There is going to be a revolution if things keep going the way they are

[SacredBreh]

HHHHMmmm ...... someone elses read of the NDAA. I would take that as a NO to dagnabit's question.

dagnabit quote: well reasoned response.

so no you cant point to the protections?
need the link again?
have you even reviewed the 2012 ndaa at all? who's word are you taking as gospel?

So Disco picked up his own--
"The volume of sheer, unadulterated nonsense zipping around the internet."

The volume of sheer, unadulterated nonsense zipping around the internet about the NDAA boggles the mind. There was a time–only a few months ago–when the NDAA detention provisions were the obscure province of a small group of national security law nerds.

To prove nothing. Read it for yourself DB! Then point out where THE ACTUAL wording is (not opinions)..... because I have read it and it doesn't exist.

Disco I believe you to be an intelligent individual and eloquent at speaking but become really fustrated when you talk around the very clear point of a discussion in what pass for responses but are responses not to the point of the main idea, whether it be a sentence, paragraph, multiparagraphs, or thread. Know you don't care about my fustration but felt it important to express it.

Peace

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

you guys are desperate.

like I said earlier. if you're gonna constantly sit on the pot, take a crap already. and then take a powder.

 

[SacredBreh]

^^^^^^^^^^ Perfect example!

^^^^^^^^^^ Perfect example!

Exactly what I was refering to in my last post above this one.

I don't always agree with say .... ShroomDr but the discourse and info make me think and sometimes change my mind.

That kind of response from you only fustrates me and shake my head.

Peace

 

[dagnabit]

last refuge of someone who is lost....

you can't really discuss a piece of legislation unless you have at least some cursory knowledge of it. if all you have is other people's interpretation you have no real concept of the topic at hand...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Why are you trying to play Joe Sidewalk lawyer? You found the NDAA. Bravo. You clipped a slice and imagine the info you're looking for is contained.

Truth is, you can't refute what I posted because you can't find what you're looking for.

Congratulations for passing the bar.

 

[dagnabit]

im looking for the protections you say are there...

i can't find what don't exist

 

[SacredBreh]

I have degrees...... doesn't take a law degree to read English and subtitles. Been on a few legal forums on the net too. Not any Civil rights lawyers are saying to not worry about it or its a good thing.

Peace

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

what you can't find.

 

[SacredBreh]

Back to the slight of hand and misdirection DB? Or did you forget 1 and 2 pages back in this thread?

It is getting old.

Peace

 

[dagnabit]

what you can't find.

at least you admit it

 

[dagnabit]

Dec 31st, 2011
Posted by Amanda Simon, ACLU at 4:20pm Detention

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law


President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.

The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.

The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

them there is lawyer types...
but don't take my word for it. hell maybe the aclu aint got no fancy law degrees

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I have degrees...... doesn't take a law degree to read English and subtitles. Been on a few legal forums on the net too. Not any Civil rights lawyers are saying to not worry about it or its a good thing.

Peace

Nice recontextualization.

I never argued not to worry or that the provision is a good thing (and you know it.) I offered an opinion that more decision makers are better than less. Trying to frame it with your warped context is wrong.

The courts still have to rule on this so don't go getting yer wad too tight. Obama wants to close GITMO and you'll believe it when you see it. Even though you ignore his attempts to prosecute KSM in NYC and too much of the system said hell no. So, Obama will have a say who goes to GITMO and in as much says, nobody will.

Don't like it? Field somebody who can beat him this fall. Or pay attention to the second term. The effort to close GITMO isn't over.

I couldn't care less who you don't like. Just pay a little more attention.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Here's a tip for the folks who blame one guy and ignore or miss the fact that 535 lawmakers and 9 judges also occupy DC and affect national policy.

Do you know of your district rep and two senators? (Do you even know their names?) Do you know whether they're an opponent or proponent of tribunals? Maybe you want to take that into consideration before casting your votes.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

them there is lawyer types...
but don't take my word for it. hell maybe the aclu aint got no fancy law degrees

They sho ain't land surveyors. I happen to admire the ALCU. Oh, they get out on a limb here and there but the cause is just. They're teamed up with the Southern Poverty Law Center to bing us the skinny on all the militia activity. Hell, they're the guys who helped achieved all those wonderfully offensive and billigerant Ron Paul newsletters.

That said, there's nothing in your link that supports your argument that Obama doesn't have a say on citizen detentions. If I'm not mistaken, ACLU already lost in lower court where the administration argued that they wouldn't exercise the provision. (Wouldn't be possible if they didn't have a hand in the decision.)

This is supposed to go to SCOTUS and aspects could change. Until then you're just imagining whatever you want.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I really don't think everyone in here is blaming O. He's just the puppet on strings IMO. As far as the other two branches of government....they are bought and paid for by the same branch of government that owns O.

The fourth branch of government, the FED, is the most powerful and it answers to it's shareholders.....the banks.

For decades the banks have owned our government and slowly eroded our liberties while destroying our economy to such a point that we now argue which aspects of authoritarianism we find more palatable.

I'm at the point where I don't want to even vote anymore and I use to chastise people who didn't vote as being unpatriotic. I find myself no longer able to participate in a system so corrupt and unfixable.

In the Army they call our situation FUBAR.

 

[hunt4genetics]

Well put Gramps!

 

[BlackOpsJesus]

Here's a tip for the folks who blame one guy and ignore or miss the fact that 535 lawmakers and 9 judges also occupy DC and affect national policy.

Do you know of your district rep and two senators? (Do you even know their names?) Do you know whether they're an opponent or proponent of tribunals? Maybe you want to take that into consideration before casting your votes.

Don't make promises you can't keep

 

[dagnabit]

That said, there's nothing in your link that supports your argument that Obama doesn't have a say on citizen detentions.

i made that argument?
quite the opposite.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

A little closer to detail, members of Congress, members of the military and private lobbyists for corporations want GITMO to stay open. They also want support network types, the like we've convicted in the hundreds in civilian courts.

Obama doesn't want to expand GITMO, he wants to close it. If in attempting to close GITMO he manages more control of it's wind-down, I'm all for it. I would consider it a positive tactic in the overall strategy to close GITMO.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit
Here's a tip for the folks who blame one guy and ignore or miss the fact that 535 lawmakers and 9 judges also occupy DC and affect national policy.

Do you know of your district rep and two senators? (Do you even know their names?) Do you know whether they're an opponent or proponent of tribunals? Maybe you want to take that into consideration before casting your votes.

Don't make promises you can't keep

Take another look, honey. There's no promise in the post. It's a tip. You know, pay attention to the issues and know who you're voting for?