NDAA

10 posts / 0 new

We can put an end to a shocking assault on our civil liberties: Last year's National Defense Authorization Act included language that could allow the military to detain civilian suspects INDEFINITELY without charge or trial.

This year's NDAA could come up for a vote as soon as next week and we have a prime opportunity to reverse this travesty of justice.

Click here to fight back: Email your member of Congress right away:

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ndaa_next_week/?referring_akid=a6143294.2093546.OBoOL2&source=auto-taf

Congressmen Adam Smith and Justin Amash will put forth an amendment to make it clear that the military does not have the power to arrest and indefinitely detain civilians without charging or trying them. Please urge your lawmakers to support their efforts and help us spread word far and wide.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Comments

It 'could' or it 'could not'. The bill is simply not clear on purpose, because congress are weenies.

Bush already claimed that power, Obama and congress has never challenged it.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This Forbes writer tells us that Presidnt Obama's Executive Order effectively nullifies the NDAA. That's what I thought had happened.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

even if that is true that is a even scarier concept that the president can just revoke laws passed by congress by himself

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

even if that is true that is a even scarier concept that the president can just revoke laws passed by congress by himself

Don't be a fool - congress passed the defense act being the weenies they are that allow the Presdient to make all kinds of waivers.

And, Art seems to be correct. Rather than comending Obama on this specific point, Karolina and the other conspiracy nut jobs (not to imply Karolina is one of those) condem him out of ignorance.Although, I suppose, there is plenty of other stuff to condem him on.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I've been on NDAA from the beginning. Here is my post on the Member blogs from December 20th, 5 months ago...

Quote Karolina:Do Not Be Lulled Into Complacence About The National Defense Authorization Act—Be Aware!

Excerpts from article entitled Obama Broke His Promise:

"...The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial..."

"...At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “...1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."..."

"...Even more distressing is the statement from sponsor Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."..."

I think this was where I first started to utterly distrust the stability and preservabiliy of the wordings in these acts, orders and writings, and started to see them as a key method of procedure being used to peacefully ease us, unaware and unprotesting, into a "new era" of global oligarchy — and out of our sweet era of US republicanism which had first started in 1776.

This is what I was trying to explain in the Executive Order thread — it's now all out in the open if you look close enough.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Karolina is 100% correct.

This is scary waters that we're wading into.

Too much power.

Yes... congress has made themselves useless. They have been warned of this for decades. They have allowed themselves to become obsolete.

My solution is to start holding as many impeachment hearings as humanly possible. Like I've said, it should rival only that of the "Salem Witch Trials".

The rule of law, without "teeth"... is NO LAW!

The FACT that the crooks get bonus checks is proof positive that there is NO two party system. For if there were a 2 party system, their would be a "natural balance".

There is NO balance. It's completely off the rails and in free fall.

God help us.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 11:49 am

Go Karolina.... stay on this and continue posting to keep us in the loop. I've contacted by Rep/Senators on this and will continue with pressure.

Way to Go!

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote Karolina:

I've been on NDAA from the beginning. Here is my post on the Member blogs from December 20th, 5 months ago...

So your link is to another article with links which links to something else I take it.

Importantly, there is no proof of this statement "The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial..."

I"m not sure why you think it sufficient to quote other documents with links to other things in them. Why not make your point and cite the evidence for that point?

And what is the alternative? Not to have a military budget?

Quote Karolina:Do Not Be Lulled Into Complacence About The National Defense Authorization Act—Be Aware!

Excerpts from article entitled Obama Broke His Promise:

"...The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial..."

"...At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “...1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."..."

"...Even more distressing is the statement from sponsor Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."..."

I think this was where I first started to utterly distrust the stability and preservabiliy of the wordings in these acts, orders and writings, and started to see them as a key method of procedure being used to peacefully ease us, unaware and unprotesting, into a "new era" of global oligarchy — and out of our sweet era of US republicanism which had first started in 1776.

This is what I was trying to explain in the Executive Order thread — it's now all out in the open if you look close enough.

[/quote]

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I received the following email on 5/30/12 from David Segal of Demand Progress about the NDAA amendment legalizing the use of mass propaganda campaigns on American audiences :

Pentagon propaganda‏

Did you think it could get any worse? Now they want to legalize the use of propaganda on American citizens -- and the vote could happen NEXT WEEK.

An amendment legalizing the use of mass propaganda campaigns on American audiences has been inserted into the latest defense authorization bill — and that bill just passed the House.

Please click here to demand that the Senate oppose ending the propaganda ban -- it'll be up for a vote as soon as next week.

The NDAA amendment lifts bans on propaganda that have been around since the 1940s, neutralizing laws put in place to protect the American people from its government’s own “misinformation” campaigns.

“It removes the protection for Americans,” a Pentagon official told Buzzfeed, who broke the story. "There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

The amendment would remove all distinction between a hostile foreign audience and American one, turning the massive information operation apparatus within the federal government against its own people.

This amendment cannot become law. Will you join us in demanding that the Senate oppose this amendment to the NDAA? Just click here.

Thanks.

-- Demand Progress

PS: This vote could happen next week. Please use these links or forward this email to your friends to get them involved in the fight.

If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet


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.

One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system