporters, Constitutionalists, 2nd amendment folks, Ron Paul supporters, etc.etc.

[donnay]

Not to mention, this legislation along with other passed legislation like The Patriot Act, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 all have provisions to round-up American citizens, and if the President deems them "enemy combatants" you can be locked up indefinitely, without a trial.

A Police State has been set up, all in the name of the war on terror!!