DHS Officers Armed With Semiautomatics Set Up Unannounced ID Checkpoint

Actually I have read the NDAA because I was surprised that so many in the House and Senate voted for it given all the negativity here and in some corners of the news.

Below are a link to the language that passed and the headers of the two controversial sections, with their respective exemptions for citizens and lawful resident aliens.

Section 1021 (e) specifically says it changes nothing in existing law for citizens, lawful aliens or anyone captured or arrested in the U.S., and is clear about it. So the problem if any is with prior law.

Section 1022 requires that Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists be held by the armed forces unless the president waives it for national security reasons. Congress doesn't want foreign terrorists in civilian prisons which I think is wise. I would have preferred that Section 1022 (b) be more simple and direct but if you take it in the context of what Section 1022's purpose is in the first place the "requirement" wording in Section 1022 (b) is consistent. In other words, I don't think optional detention is permitted just because they used the word "requirement" in the exemption section.

So I think this is more poorly worded trash from incompetent politicians rather than a conspiracy.

I realize almost everyone in P&R thinks this is the end of line for our freedoms and my opinion won't change anyone's mind because people will believe what they want to anyway. But I try to come to my own conclusions based on facts, not others' opinions which are often flawed.

Tell me where you think I've gone wrong with my analysis. Seriously. Because if I'm missing something I really want to know. But if you guys want to make up some nonsense that I'm un-American because I disagree with you, you'd be more correct calling Mariano Rivera a lousy pitcher and I'll think you're a kook.

I'm not sure what you mean with your question about what the military's purpose would be without "armed" anything because that's what they do. What I think we should do is throw out all the career politicians at the ballot box and if we don't do that we have no one to blame but ourselves.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

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.

(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.

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

(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.
Quote from achilles28:

There's nothing crazy about calling this 1930's, Nazi Germany. They passed similar law, then. Listen, all these laws allow Americans to be drug off by military and put in camps or prisons. Read the NDAA. No right to a lawyer or trial, for Americans. Now this bill. The Government is setting the table to wage war against a certain class of citizen, just like the Germans did. In Germany it was Jews and Gypsies. Here, it will be "terrorists" and their "associated forces". Again, look at the language, it's intentionally broad. Congress swore up and down the Patriot Act would never be used against American citizens for felonies. Guess what? It has been. Thousands of times. From drug cases, to theft, to everything else.

As far as calling for an armed revolution, I didn't say that. I am asking you point blank - what is the Militarys role here? You swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, right? So what does the Military do when Congress pass laws that strip Americans of their Rights? Is that not an assault against the Constitution? If not, then what is an assault against the Constitution?

AFAIK, the only time the Constitution can be legally changed is with an amendment. I don't see any amendments here. What if the Supreme Court upholds all this shit? The Supreme Court ruled blacks were only 2/3rds human. The Supreme Court ruled the Government can force Americans to buy insurance, under Obamacare. Where in the Constitution does it say the Government can force Americans to buy things? What happens if the Supreme Court rules it's "constitutional" for the Government to throw Americans in the brig, forever, without a lawyer or trial, and strip them of their citizenship, and assassinate them? Everybody reading this thread knows that's straight up treason against the Bill of Rights and the American People. So what then? Do we let the Supreme Court tell us up is down, left is right, and evil is "Constitutional"? What do we do then?

And let me clarify, I in no way, shape or form endorse violence against anyone. I want only a peaceful revolution. I don't want anybody to get hurt, nor am i encouraging violence against anyone else. Just so we're damn clear.
More...
 
Quote from achilles28:

And what of relevancy?

This Country is headed down the rathole at a furious clip, and the only guy in the race that will stop it, you refuse to vote for, because of something he *might* have wrote 20 years ago. How does that make sense? Would you feel better voting for an establishment "uniter" that will throw us into a military brig if we talk bad about America? Seriously.

As far as isolationism, I addressed that in your other thread but you didn't respond. Isolation is a bad idea when we're dealing with an aggressive power with the industrial and military capacity to back it up. True. Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and all these other shitholes might have the aspirations to turn the world into a gigantic Madras, but it ain't gonna happen. Delusions of grandeur. Iran is tearing around the Straights of Hormuz in speedboats, for f's sakes. There is no threat here. And if we we're attacked, Ron is no pussy. He would get a Congressional Declaration of War and go to town.

Anyway, I'm not sure any of this matters. We're just a bunch of people on the internet. Maybe we should start a superpac.
More...

You keep saying that Ron Paul is the only guy that would save the country. I disagree that he would save the country which is why I'm not voting for him.

Now if I agree he was the guy to stop the shennanigans I would vote for him. We disagree on what the man would potentially do.

Besides, the state government of California announced today that they are not even going to hold a republican primary because they don't want to spend the money. My vote out here on the left coast has always been symbolic at best. There is no democracy out here.
 
You should have your main residence in another state, like Texas so you can vote like an American. But, you recently said you were moving out of the country this year so there's no point.

I can't wait til you quit your job and come get me and Lucrum for the world tour. :D

Quote from 377OHMS:

You keep saying that Ron Paul is the only guy that would save the country. I disagree that he would save the country which is why I'm not voting for him.

Now if I agree he was the guy to stop the shennanigans I would vote for him. We disagree on what the man would potentially do.

Besides, the state government of California announced today that they are not even going to hold a republican primary because they don't want to spend the money. My vote out here on the left coast has always been symbolic at best. There is no democracy out here.
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

Actually I have read the NDAA because I was surprised that so many in the House and Senate voted for it given all the negativity here and in some corners of the news.

Below are a link to the language that passed and the headers of the two controversial sections, with their respective exemptions for citizens and lawful resident aliens.

Section 1021 (e) specifically says it changes nothing in existing law for citizens, lawful aliens or anyone captured or arrested in the U.S., and is clear about it. So the problem if any is with prior law.

Section 1022 requires that Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists be held by the armed forces unless the president waives it for national security reasons. Congress doesn't want foreign terrorists in civilian prisons which I think is wise. I would have preferred that Section 1022 (b) be more simple and direct but if you take it in the context of what Section 1022's purpose is in the first place the "requirement" wording in Section 1022 (b) is consistent. In other words, I don't think optional detention is permitted just because they used the word "requirement" in the exemption section.

So I think this is more poorly worded trash from incompetent politicians rather than a conspiracy.

I realize almost everyone in P&R thinks this is the end of line for our freedoms and my opinion won't change anyone's mind because people will believe what they want to anyway. But I try to come to my own conclusions based on facts, not others' opinions which are often flawed.

Tell me where you think I've gone wrong with my analysis. Seriously. Because if I'm missing something I really want to know. But if you guys want to make up some nonsense that I'm un-American because I disagree with you, you'd be more correct calling Mariano Rivera a lousy pitcher and I'll think you're a kook.

I'm not sure what you mean with your question about what the military's purpose would be without "armed" anything because that's what they do. What I think we should do is throw out all the career politicians at the ballot box and if we don't do that we have no one to blame but ourselves.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

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.

(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.

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

(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.
More...

You are correct that the problem is with a prior law, specifically, the AUMF of 2001. The NDAA simply codifies what was supposed to be a temporary power (as granted by the AUMF) into permanence.

Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."

**since there is no exemption for US citizens, it can and will be applied to US citizens. In fact, as you've alluded to, it already has...and the NDAA really changes nothing per se.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...sons-military-force-authorities#ixzz1igpwNjqM
 
When I wrote that the problem, if any, is with prior law I didn't mean the AUMF because I looked at that and it clearly authorizes force ONLY against those who did something PRIOR to the 911 attacks to either carry them out or support them.

Here's the language and it's pretty clear:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

So codifying the AUMF doesn't authorize anyone to do anything to someone who does something AFTER 911 (unless they also had something to do with the 911 attacks, and even then it would be for their role in 911).

Quote from DAS Trader:

You are correct that the problem is with a prior law, specifically, the AUMF of 2001. The NDAA simply codifies what was supposed to be a temporary power (as granted by the AUMF) into permanence.
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

When I wrote that the problem, if any, is with prior law I didn't mean the AUMF because I looked at that and it clearly authorizes force ONLY against those who did something PRIOR to the 911 attacks to either carry them out or support them.

Here's the language and it's pretty clear:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

So codifying the AUMF doesn't authorize anyone to do anything to someone who does something AFTER 911 (unless they also had something to do with the 911 attacks, and even then it would be for their role in 911).
More...

And the problem with that is the AUMF has been and continues to be the justification for the continuing war on terror. Al Qaeda has become (and affiliates). Affiliates can go on forever. Libya had nothing to do with 9/11, neither did Iraq, yet the AUMF provided the base justification for both (in addition to the UN for Libya). It's already been bastardized from its original parameters. That's the problem with blank checks to the federal government. That tends to happen.
 
They're not blank checks. As I've shown, neither the AUMF or the NDAA authorizes the government to do anything to citizens even remotely close to what people have hysterically claimed here and elsewhere.

Which means that Ron Paul's claim that the NDAA is a slip into tyranny that "virtually guarantees our descent into totalitarianism" is flat out wrong. Because if the government is over-reaching and doing something beyond what the law allows, THAT'S the problem. NOT the law.
Quote from DAS Trader:

And the problem with that is the AUMF has been and continues to be the justification for the continuing war on terror. Al Qaeda has become (and affiliates). Affiliates can go on forever. Libya had nothing to do with 9/11, neither did Iraq, yet the AUMF provided the base justification for both (in addition to the UN for Libya). It's already been bastardized from its original parameters. That's the problem with blank checks to he federal government. That tends to happen.
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

They're not blank checks. As I've shown, neither the AUMF or the NDAA authorizes the government to do anything to citizens even remotely close to what people have hysterically claimed here and elsewhere.

Which means that Ron Paul's claim that the NDAA is a slip into tyranny that "virtually guarantees our descent into totalitarianism" is flat out wrong. Because if the government is over-reaching and doing something beyond what the law allows, THAT'S the problem. NOT the law.
More...

No, you haven't shown anything of the kind. You gave your interpretation of section 1021 of the NDAA without actually showing what it stated and you've failed to acknowledge how it codifies what's been done with the AUMF.

The Executive has already held US citizens without trial. We agree on this. The AUMF was the justification for that unprecedented leap. The NDAA makes no changes to existing laws, meaning, the AUMF has that covered. No exemption being added for US citizens in the NDAA is basically a bookend to the applications of the AUMF.

When Ron Paul calls it a decent into tyranny, he is explaining how little by little, step by little step, we are doing just that. Just like the Nazis codified the slaughter of Jews, we are codifying the our own Soviet-ization. You need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
 
No, you've given no factual counter argument and have chosen instead hysterics about Nazi Germany and "our own Soviet-ization." While I quoted only the section titles and exemptions for citizens and legal aliens, I linked to the rest which you seem to have not read or understand. Did you even notice the AUMF is written in the PAST tense? You need to step back and realize you can't solve a problem unless it's properly identified.
Quote from DAS Trader:

No, you haven't shown anything of the kind. You gave your interpretation of section 1021 of the NDAA without actually showing what it stated and you've failed to acknowledge how it codifies what's been done with the AUMF.

The Executive has already held US citizens without trial. We agree on this. The AUMF was the justification for that unprecedented leap. The NDAA makes no changes to existing laws, meaning, the AUMF has that covered. No exemption being added for US citizens in the NDAA is basically a bookend to the applications of the AUMF.

When Ron Paul calls it a decent into tyranny, he is explaining how little by little, step by little step, we are doing just that. Just like the Nazis codified the slaughter of Jews, we are codifying the our own Soviet-ization. You need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

No, you've given no factual counter argument and have chosen instead hysterics about Nazi Germany and "our own Soviet-ization." While I quoted only the section titles and exemptions for citizens and legal aliens, I linked to the rest which you seem to have not read or understand. Did you even notice the AUMF is written in the PAST tense? You need to step back and realize you can't solve a problem unless it's properly identified.
More...

Let's see if we can identify the disconnect. Do you believe the President has always had the power to indefinitely detain US citizens without charge or trial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top