Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Donna Konnor on January 5, 2012 at 9:17pm

I like Allen West. Sure hope he is right on this one and not being tricked by the Washington elite.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debbie Myers on January 6, 2012 at 4:30pm

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “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.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

It is true, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, I believe. - By Glenn Greenwald

The wording is very open to interpretation throughout NDAA & as I have seen the frequently, this twisting of the words and/or lack of concise, specific statements, and exceptions leave us open to whatever the president wants to make of it. What West read was a summary but I would encourage everyone to read the bill themselves to see some inconsistencies within the NDAA. I believe it is section 1032, page 362 (not sure off the top of my pea brain) that contradicts the exclusion section for US citizens.

Then to define suspicion, you must look into DHS & the "See Something, Say Something" programs, which define it differently in many cases, depending on the State and even the County which is defining it.

I donot retain my positive attitude as I hear the conversations of Consitutional Authorities & avocates against NDAA. Once a battlefield, our rights are infringed. I do not trust that the president will interpret any part of this wording to our advantage.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debbie Myers on January 6, 2012 at 4:36pm

http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Kilgore on January 6, 2012 at 4:37pm

I read someone saying this, "Sec 1031, 1034 read those. That's where our rights get taken" but have not checked it out myself yet. Doing that now. If someone already knows please post that section. I do find it hard to imagine though Allen West taking the wrong side of this as he is a genuine American military hero.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debbie Myers on January 6, 2012 at 5:33pm

I believe that the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021.

Jason Kilgore said:

I read someone saying this

, "Sec 1031, 1034 read those. That's where our rights get taken" but have not checked it out myself yet. Doing that now. If someone already knows please post that section. I do find it hard to imagine though Allen West taking the wrong side of this as he is a genuine American military hero.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debbie Myers on January 6, 2012 at 7:07pm

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540...              

Subtitle D - Counterterrorism    Section 102 (found on page 265)

This is the part as well that people find objectionable from what I am told. Specifically in the definition that states any person who provides aid - what if they rented them a house or sold them food, not knowing...and they are denied due process?  People don't like the definition in (b) (2) of that section which is concerning, ....including any person who has committed a beligerent act or.....there are many ways to define a beligerent act.

Considering how they interpret the Constitution these days, I really understand the concern, but I guess it is up to every individual to read it for themselves and interpret it - above is the link to NDAA.

I don't feel that anyone is on the wrong side, they feel the administration will do the right thing. Obama just doesn't have a good record of doing the right thing & that can be said of many throughout history.  

There are alot of executive orders that come in to play also because basically we are a battlefield. It takes hours of research to tie everything together. I can provide those if you would like.

 

Jason Kilgore said:

I read someone saying this, "Sec 1031, 1034 read those. That's where our rights get taken" but have not checked it out myself yet. Doing that now. If someone already knows please post that section. I do find it hard to imagine though Allen West taking the wrong side of this as he is a genuine American military hero.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion