|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 29, 2011, 01:12 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
The National Defense Authorization Act would...
1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States; (2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and (3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice. Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad If this doesn't seem a gross violation of our Civil Rights and on its face un-Constitutional I don't know what does. Things are going to far, nothing in the name of 'security' can be worth this erosion of our liberties.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
November 29, 2011, 06:33 AM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
What's your point?
Is this a law, or is this a PROPOSED law that hasn't been enacted yet? If the latter -- where is it in the legislative process? |
November 29, 2011, 07:12 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2006
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 1,967
|
step aside!
How did you hear about this secret vote?
__________________
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". --Thomas Jefferson |
November 29, 2011, 08:15 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2008
Posts: 194
|
Weird
Weird to say the least ., they already have laws on the books to basically declare martial law at the drop of a hat and the guard has been used before in riots. this all being said i have a flaming die hard lib cousin that was having fits all over facebook yesterday about how the Republicans were to blame for this bill until i reminded her that Harry Reid controlled what was allowed on the floor for a vote. I then told her it was funny that this bill even pops up in the senate when they allow daily thousands of illegals to cross our borders and someone wants to pass a bill arresting natural born citizens and deny them due process? something is way outta whack here. What has really bothered me lately is how much is being done behind closed doors from Obama care through the super commitee and now this., it wasnt allowed this way 10 yrs ago or later,it was held in open forum on each side of the house floors in open debate between our respective representatives., this scares me. Over the yrs they have attacked common sense principals and sure dumb down the daily average person. People lose rights daily and they dont seem to care or at least a great deal of them dont. Change i can believe in? I sure dont think so? Skunks always hide in woodpiles and behind closed doors!
|
November 29, 2011, 09:54 AM | #5 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Just to clarify, the National Defense Authorization Act is basically the DoD budget (H.R. 1450/S. 1867) and it is a huge, huge, bill (unsuprisingly). S. 1867 is the portion being discussed in the above post. This is the Senate version of H.R. 1450.
Buried in the thousands of lines of text of S.1867 is the provision that the ACLU is complaining about. Sen. Mark Udall of Utah has offered an amendment (the Udall Amendment) that would strip this provision from the bill. I'd say anytime you have a team consisting of Utah's Republican Senator and the ACLU, you've probably got real cause for concern. |
November 29, 2011, 10:53 AM | #6 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the old L&P form I railed against the Patriot Act and was told my concerns weren't justified and only 'terrorists' had to worry. Well, Goggle Patriot Act abuses, there have been thousands of instances where the FBI has misused the Patriot Act. Defense bill gives military too much responsibility for detainees by Sen. Mark Udall (D) the provisions would require the military to dedicate a significant number of personnel to capturing and holding terrorism suspects — in some cases indefinitely — even those apprehended on U.S. soil. And they authorize the military to do so regardless of an accused terrorist’s citizenship, even if he or she is an American captured in a U.S. city. These provisions are ripe for abuse. I don't think you need a tin-foil hat to see it either. US citizens declared 'terrorist' and then held incommunicado by the military. Habeas Corpus be damned huh? If its in the name of fighting 'terror'.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
||||
November 29, 2011, 12:00 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Use of regular US Army and/or Army Reserve troops under federal control, as opposed to Guardsmen under state or local control, is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Although it is legal for federal troops to operate against American citizens inside US borders under certain circumstances, this has rarely been attempted in the post-Reconstruction era due to the controversy it generally provokes.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
November 29, 2011, 12:17 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
|
|
November 29, 2011, 12:42 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Here's a link to Freedom Watch video about the "Indefinite Detention Provision":
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspo...alling-us.html
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
November 29, 2011, 12:51 PM | #10 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
"Utah has 2 Republican Senators and neither is named Udall."
Udall is from Colorado. Utah, Colorado... does it really make a difference which is which when they're both big areas of nuttin?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
November 29, 2011, 01:22 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
Quote:
Having seen the DHS list of potential 'terror' suspects. It makes me even more leery of this new bill. Here is a link to an 18 year veteran LEO's take on Homeland Security domestic terrorism training. Beware of Homeland Security Training for Local Law Enforcement, by An Insider
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
|
November 29, 2011, 01:43 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,350
|
Mike,
Utah and Colorado both have over 1 million residents, if you want a whole lot of nuttin', look no further that good ole WYO!
__________________
Go Pokes! Go Rams! |
November 29, 2011, 02:10 PM | #13 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...y/%28page%29/2 |
|
November 29, 2011, 02:27 PM | #14 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Sloppy reading on my part. Thanks to those who corrected my error. I still agree with the ACLU on this one though, Sen. Udall's state and party notwithstanding.
|
November 29, 2011, 02:38 PM | #15 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
Bush and Senator Warner pulled off a similar thing with the Military Commission Act (Later overturned by SCOTUS) and the John Warner Defense bill signed on the same day back in 2006 which undid Posse Comitatus Act (Later overturned by SCOTUS as well).
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
November 29, 2011, 05:46 PM | #16 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Utah and Wyoming have 1 million residents?
|
November 29, 2011, 06:43 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Quote:
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
|
November 29, 2011, 06:51 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,824
|
Quote:
As far as S. 1867 goes, page 362 reads... "APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— 17 (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. 21 (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. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf
__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand |
|
November 29, 2011, 07:20 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 160
|
Quote:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-20...16.pdf#page=14 "SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of section 1031, add the following: (f) EXTENSION TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States." |
|
November 29, 2011, 07:23 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,824
|
(*_*)
WoW missed that THX.
I wonder how this would effect the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?
__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand |
November 29, 2011, 07:37 PM | #21 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
Not that there is anything wrong with that. I'm pretty partisan myself. I just rarely agree with Senator McCain. Quote:
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum "A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields |
||
November 29, 2011, 08:04 PM | #22 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,403
|
Quote:
Wyoming has more than 500,000, according to the 2010 Census. Quote:
It's like saying everyone in Pennsylvania is exactly the same as everyone in New York, because both states are in the same, worthless part of the country.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
||
November 29, 2011, 08:27 PM | #23 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
Obama has already subverted Posse Comitatus with one of his executive orders:
Quote:
Last edited by Alaska444; November 29, 2011 at 09:08 PM. |
|
November 29, 2011, 09:21 PM | #24 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Congress should quit wasting it's time on persecuting it's own, and outline the rules of engagement for U.S. citizens who encounter terrorists on domestic soil. The Homeland, as they like to call it these days, hoakey as it sounds.
It is well established by now the U.S. is at war with terrorists. Enemy combatants, if they cannot be captured, can be justifiably killed. Citizens need a guarantee they will not be prosecuted under state statutes for their actions in this respect. Now, that would be a ruling more in keeping with the times, they are a-changin'. It would also be a big plus if the Fed indicated what caliber is best... Last edited by secret_agent_man; November 29, 2011 at 09:37 PM. Reason: grammar |
November 29, 2011, 10:10 PM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|