Forum Post: Fix NDAA Amendment
Posted 12 years ago on May 10, 2012, 8:30 p.m. EST by Nevada1
(5843)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 2 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 6 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 8 months ago by gsw
2 comments 12 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
From Erik Paulsen on NDAA ( Member of Congress )
Read it consider and tell me what do you think?
Dear Dan:
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
I strongly support individual rights and in the importance of protecting these liberties.
The NDAA provisions you reference do not apply to U.S. citizens; in fact, they explicitly exempt U.S. citizens from being detained by the military. Here is the exact text from the law:
SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021.
(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.
SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022.
(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.
This language makes it clear that United States citizens cannot be illegally detained and they maintain their rights under habeas corpus.
During the most recent consideration of the NDAA, there were two amendments offered that further address these provisions.
First, the Amash-Smith amendment would automatically give any foreign terrorist who sets foot on U.S. soil the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens. For example, if Osama Bin Laden had come to the United States and was captured, he would automatically be granted the same constitutional protections as an American citizen.
I opposed this amendment because it would grant constitutional protections to foreign terrorists. This means we would be giving members of al Qaeda the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens.
The other amendment, which I supported, clarified that the NDAA does not allow for the detention of any person lawfully in the United States, including American citizens, without the right of redress and solidifies the right of Habeas Corpus for U.S. citizens.
Thanks again for sharing your concerns as I appreciate hearing from you. Please let me know whenever I can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Erik Paulsen Member of Congress
Some strange things going on. Maybe the Congressmen is referring to one of the other versions of NDAA, other than the one that passed. Was the letter really authored by the congressmen, or a staff member?
Well, a Federal Judge ruled against provisions of military detainment in NDAA (a significant occurrence), so someone is confused.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/17
This is no accident.
Thanks for the article.
[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (1232) 15 minutes ago
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/17
This is no accident. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
Yeah - well the letter comes from his office and has his electronic signature.
But yeah it seems strange that a judge would bother ruling against it if it was OK with the Constitution as it stands.
Oh my gosh. I agree with Matt! That surprises me. He thinks I’m a troll. But I’m not. But that’s another story.
On NADA, it needs to be overturned; and I think it will be. Few things are as dangerous to freedom as NADA. I’d like to see a concerted effort by OWS to get it removed.
apparent such detention of citizens without disclosure is also allowed by the patriot act
Good Post
Hi Matt, Thank you for post.
Love this forum.
NDAA
This week's our best chance to fight the new law that could let the military detain civilians INDEFINITELY, without ever giving them a trial or even charging them with a crime.
Congress will be voting on amendments to ban indefinite detention later THIS WEEK.
We have a new Facebook tool that will help us spread word far and wide, and we'd love it if you'd help us test it out.
Here's how it works:
1) You click here to access the application.
http://act.demandprogress.org/go/566?akid=1349.2113047._N6swc&t=1
2) You can email Congress to tell them to oppose indefinite detention.
3) Then you can help us make sure everybody knows about the NDAA by 'detaining' your Facebook friends and pushing our tool viral:
You choose a friend who you want to tell about the NDAA. We grab their profile pic, slap prison bars over it, and paste it to their wall. It'll look something like this:
They'll also receive a link back to the app and info about the NDAA and how to fight it:
David and his monkey are in jail because of the NDAA! Do you have any friends who haven't done anything wrong? Click on the link to put them in jail for no reason -- without charge or trial -- just like the NDAA does.
Your friends and their friends will be a bit shocked and will want to learn what's going on. Then they'll be even more shocked by the NDAA's disgusting assault on our civil liberties and due process rights -- and want to use the tool to spread word to their friends too.
Or at least that's our hope.
Please help make it happen by clicking here to test drive our "detain-your-friend" tool.
http://act.demandprogress.org/go/567?akid=1349.2113047._N6swc&t=2
We have to act fast: The vote's going down later this week.
Thanks for fighting the good fight.
-Demand Progress
Paid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
http://demandprogress.org/?akid=1349.2113047._N6swc&t=3
Thank you DKA for this.
Your welcome. I thought it might fit in with your original post. {:-])
Yes, fits perfect. Troll post on this thread, partially using your identity. Once again, trolls motivate us to push harder.
Yes I am being stalked so I may just stop commenting for awhile as they just show up a crap on a good post. Then sometimes good comments are removed along with the troll crap.
That's like saying "fix the patriot act". When the origins of a bill are to help an industry, or give people power, there is no fixing it.
Indeed, there's only one way to fix NDAA & the Patriot Act ... repeal them in their entirety (and not a drop less). While we're at it, let's get rid of Homeland Security (giant waste of money, a bureaucratic monstronsity, and a draconian overreaction, which pretty much describes almost everything Bush did).
True. Bush and O-bomb-ya both have spent the last ten years giving our money to corporations in the form of one handout or another.
I believe you're right.
Obama Demanded Language To Arrest You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmDe3FrOXfc