Forum Post: Proof that Obama won't veto the NDAA. We're in it now.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 11, 2011, 11:30 p.m. EST by Marquee
(192)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 1 day ago by agkaiser
1 comments 5 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 days 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
Tinhorn is wrong. My hunch is he isn't a lawyer.
I graduated from Cal's Boalt Law. I have spent alot of time reading and analyzing NDAA Sections 1031 and 1032, reading the legislative history, and talking with people.
Some say that the addition of 1031(e) excludes Americans. That there is nothing to worry about. That isn't true.
Section 1031(e) provides " 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."
Sounds good right? As Graham says, and reassures, "we aren't changing the law. Nothing in the bill is inconsistent with existing law."
Not so fast. Graham gave himself away. He claims this bill (which he contends allows indefinite detention of Americans for acts in the US) is consistent with the Supreme Court's Padilla decision. Hmmmmm.
But the Padilla decision is anethema to conservatives. The Bush administration grabbed American citizen Padilla (in the US) before the FBI could, and stuck him in a naval brig in South Carolina.
After three years in a naval brig (the first two with no access to a lawyer), Padilla got to the Supreme Court. The Court ordered that Padilla not be held in a military brig and tried in federal court. He was convicted in a jury trial.
But conservatives hate this decision. Which leads to the question - why does Graham contend that his bill is consistent with a Padilla decision that opened the legal door for Padillas release from the brig? They seem contradictory.
In Padilla, the court only ordered Padilla released because President Bush had not been authorized by Congress to have the military detain American citizens for acts away from a combat zone as enemy combatants. So the Padilla decision depends on the fact that no such Congressional approval for military detention was given. But it opens the door to such detention under a different set of facts.
NDAA and passage of 1031 will give Congressional approval to the President to have the military detain American citizens who committed act away from combat zones as enemy combatants (which closes the loophole that sprung Padilla).
But the bill goes further. Padilla engaged in conspiracy to commit terror. Under this bill, even "substantial support" for forces associated with terrorists can be detained by the military. That vaguely worded phrase is well short of conspiracy.
Worse still, those deciding what constitutes substantial would be military personnel. Not judges, not lawyers, maybe not even college grads.
This deprives American citizens of their Constitutional right to a jury trial for offenses committed within the US far from an actual combat zone when civilian courts are working perfectly well.
Thank you for setting everyone straight. Everyone should be very, very concerned about this bill. We have become the proverbial frog in the pot of water that has been slowly turned up. First, the Patriot Act that robs us of our fourth amendment right (as well as others freedoms) and now this. Also, if anyone reads DHS 2009 report on the profile of a domestic terrorist--it will scare you. Millions upon millions of American could be classified as a domestic terrorist based on what they listed in this report.
Americans need to wake up before it is too late.
Americans wont wake up. They just dont care.
Well then, when the you-know-what hits the fan--they will have no choice but to wake up.
I strongly believe that the Euro will collapse in the near future, followed by the American dollar. Many will be unprepared for this and suffer terribly. That will knock the wind out of them.
What country should I move to?
Could they take "We the People" off our constitution and our currency because it is not WE the people, it is WE the elitists.
We are witnessing the death of democracy. Welcome to the American nightmare everyone.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnaomiwolf.org%2F2011%2F12%2Fhow-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill%2F&h=IAQFVBarRAQFF2xwH0-f_mta9n_k9zBTo7l9OeFpq3P6lmw
Well, if The Patriot Act took away the fourth Amendment rights of Americans, then the NDAA just topped that.
It is still a bill in the House. Here is the latest info on it. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540 This bill could go to Obama this week, so it is reason to be concerned about it.
gentelmen- it seems so easy to fall into the paranoid conspiracy trap -
and no I have no comment on NDAA - I have not read it.
This does sound a lot like "Obama's going to take away all of your guns" stuff
With all of the real stuff we need to be scared of - this seems off the wall.
How does this bill make us safer then we are now? That's what I have asked my self many time over. Thruth be told bills like this will never make us any safer. Bills like a waste of time at best or a misuse/out right abuse of our governments power. No matter how strict the laws are or how much you try. to prevent another attack like 9/11 you will never be truly safe. If some one wants to hurt others bad enough, they will find a way.
Its like people screaming for thougher gun control laws. If you think they will stop some one from buying a gun on the street, going to a corner store and shooting the person behind the counter, they are dreaming.
No matter how much good you think this bill will do, you can't change a fact of life. No one will ever be 100 percent safe.
This Bill tramples on the entire Bill of Rights. It empowers the government to incarcerate without trial, AnyOne they want to incarcerate. the optimistic among us were hoping that Obama would veto it, but he won't.
I made a song for Occupy, hoping to explain a little bit about whats really being done by the money and the world, and that we the 99 want a society of piece without the need for money, but the unity of one to create a better planet for all of us... check it out soundcloud.com/elohyme/zions-deception-final-version
The link doesn't work.
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-ndaa-section-1031-citizen-imprisonment-l...
There does seem to be a "Hitler in the Bunker" or "Scorched Earth" mentality at work in Congress & The White House. As the Occupy movement grows, (the Russian army approaches Berlin), our terrified government (Hitler in the Bunker) is giving us two choices: 1) back off or 2) watch them burn down the USA.
How many times are you going to post this crap. Haven't enough people told you to go read what the bill says? You should be advocating for the repeal of the Patriot Act that is where what you are trying to argue already exists and has existed for almost 10 years.
But you are right in one regard. The Patriot Act is an issue.
We have similar politics, so don't take my comments as negative. They are designed to create discussion and debate and thought.
This is the first time anyone has told me to read the bill. I've read it, actuall, as has the Senator in this video. Also, I do advocate the repeal of the Patriot Act. Apparently you haven't done your homework. Until you do, don't argue with someone who has.
The bill is available at the Library of Congress; it takes a little persistence to access it but it's there.
I have mixed feelings on the Patriot Act.
I have read, reread and rereread this bill and no where in it does it say what you claim. Please give me a link that shows that verbage in this bill. And I as well as several other have posted on every thread that has tried to spread this BS to go read the bill.
There is a fairly detailed breakdown in the description of the video Marquee referenced on youtube. For you to say "you should seek the repeal of The Patriot Act", while true, does not preclude Marquee from ALSO seeking the same of the NDAA.
Here's that "detailed breakdown": (from the youtube poster; not my words)
As soon as December 13, the President will sign NDAA Section 1031 into law, permitting citizen imprisonment without evidence or trial. The bill that passed Congress absolutely DOES NOT exempt citizens. The text of Section 1031 reads, "A covered person under this section" includes "any person who has committed a belligerent act". We only have to be ACCUSED, because we don't get a trial.
Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. He has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment -- in fact, it was requested by the Obama administration. Watch the video for proof.
The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) is dangerously misleading. Don't be fooled: In the text of 1031(e), "Nothing in this section shall be construed...", the only word that matters is "construed" because the Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe the law. The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) permits citizens to be imprisoned without evidence or a trial forever, if the Supreme Court does not EXPLICITLY repeal 1031.
Any time you hear the words, "requirement for military custody" this refers to 1032 NOT 1031. We MUST not confuse these two sections. In its statements, the Obama administration has actually contributed to the confusion about 1032's "requirement for military custody", which is COMPLETEY UNRELATED to Section 1031 citizen imprisonment without trial. These tricky, misleading words appear even in major news stories. Don't fall for it!
If we act urgently to tell our friends, family, and colleagues, we may still be able to prevent this. Here is what we can do:
1) Americans must know about this to stop it. Urgently pass this petiton as widely as possible: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-ndaa-section-1031-citizen-imprisonment-l...
2) To spread this C-SPAN video evidence, Thumbs Up and comment on this video. People deserve to watch this before he signs it.
3) Congress can still block the law before December 13. Write and call your Representative and Senator telling them to stop NDAA Section 1031 and the dangerously misleading Feinstein Amendment 1031(e). Contact your Representative: http://writerep.house.gov/writerep/ Contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
4) Write and call the White House to tell the President you won't sit by and watch NDAA Section 1031 and the dangerously misleading Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) become law: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
Right on ScrewyL !
The problem is that all of what you assert is fallacy. Feinstein is a compromise that neither adds nor detracts. Hamdi ruled that only non-citzens captured in a combat zone could be detained without due process. There is habeas review in all cases of citizenship which shall quite certainly grant due process. This is all just utter nonsense intended to incite.
And all of this nonsense has roots in an humanitarianism which flees in the face of moral responsibility; it is NOT ok to determine that those who murder us are neither right nor wrong; such a stance presents itself as some deeply seated moral deficiency; the lack of ethics is a failed ethics.
Americans have a right to feel secure in their homes and act in their own defense by whatever means necessary.
At times the lunacy in this world absolutely amazes me.
"Americans have a right to feel secure in their homes and act in their own defense by whatever means necessary."
You have to change that to "Americans living outside of Indiana...", at the very least, for your statement to be accurate.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
That's pretty interesting. Actually if you follow 4th Amendment rulings they're all pretty interesting because there is no real consistency even under very similar circumstances.
In this case, the court is supporting the officer whose actions were probably correct in terms of the expectation of violence; the words the court uses to justify that support are generally rather weak because they represent a twist of law in an attempt to justify. But, you know, sometimes the court just does not articulate well. So I don't know; I think if I were living in Indiana, I'd research it some more... was there a pattern, for example, of domestic violence?
I stopped reading your reply when I saw the word "nonsense", which jumped out immediately.
Sorry, I've been engaged in this argument for a few years now... sometimes the level of stupidity is really infuriating.
This section with this wording hasn't been around for a few years for you to have argued about it, betuadollar. That's the real nonsense. The NDAA is passd yearly, but the wording in S1031 and S1032 have never been in the prior NDAA bills, nor has such a furor arose over the NDAA or any of its sections. One can only presume that you're reffering to prior bills, not the current one at hand.
1032 is in the bill; to find 1031 you have to back pedal a little. As I understand it, the bill passed without amendments.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnaomiwolf.org%2F2011%2F12%2Fhow-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill%2F&h=IAQFVBarRAQFF2xwH0-f_mta9n_k9zBTo7l9OeFpq3P6lmw This might help inform you, betuadollar
Sections are not amendments. The bill hasn't passed yet. SS1031 and 1032 are in the bill.
Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about? Go read the bill!
The bill passed the House and Senate, and now resides on the Presidents desk. Do you know what yer talkin' 'bout?? Get some real news. Quit watching the propoganda channels like FOX and grow a critical thought.
Yes I do. You seem very confused.
Haha... Stop, I love Fox News. Actually, I've pretty much given up on TV entirely.
Actually, I'm not making any claims, I posted a link to a session in the House of Representatives wherein a U.S. Senator is making those claims. You must have read a different bill than the rest of us did.
A claim by a partisan Senator is not the Bill. Show me in the Bill where it says what you are saying because I don't see it in there.
I have. Did you read the debate? You may have read the bill, but the people pushing the bill don't agree with your construction. And their view (and comments on the Senate floor) matter because a Court reviewing the law will look at legislative history to construe the law.
If this bill doesn't do anything new that the Patriot Act or existing law already does, then why did they draft and are they pushing it?
Just for fun? They had nothing better to do? So they drafted superfluous or redundant statutory provisions that add and change nothing?
No. The don't want a repeat of Padilla. The next Padillas won't get released from the brig under this law.
So the idea that it adds nothing to the Patriot Act is wrong. Padilla was released after that Act was passed.
The Patriot Act didn't deprive Padilla of a jury trial. But NDAA would.
You have to do more than read a statute or bill to understand law. It helps to have a legal education. It also requires reading the legislative history and thinking critically.
You did none of that. You are wrong.
Exactly right! Under this provision, no trial is now legal. No due process. This applies to everyone anywhere. No search warrant. No more "fruit of the poisonous tree", because there won't even be a damned tree.
drg, I can't hear you when I cover my ears and sing "la la la la la". Therefore: you have proven nothing.
^_^
Nancy Pelosi said that Obama care wouldn't cut Medicare or raise taxes. The law that was signed does. It doesn't matter what these yahoos say, it matters what the words in the law say.