The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 29, 2011, 01:12 AM   #1
nate45
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
(>_<)
nate45 is online now  
Old November 29, 2011, 06:33 AM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,940
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?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 07:12 AM   #3
ammo.crafter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2006
Location: the Garden State
Posts: 733
step aside!

How did you hear about this secret vote?
__________________
"The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry, American Patriot
ammo.crafter is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 08:15 AM   #4
rshanneck2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2008
Posts: 195
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!
rshanneck2002 is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 09:54 AM   #5
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 10:53 AM   #6
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auila Blanca
If the latter -- where is it in the legislative process?
They are voting on it this week. Maybe today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ammo.crafter
How did you hear about this secret vote?
I'm not the one calling it a 'secret' vote. That's a link to Business Insider where I first read the story and thats their headline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rshanneck2002
Weird to say the least .,
Well, the bill was co-authored by Sens. Levin (D) and McCain (R) so it has bi-partisan support. Lets don't make this too political though considering the forum rules. I say too, what I should say is partisan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
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.
Well, he's a Democrat from Colorado. However, it doesn't matter to me what party he's in, this is our Constitutional Rights at stake.

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
(>_<)
nate45 is online now  
Old November 29, 2011, 12:00 PM   #7
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
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 is generally done under the direction of the state governor or, in some cases, local authorities. (The legality of the latter has been questioned most times it has happened, perhaps most notably in the aftermath of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.)

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
carguychris is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 12:17 PM   #8
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
Utah's Republican Senator
Utah has 2 Republican Senators and neither is named Udall.
Don H is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 12:42 PM   #9
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 328
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
pnac is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 12:51 PM   #10
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,229
"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.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 01:22 PM   #11
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnac
Here's a link to Freedom Watch video about the "Indefinite Detention Provision":
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspo...alling-us.html
Good video pnac, Judge Napolitano is one of the few people in the MSM who covers these types of things.

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
(>_<)
nate45 is online now  
Old November 29, 2011, 01:43 PM   #12
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,219
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!
Wyoredman is online now  
Old November 29, 2011, 02:10 PM   #13
secret_agent_man
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
Quote:
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision. One designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”
--Federal Judge Alex Kosinski

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...y/%28page%29/2
secret_agent_man is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 02:27 PM   #14
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 02:38 PM   #15
Alaska444
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:
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

. . .Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

Quote:
Military Commissions Act Does Affect US Citizens
Recent application of terror legislation proves American citizens not exempt from intent of bill

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | October 22 2006

Neo-Con government mouthpieces and others are claiming that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which heralded the official end of the "great experiment" of the American democratic republic, does not affect U.S. citizens, only illegal aliens and foreign terrorists. Recent history of how terror legislation was used to target American citizens clearly indicates the legislation will be used domestically.

A coordinated effort to downplay the implications of the fact that the bill affects American citizens, in the face of extensive coverage on the part of Keith Olbermann, is underway in an attempt to offset the possible repeal of this draconian legislation.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...doesaffect.htm
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 05:46 PM   #16
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Utah and Wyoming have 1 million residents?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 06:43 PM   #17
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 328
Quote:
The Senate rejected an amendment on Tuesday that would have removed a provision from the pending Defense spending bill to toughen U.S. policy towards suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield or on the home front.

The amendment, defeated 37-61, would have struck a section of the spending bill that authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to detain people suspected of terrorism and instead would have implemented a timeline to allow further hearings and opportunities for the military to make recommendations on how detainee policy ought to change.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ainee-language
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 06:51 PM   #18
egor20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,762
Quote:
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.



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
egor20 is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 07:20 PM   #19
(*_*)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 160
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.
Your looking at the nov 15 version, look at the nov 17th version:
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."
(*_*) is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 07:23 PM   #20
egor20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,762
(*_*)

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
egor20 is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 07:37 PM   #21
lawnboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
Quote:
Well, the bill was co-authored by Sens. Levin (D) and McCain (R) so it has bi-partisan support.
I would say that Senator McCain and any Democrat makes for Partisan support.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I'm pretty partisan myself. I just rarely agree with Senator McCain.

Quote:
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."
Since Federal Courts interpret what is and is not prohibited by the Constitution this probably means that they will detain whoever they decide to detain and let it be tied up in the courts. So the detention could be months or years until the Constitutionality is decided.
__________________
"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
lawnboy is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 08:04 PM   #22
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,381
Quote:
Utah and Wyoming have 1 million residents?
Utah has more than 2.7 Million documented residents, according to the 2010 Census.
Wyoming has more than 500,000, according to the 2010 Census.

Quote:
Utah, Colorado... does it really make a difference which is which when they're both big areas of nuttin?
It makes a big difference. Many Colorado cities are aligned more with NYC and DC, than anything out West. Since we intend to keep the corruption to a minimum, and maintain our big area of nuttin'... it makes a big difference.

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.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 08:27 PM   #23
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Obama has already subverted Posse Comitatus with one of his executive orders:

Quote:
Obama Executive Order 13528 Subverts Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

On January 11, 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13528 (PDF) — right after the over-hyped Flight 253 ‘terrorist’ attack, the fraudulently engineered Swine Flu pandemic and a few other man-made disasters — that, among other things, establishes a Council of Governors, chosen by the President who, as noted by the Intel Daily, will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a ‘National Emergency.’
http://www.billslinksandmore.com/Bil...s-act-of-1878/

Last edited by Alaska444; November 29, 2011 at 09:08 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 09:21 PM   #24
secret_agent_man
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
secret_agent_man is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 10:10 PM   #25
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by secret_agent_man
It would also be a big plus if the Fed indicated what caliber is best...
I think they should just issue every veteran who isn't a "prohibited person" a surplus M16 and a few hundred rounds of that "obsolete" 55-grain 5.56mm ammo the troops don't seem to think is worth shooting.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14254 seconds with 7 queries