[SKINNYPIG]

This bill authorizes the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without giving them their constitutional rights. Basically, this gives the military or commander in chief power to detain American citizens, throw them in a military jail without the rights to habeas corpus or an attorney if they "suspect" they have terrorist ties.

Wow! Is it just me, or does this breech our constitution in a big way?

I'm curious to know what TRT, Hoot and anyone else knows and thinks about this bill.

[vector]

They should look hoot up

[SKINNYPIG]

They should look hoot up

Sad part about it is with a broad interpretation of "suspect", they may want to come and get you Vector.

[vundy33]

The military doesn't go after American citizens in America. That's Law Enforcement's job. The only time we would do that is if marshal law were declared, and we were patrolling the streets of our own country.

Now, if we come upon an American working with the enemy in Afghanistan, Iraq (we still hunt terrorists there), Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, Ethopia..all those countries that we're going after Al-Qaeda and their friends in, then that American will be detained and probably will disappear to another country for CIA interrogation, like alot Al-Qaeda commanders and High-Value Targets do. That's just the way it is. If I could have my way, all Americans found working with the enemy would be detained and shot..after they were found guilty, of course. Traitors should get the worst in my eyes.

But yeah, the military will never go after Americans on our own soil unless we're under some type of Marshal Law. Like I said, that's Law Enforcement's job...FBI, ATF, DEA, all those. The closest we will ever come to military going after American targets in the U.S. will be CIA going after them, in my opinion. They say they don't, and it's illegal, but they do.

It's like if I use my intel guys attached to our unit to do a background check on an American citizen, we would go to jail...it's highly illegal. There's laws against this stuff.

[LWC]

^That may be the intention of this bill, but the language should be VERY carefully worded. As in, this only applies OFF of American soil, that they get an American trial, if they are truly American citizens, etc...

It would be too easy for someone to make a true injustice out of a bill like this.

[Deathstar 80]

^That may be the intention of this bill, but the language should be VERY carefully worded. As in, this only applies OFF of American soil, that they get an American trial, if they are truly American citizens, etc...

It would be too easy for someone to make a true injustice out of a bill like this.

I agree with you LWC. It sounds odd for a person to take advantage of this bill, but I personally don't trust politicians enough to allow this bill to pass, especially with it's incredibly loose interpretation. It's a great idea, but they should change the wording to where it can't be abused in any way.

[vundy33]

Also, I need to add that I don't know much about this new bill. I'm based my above post on the law as I know it. If any of you know alot about the bill and have views on it either for or against, I'd like to here it. I'm guessing Hoot, Bob and TRV have some views on it.

[TheRealVille]

Also, I need to add that I don't know much about this new bill. I'm based my above post on the law as I know it. If any of you know alot about the bill and have views on it either for or against, I'd like to here it. I'm guessing Hoot, Bob and TRV have some views on it.

I don't either, but I can see where power hungry people up high in Washington could abuse Americans with this, if they can hold anybody they deem "suspect". It appears to me that this is a violation of our rights.

[vundy33]

^^I can definitely see that with this current administration, or any and every administration to be honest. I'm going to read more into, from as un-biased a source as I can find..which is really, really hard to find on the internet these days, lol.

[Hoot Gibson]

I trust our military but I do not trust elected officials enough to allow them to deprive any American of their Constitutional rights, even if they are apprehended on foreign soil. American citizens who have renounced their citizenship and are captured on the battlefield, however, should be treated as any other POW.

There are no conceivable circumstances where I would support our own military apprehending American citizens in this country and depriving them of due process. I have not read the National Defense Authorization Act and given that members of Congress often vote on legislation that they have not read, I am probably as familiar with the law as many Congressmen who voted for it and I know very little about it.

[vundy33]

The shady part about that is that enemy we detain are not classified POW's...the government can pretty much do as they please with them. I don't mind it, I'd rather shoot them, but I know most Americans would mind it. I think the worst punishment should go towards traitors...U.S. citizens found guilty of working with the enemy.

And I agree, the military is the only trustworthy group in our government, kind of. The U.S. military will follow what orders they are given, unless they're illegal. I'm sure some would buck to the idea of detaining U.S. citizens. I don't see a scenario though that we would be ordered to detain Americans in the U.S. unless it was needed. Other than an invasion of our country, I can't imagine a scenario where we'd have to detain Americans without trial...

And of course, Congress is incompetent. I wouldn't put it past them not to read a bill that's this important...

[TheRealVille]

HONOLULU — President Obama expressed misgivings about several provisions of a sweeping defense bill he signed into law on Saturday, pledging that his administration will use broad discretion in interpreting the measure’s legal requirements to ensure that U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism are not detained indefinitely by the military.

The $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act provides funding for 2012 at $27 billion less than Obama's request and $43 billion less than Congress authorized in 2011.

 President Obama’s reelection campaign and the DNC together raised $70 million in the third quarter of 2011. The president also is ramping up support for his reelection with his visits and talks, mostly focused on the economy.
More On This Story

The bill also contains several detainee provisions that civil liberties groups and human rights advocates have strongly opposed, arguing that they would allow the military greater authority to detain and interrogate U.S. citizens and non-citizens and deny them legal rights protected by the Constitution.

Obama initially had threatened to veto the legislation. In a signing statement released by the White House on Saturday, Obama said he still does not agree with everything contained in the legislation. But with military funding due to expire Monday, Obama said he signed the bill after Congress made last-minute revisions at the request of the White House before approving it two weeks ago.

In several cases, the president called those changes “minimally acceptable” and vowed to use discretion when applying the provisions.

“I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama said. “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/o...litics_pop

[Old School]

^
That's all and well, if he goes by his words, but as we all know thing's change. What about the next administration or the one after that?

[TheRealThing]

^
That's all and well, if he goes by his words, but as we all know thing's change. What about the next administration or the one after that?

^The president saying this reminds me of the time Pilate publicly washed his hands, in symbolic absolution, to dodge the responsiblility for what he was about to do which, was to order the death of the Lord on the cross. In this day and time we call something like that 'spin' or plausible deniability. You got Eric Holder blaming the people working under him for the Gunwalker travesty. The president is way up the line from being implicated in that matter. There is no way he would be even remotely involved (officially) even if American's are abused by this measure. We already have laws on the books to deal with all these situations.

Saying that, we have voted on and passed a defense authorization act every year for the past 48 years.

[Hoot Gibson]

^
That's all and well, if he goes by his words, but as we all know thing's change. What about the next administration or the one after that?

:Thumbs: Even non-tenured part-time Constitutional lawyers know that signing statements carry no force of law and that any law that would allow American citizens to be deprived of their Constitutional rights on American soil is unconstitutional. In a more rational period of American history, when average American citizens were educated well enough to have a basic understanding of how their government is supposed to work, laws like this one would have never have been tolerated.

I urge everybody to do an online search for national coverage of the story about Montans recalling both of their US Senators for voting in favor of this bill. The recall petition should be one of the biggest stories in the national news, yet it is difficult to find mention of it in the major media. This despite the recall being bi-partisan (Baucus is a Democrat and Tester is a Republican) and despite the speed with which the recall was initiated.

6 Republicans, 6 Democrats, and 1 Independent (socialist Bernie Sanders) voted against the bill. The votes against the bill came from those on opposite ends of the political spectrum. This is why in general, I have more respect for people on the ends of the political spectrum than I do for moderates. Moderates compromise on core values in the name of "getting things done," - the far left and the far right are where most people of principle call home, whether you agree with their principles or not.

BTW, moderate Mitch McConnell voted for the bill and Rand Paul voted against it. Republicans need to clean their own house. Any Congressman who calls himself a conservative and voted in favor of this bill is either a liar or too stupid to understand conservative principles.

Thank God for states like Montana, where citizens still appreciate individual liberty and the Bill of Rights.

[INDENT]

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses. MORE

[/INDENT]