PDA

View Full Version : BREAKING: NDAA is now law!




kah13176
12-31-2011, 03:12 PM
http://www.ldnews.com/national/ci_19652743


HONOLULU—President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.


Also: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/31/144524058/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-reservations

bolil
12-31-2011, 03:15 PM
lovely. If someone that supports liberty but is also violent and bombs something (or framed or whatever) where does that leave us?

Aratus
12-31-2011, 03:16 PM
this is a bad law. he is an idiot.
we need a plank in the party platform
demanding our BILL OF RIGHTs back.
i would have had more respect for him
had he vetoed the bill he signed.

kah13176
12-31-2011, 03:17 PM
This happened ~3 hours ago, and there are only TWO news articles about this, from the AP and a local news agency!

If some dumb-ass celebrity died, we'd have hundreds of articles in minutes.

Edit: Now they're starting to come in, but not on the front pages of Google News.

Bosco Warden
12-31-2011, 03:26 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/31/1050313/-BREAKING:NDAA-Signed-By-President-Obama

aGameOfThrones
12-31-2011, 03:26 PM
This happened ~3 hours ago, and there are only TWO news articles about this, from the AP and a local news agency!

If some dumb-ass celebrity died, we'd have hundreds of articles in minutes.

Edit: Now they're starting to come in, but not on the front pages of Google News.

People care more about celebrities than their freedoms.

JoshLowry
12-31-2011, 03:28 PM
Null and void meme needs to be created

Sola_Fide
12-31-2011, 03:31 PM
Null and void meme needs to be created

Sounds like a terrorist activity to me. Are you anti-government?


Reported.

RileyE104
12-31-2011, 03:32 PM
"But it doesn't include the provision for American citizens anymore, my Congressman said!!" :rolleyes:

puppetmaster
12-31-2011, 03:35 PM
will this stand up to SCOTUS?

If not, the treason charges should be brought against all who voted and signed into law.

Aratus
12-31-2011, 03:39 PM
where is someone like john marshall in our hour of need?

Anti Federalist
12-31-2011, 03:41 PM
lovely. If someone that supports liberty but is also violent and bombs something (or framed or whatever) where does that leave us?

As a material supporter of terrorism, subject to indefinite detention, or rendition for torture and execution.

Is everybody getting the point now?

Is it becoming clear how dangerous this is?

The shit is real.

sluggo
12-31-2011, 03:46 PM
I hope Gitmo has cable.

Feeding the Abscess
12-31-2011, 03:47 PM
I don't even... people are spinning this as if Obama wants to restrict the detention aspects of the bill, when he clearly states in his signing statement that he is concerned that they restrict them?

This is fucking Bizarro World.

Aratus
12-31-2011, 03:48 PM
He signed it. It will over time destroy our Bill of Rights and set up a Seven Days in May junta like Chile in the 1970s.
We need another soul in the White House and the ability to get congress to vote for the bill that negates this bill's
horrific features. we need to get as involved in the public sphere we can in the very best way so as to bring back
our Bill of Rights. there is still time before the jackboots stomp in unison on our pavements in a sad fascist manner.

John F Kennedy III
12-31-2011, 03:57 PM
Was there a final version of the bill that passed the House and Senate or did they use the recent Senate vote along with the House vote in May?

I need to look at how everyone voted if it was a new version.

James Madison
12-31-2011, 03:58 PM
Sounds like a terrorist activity to me. Are you anti-government?


Reported.

Good work, mundane. Here's your fluoride.

libertyfan101
12-31-2011, 04:04 PM
The signing statements is such a joke. Obama : "I promise to not violate your rights even though I was the one that wanted to do it in the first place."

shelskov
12-31-2011, 04:18 PM
According to my Congressman (Stephen Fincher, TN) he claims that the language "this section does not apply to US Citizens or Residents" that was NOT in the Senate version but WAS in the House version was INCLUDED in the reconciliation process and thus the final Bill. Take that for what it's worth, but that is what he claimed in an email to me when I asked him what was going on with this bill. I will look at the THOMAS website to check when I have some more time later tonight.

Lothario
12-31-2011, 04:25 PM
As Adam Kokesh said in a video - sure signing the bill is a flagrant slap in the face to America, but really, who cares whether it is "signed" into law or not...the White House already does whatever it wants. Awlaki was a US citizen and assassinated well before this law was instituted.

kylejack
12-31-2011, 04:38 PM
Obama said as he was signing it that he had 'serious reservations'. Has anyone told him that he has a veto power?!

kylejack
12-31-2011, 04:42 PM
As Adam Kokesh said in a video - sure signing the bill is a flagrant slap in the face to America, but really, who cares whether it is "signed" into law or not...the White House already does whatever it wants. Awlaki was a US citizen and assassinated well before this law was instituted.
It also places harsh sanctions on Iran. This was a bad bill all around.

Aratus
12-31-2011, 04:48 PM
its a horrid bill he was told is politically expediant.

Medevila
12-31-2011, 04:50 PM
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority
to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note).
This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary.
The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF,
as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through
lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations
in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established
authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill
does not "limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not
be construed to affect any "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."

A Son of Liberty
12-31-2011, 04:51 PM
HAPPY NEW YEAR!

:rolleyes:

kylejack
12-31-2011, 04:53 PM
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority
to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note).
This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary.
The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF,
as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through
lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations
in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established
authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill
does not "limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not
be construed to affect any "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."
1021 exempts Americans from the requirement of the administration to detain. 1022 just allows them to detain, though, and doesn't exempt Americans.

amabala
12-31-2011, 04:55 PM
http://www.ldnews.com/national/ci_19652743



Also: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/31/144524058/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-reservations
He had serious reservations? Yeah, right. What joke.

Medevila
12-31-2011, 04:55 PM
1021 exempts Americans from the requirement of the administration to detain. 1022 just allows them to detain, though, and doesn't exempt Americans.

Not that I don't believe you, but any citation on this? I don't have the final bill readily available.

kylejack
12-31-2011, 05:02 PM
Not that I don't believe you, but any citation on this? I don't have the final bill readily available.
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.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(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.

(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.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of 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.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

Icymudpuppy
12-31-2011, 05:03 PM
Even if it did exempt American Citizens, it would still be a violation of the Bill of rights. The 5th and 14th Amendment are pretty clear that "no PERSON shall be deprived of life LIBERTY or property without due process of law".

kylejack
12-31-2011, 05:04 PM
In other words, 1022 allows POTUS to detain anyone he designates is associated with Al Qaeda or affiliated organizations, American or not.

1021 requires him to detain foreign terrorists (or affiliated with Al Qaeda, etc) captured abroad.

Tankbot85
12-31-2011, 05:19 PM
Sign the petition to have them all impeached for signing this.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/892/petition-to-impeach-all-senators-who-voted-for-us-is-a-battlefield-and-to-detain-us-citizens-without/

kylejack
12-31-2011, 05:23 PM
Good luck with that. The entire Senate passed the Iran sanctions.

heavenlyboy34
12-31-2011, 05:29 PM
:eek: :( :mad:

flightlesskiwi
12-31-2011, 05:41 PM
I don't even... people are spinning this as if Obama wants to restrict the detention aspects of the bill, when he clearly states in his signing statement that he is concerned that they restrict them?

This is fucking Bizarro World.

he has ALWAYS been concerned that it takes the choice away from the executive. it takes a bit of his choice away by filtering some of the murky water of indefinite detention through cheesecloth.

bizarro world... something like "escape from new york"... bleck.

green73
12-31-2011, 07:11 PM
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm19GQKNWeM&feature=youtu.be

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism

Indifference
12-31-2011, 07:17 PM
We NEED an ad about this, telling the common citizen what it does and how Obama and the other GOP candidates supported it.

heavenlyboy34
12-31-2011, 07:19 PM
Sounds like a terrorist activity to me. Are you anti-government?


Reported.
See something, say something. Good man.

Danke
12-31-2011, 10:06 PM
I hope Gitmo has cable.

It does, but curfew is at 9pm.

Feeding the Abscess
12-31-2011, 10:25 PM
See something, say something. Good man.

I'm starting a meme for all of us. For once, it's a positive one. Well, kind of:

Snitches get stitches

Pauls' Revere
12-31-2011, 10:56 PM
1021 exempts Americans from the requirement of the administration to detain. 1022 just allows them to detain, though, and doesn't exempt Americans.

whats up with this?
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-signs-defense-bill-despite-reservations-200818531.html

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."

So, they revised it?

heavenlyboy34
12-31-2011, 11:05 PM
I'm starting a meme for all of us. For once, it's a positive one. Well, kind of:

Snitches get stitches
I like the sound of that. :cool:

kylejack
12-31-2011, 11:09 PM
whats up with this?
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-signs-defense-bill-despite-reservations-200818531.html

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."

So, they revised it?
Yes, I was citing the revised copy.

Before:
Administration MUST detain anyone associated with Al Qaeda, American or foreign

After:
Administration MUST detain any foreign person captured abroad who is associated with Al Qaeda
Administration MAY (if they wish) detain anyone associated with Al Qaeda, including Americans

The only thing that was changed was mandatory detention for Americans associated with Al Qaeda. They still have the option of indefinite detention.

Obama wanted the indefinite detention power. He just didn't want his hands to be tied as to how he could deal with detainees.

Pauls' Revere
12-31-2011, 11:14 PM
Yes, I was citing the revised copy.

Before:
Administration MUST detain anyone associated with Al Qaeda, American or foreign

After:
Administration MUST detain any foreign person captured abroad who is associated with Al Qaeda
Administration MAY (if they wish) detain anyone associated with Al Qaeda, including Americans

The only thing that was changed was mandatory detention for Americans associated with Al Qaeda. They still have the option of indefinite detention.

Thank you for the clarification.

(may if they wish) detain if your associated with Al Qaeda. Do they specify exactly what that entails? and I suppose this provision is ineffective to associates in other organizations???

flightlesskiwi
12-31-2011, 11:14 PM
Yes, I was citing the revised copy.

Before:
Administration MUST detain anyone associated with Al Qaeda, American or foreign

After:
Administration MUST detain any foreign person captured abroad who is associated with Al Qaeda
Administration MAY (if they wish) detain anyone associated with Al Qaeda, including Americans

The only thing that was changed was mandatory detention for Americans associated with Al Qaeda. They still have the option of indefinite detention.

this is why my facebook post read:

what's obama gonna do? send us all "anti-indefinite detention magic wands" to ensure we aren't indefinitely detained??

he "pledges not to use it the NDAA to indefinitely detain american citizens". well, sh*t. just like we could take it to the bank that he'd get all the troops out of Iraq by NLT 2010???

pretty much everything that man says, you can expect the opposite.

kylejack
12-31-2011, 11:19 PM
Thank you for the clarification.

(may if they wish) detain if your associated with Al Qaeda. Do they specify exactly what that entails? and I suppose this provision is ineffective to associates in other organizations???
The administration is authorized to determine on their own if a person is associated with Al Qaeda or an affiliated organization. Note that it's only supposed membership in the organization that allows them to do this, even if there is no evidence the person ever attempted to make any plans to attack Americans. Once they've determined a person is a member of Al Qaeda or an affiliated organization, they can be detained 'until the end of hostilities'. And the War On Terror never ends.

Pauls' Revere
12-31-2011, 11:28 PM
bump

Pauls' Revere
12-31-2011, 11:35 PM
WTF! is this too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2012

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 is a law in the United States that was signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011.[1][2] Although the White House[3] and Senate sponsors[4] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act legislatively codifies[5] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1021(a-e) of the law.[6] Because those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, and because that detention may be by the military, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources

and the AUMF ?? (Bush)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

dam government and Obama just taking one step further...

ApathyCured
01-01-2012, 12:45 AM
On real quick examination, your prez appears totally gutless.
I thought he said something about a new era when he took office. I fail to see what has changed in the way the US deals with "terror" since GWB left office.

kylejack
01-01-2012, 12:49 AM
On real quick examination, your prez appears totally gutless.
I thought he said something about a new era when he took office. I fail to see what has changed in the way the US deals with "terror" since GWB left office.
Obama has escalated the war on terror and the threats to civil liberties in many ways.

heavenlyboy34
01-01-2012, 12:57 AM
browsing stories on this on the webbernets, it's truly pathetic to see so many people are indifferent or pleased that this happened. Then there's all the people who think RP is "nuts" for wanting to end the FED. /facepalm :rolleyes: If everything depends on the majority of voters, we are truly fucked for at least a decade or so.

Marenco
01-01-2012, 01:56 AM
If Obama get's re-elected somehow it would be extremely bad news, the country is basically on life support as it is.

Anti Federalist
01-01-2012, 02:32 PM
Yes, I was citing the revised copy.

Before:
Administration MUST detain anyone associated with Al Qaeda, American or foreign

After:
Administration MUST detain any foreign person captured abroad who is associated with Al Qaeda
Administration MAY (if they wish) detain anyone associated with Al Qaeda, including Americans

The only thing that was changed was mandatory detention for Americans associated with Al Qaeda. They still have the option of indefinite detention.

Obama wanted the indefinite detention power. He just didn't want his hands to be tied as to how he could deal with detainees.

Yes, this is essentially correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/politics/obama-signs-military-spending-bill.html?_r=1&hp

Philhelm
01-01-2012, 03:41 PM
I'm starting a meme for all of us. For once, it's a positive one. Well, kind of:

Snitches get stitches

And by that, you mean whistle-blowers? ;)

Philhelm
01-01-2012, 03:47 PM
Can we all finally agree that Obama is not Bush's third term, and that Obama is actually worse?

A Son of Liberty
01-01-2012, 04:04 PM
Can we all finally agree that Obama is not Bush's third term, and that Obama is actually worse?

This is just another rung on the ladder. Bush had his "patriot" act; Obama has his indefinite detention...

What would be the point of stating that Obama is "worse" than Bush was? Do you really think he's appreciably worse??

Miss Annie
01-01-2012, 05:11 PM
Askeert.

Dave39168
01-02-2012, 12:19 AM
Can we all finally agree that Obama is not Bush's third term, and that Obama is actually worse?

no we can't. I'd say the rate of change toward totalitarianism under Obama is the same as it was under Bush.