PDA

View Full Version : National Defense Authorization Act Effectively Ends Right to Trial



mostlymad
12-02-2011, 06:01 AM
I really wish people took the NDAA more seriously, but around here, the assumption is that if you keep your nose clean, nothing bad can happen to you. If anyone is even suspected of some sort of terrorism, these dolts that live around me think the accused must be terrorists and should get the worst punishment available. There is no such thing as "proving guilt." Suspected guilt is enough to satisfy these people. And if a godless liberal like me or some of my loved ones gets sent out, all the better. There's no making them see the abuse inherent in the proposed NDAA.

theruiner
12-02-2011, 07:47 AM
First of all, it's incredibly stupid for them to think their rights being taken away is a good thing in any way, shape or form. Second of all, it can happen to them, but they're too stupid and short-sighted to see it. Third, it's incredibly frightening and shows a lack of humanity to only care about oneself, and to have the attitude of, "Yeah, well, it won't happen to me, so what do I care?" And the entire idea that no one would be falsely accused, that as soon as someone is accused of something they must automatically be guilty, shows a lack of intelligence and common sense that is, frankly, pretty scary.

In other words, people are stupid. And there are a lot of stupid people in this God damn country.

mostlymad
12-02-2011, 09:19 AM
First of all, it's incredibly stupid for them to think their rights being taken away is a good thing in any way, shape or form. Second of all, it can happen to them, but they're too stupid and short-sighted to see it. Third, it's incredibly frightening and shows a lack of humanity to only care about oneself, and to have the attitude of, "Yeah, well, it won't happen to me, so what do I care?" And the entire idea that no one would be falsely accused, that as soon as someone is accused of something they must automatically be guilty, shows a lack of intelligence and common sense that is, frankly, pretty scary.In other words, people are stupid. And there are a lot of stupid people in this God damn country.Remember when Bush was getting a 30% approval rating? Well, I'm pretty sure at *least* 3/5 of those who approved lived in NKY. (Dreaming of the day I leave this nightmare behind.)Arguing with them is like talking to someone under water. "Security" and "Iraq invasion" go hand in hand with allowing the guvmint to do as they please to people they automatically assume were involved in "the killing of 3000 of my people."I sometimes wonder what is in the water.

Magtig
12-03-2011, 11:16 AM
Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/) (WIRED)

Here’s the best thing that can be said about the new detention powers the Senate has tucked into next year’s defense bill: They don’t force the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial. They just let the military do that. And even though the leaders of the military and the spy community have said they want no such power, the Senate is poised to pass its bill as early as tonight.
There are still changes swirling around the Senate, but this looks like the basic shape of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:)
. Someone the government says is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force” can be held in military custody “without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Those hostilities are currently scheduled to
end the Wednesday after never (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/end-911-era/). The move would shut down criminal trials for terror suspects.



But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/).”An amendment that would limit military detentions to people captured overseas failed on Thursday afternoon (https://twitter.com/#!/johnson_carrie/statuses/142324351243534336). The Senate soundly defeated (http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1775) a measure to strip out all the detention provisions on Tuesday. So despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to trial (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/), the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end. And because the Senate is using the bill that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it’s pretty likely to pass.


Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention) (ACLU)

TheSecretary of Defense (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/266915-osd-13723-11.html), the Director of National Intelligence, the (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1111/DNI_James_Clapper_slams_defense_bills_detainee_lan guage.html) Director of the FBI and the head of the (http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/NDAA-Sec-1032-Mueller-ltr.pdf) Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive, and the (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-detainees-fbitre7am2bx-20111123,0,5326764.story) White House has issued a veto threat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf)
over the provisions.

Even if Obama vetoes this, as he has threatened, the fact that it's even coming to a vote is a clear indication of how completely disease ridden, if not almost completely dead, our civil liberties are in this country.

Magtig
12-03-2011, 11:21 AM
Dammit. I didn't see that ruiner posted this in Random General Headlines -the Random Stupidity of the headlines section- which this clearly is not. Can we just post random stupid news in there instead of important issues? Catch all threads suck.

Pillfred
12-03-2011, 01:16 PM
Ya my buddy was talking to me about this the other day and at first i thought how is this different that the patriot act, as i understood it from what i could from reading it that it basically already gave them the right to do this anyway. I now see this just puts it out there plain as day and shit's all over everyone indiscriminately now. The most striking thing for me was a quote from some senator about how terrorists are bad blah blah we need this to keep people safe. Are these people really that afraid of the boogy man? It's really fucking sad that it even got this far, if Obama doesn't veto this shit, i won't even know what to think.

halloween
12-03-2011, 01:29 PM
Fucking chills down my spine, so goddamn sickening.

it's 2011 people, not 1984..

orestes
12-03-2011, 02:32 PM
Dammit. I didn't see that ruiner posted this in Random General Headlines -the Random Stupidity of the headlines section- which this clearly is not. Can we just post random stupid news in there instead of important issues? Catch all threads suck.

Done.

I'm still getting the hang of new mod tools but I think posts in both threads merged well.

Magtig
12-03-2011, 02:39 PM
Done.

I'm still getting the hang of new mod tools but I think posts in both threads merged well.
Nice! Thank you, Daphne, it's very seamless.

theruiner
12-03-2011, 02:57 PM
Dammit. I didn't see that ruiner posted this in Random General Headlines -the Random Stupidity of the headlines section- which this clearly is not. Can we just post random stupid news in there instead of important issues? Catch all threads suck.Yeah, I thought about starting a new thread, but I wasn't sure if it was warranted. Guess it was.

You know what really pissed me off about this, though? I posted this on FB and only one person shared it. One. I've got about 70 friends on there and everyone else effectively ignored it. Now, I'm sure there were a decent amount of people that didn't see it, but there had to have been some who did and just shrugged and moved on. I don't know what it takes to get someone's attention and get them to spread information if "you could be thrown in jail indefinitely with no trial" isn't good enough.

Pillfred
12-03-2011, 03:46 PM
All thats left is for the military to declare america unfit to govern itself and that they need to take control and set things right. "Excuse me Mr. President, we have reason to believe you may be a terrorist were taking you and all your staff in." I know that sounds almost as crazy as that bill but it is a real possibility.

mostlymad
12-04-2011, 04:06 PM
Until those who are capable of ignoring this issue and those who actually think the government would never, ever arrest and indefinitely detain an innocent person actually lose people they love and/or respect, this will be something they choose to avoid thinking about. After all, if it was that bad, won't somebody else take care of it for us? (Note, that last bit there is snark about the attitude I have heard many times.)

Magtig
12-04-2011, 04:09 PM
Yeah, I thought about starting a new thread, but I wasn't sure if it was warranted. Guess it was.

You know what really pissed me off about this, though? I posted this on FB and only one person shared it. One. I've got about 70 friends on there and everyone else effectively ignored it. Now, I'm sure there were a decent amount of people that didn't see it, but there had to have been some who did and just shrugged and moved on. I don't know what it takes to get someone's attention and get them to spread information if "you could be thrown in jail indefinitely with no trial" isn't good enough.
I think it's actually better when a board like this is just a tiny bit more messy and freewheeling. We should have ALL the random headlines, including random celebrity headlines, posted individually and mixed in with the rest. It's more cross promotional, and encourages discussions that can be a little bit more tangential, funny, unexpected, etc. In other words, it's cross promotes varying interests, which usually results in increased discussion. I may generally ignore celebrity headlines, but if they're posted individually something might catch my attention, for example. The same thing works in reverse: someone who generally likes celebrity headlines sees something a little more serious that hits closer to home, and they read it. Catch-all threads suck all of this life out of any given forum. If a useless thread is posted, it either gets removed or no one discusses it, and it sinks. /meta crap that probably belongs somewhere else

As far as your other point goes, the same thing happened when the Patriot Act was passed. This problem of cultural nearsightedness is frustratingly ubiquitous. How do we get people to care about important things like this when they aren't being directly affected in a negative way right now? How do we get people to realize that putting money into things like the space program will make us leaders in technology and innovation down the road, when the positive result is unforeseen and latent (even though tons of modern technology came from that exact source)?

Wretchedest
12-04-2011, 04:36 PM
^^^ There was a time at the end of the last board, where catch-all threads were really starting to kill it. People were almost afraid to make new threads for subjects and it prevented a lot discussion I think.

I'm also shocked that I don't seeing a lot of people talking about this. On one hand, I doubt it will see much abuse. I don't think the government is planning to "enslave" us per se. On the other hand it is an abonable abandonment of something that's supposed to make the States so wonderful. It's really sad.

The scary part is that no one seems to care that much...

theruiner
12-04-2011, 04:48 PM
I'm also shocked that I don't seeing a lot of people talking about this. On one hand, I doubt it will see much abuse. I don't think the government is planning to "enslave" us per se. On the other hand it is an abonable abandonment of something that's supposed to make the States so wonderful. It's really sad.

The scary part is that no one seems to care that much...I don't think it will really be abused, either, but one time is too many.

And yeah, the apathy of a lot of the population is really disheartening.

Magtig
12-04-2011, 04:53 PM
^^^ There was a time at the end of the last board, where catch-all threads were really starting to kill it. People were almost afraid to make new threads for subjects and it prevented a lot discussion I think.
They weren't almost afraid, they were completely afraid. It didn't help that a bunch of people would belittle anyone for posting new threads.


..I doubt it will see much abuse.
I doubt that it will see anything but widespread abuse (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers).

theruiner
12-04-2011, 05:00 PM
They weren't almost afraid, they were completely afraid. It didn't help that a bunch of people would belittle anyone for posting new threads.This is true.


I doubt that it will see anything but widespread abuse (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers) Good point.

october_midnight
12-07-2011, 02:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXyLrTRXso

The Becoming
12-09-2011, 08:13 PM
This is scary. I did some research. Apparently the Secretary of Defense has the ability to waive required detention. So i take it that means anybody can be detained? Also, the DoD states that having missing limbs, weatherproofed weapons, and more than seven days worth of food can make you a suspected terrorist. Anybody want to buy some steaks off of me?

mostlymad
12-10-2011, 09:54 AM
This is scary. I did some research. Apparently the Secretary of Defense has the ability to waive required detention. So i take it that means anybody can be detained? Also, the DoD states that having missing limbs, weatherproofed weapons, and more than seven days worth of food can make you a suspected terrorist. Anybody want to buy some steaks off of me?

Perhaps many people around me are more prone to being detained than these people believe themselves to be. Plenty of hunters with a couple deep freezers with their hunts stored for months and waterproof weapons. It's quite sad what we overlook, by distraction or willfully not wanting to see the bad.

orestes
12-15-2011, 06:34 AM
So it looks as though Obama may not veto the bill. FUCK.

theruiner
12-15-2011, 07:18 AM
This shitty New York Times article doesn't even mention the provision about detaining American citizens. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/us/politics/obama-wont-veto-military-authorization-bill.html?_r=1) It does mention there are changes to the earlier bill? Was that provision taken out? Shitty article from shitty newspaper doesn't say, but they didn't mention it at ALL, so I'm wondering if it was. Anyone know?


Edit: According to the ACLU, it's apparently still in there. (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat)

halloween
12-17-2011, 12:11 AM
So it looks as though Obama may not veto the bill. FUCK.

this is so so so so so so so so so so so wrong.

mfte
12-17-2011, 05:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8703f77WGOQ

waffel
12-17-2011, 06:14 PM
This along with the SOPA and IP bill is going to make a very interesting year. I've posted a live link to the congressional hearings about SOPA and this bill on facebook and no one seemed to care. I find surprising there isn't more general uproar from the public since all of these bills can effect us greatly (especially since most people I know with get music/videos from "other" sources).

halloween
12-17-2011, 06:32 PM
Yeah, people like to wait until it's too late to start doing shit. If it passes, i can't imagine it wouldn't cause massive uproar. If not from the US, hopefully from the rest of the world as this will affect them too in very inappropriate ways. This refers to both National Defense Authorization Act and Stop Online Piracy Act.

My eye lid and upper lip has been twitching nonstop since i've been overloading myself with information about these stuff, and getting so scared and angry.

DF118
12-17-2011, 07:52 PM
If you want a laugh, you should consider heading across to Senetor Rob Portmans Facebook page. He's being completely ripped apart. I like this post:




Senator...the minute...the very second...an officer orders me to detain one of my fellow citizens without proof of wrongdoing I will disobey that order as it is unconstitutional and against my oath. As a military member I am obligated to disobey unlawful orders and there is NO law that is above the Constitution of our nation other than the law of God. I work for the American people, protecting their freedoms and lives...not for the government...a government that is also obligated to live by our Constitution. The implications of this act are far reaching and the language is NOT strong enough to protect the Bill of Rights, especially with this administration that wishes to stifle the free speech of those who disagree with it. Very easy for them to shut dissenters up under the guise of this act...labeling anyone who speaks out against it's policies as a terrorist...something President Obama's DHS has already done to anyone who is conservative, pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, a veteran and a Christian. I defend the CONSTITUTION from ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC...and I will be damned if I will have you tell me that someone is a domestic terrorist based on nothing. I do not serve a dictatorial nation nor a monarchy.
I believe you, and our representatives in the House owe us all an explanation...as you work for US...not the other way around.

sublimaze
12-18-2011, 08:56 PM
http://www.politicususa.com/en/ndaa-breitbarted

Interesting article. We've been had by the same pick-and-choose-the-info-we-want-you-to-hear from the media that we've accused the government of doing.

mfte
12-19-2011, 04:43 PM
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1108PSISHOVD/PPSIM832/PR

halloween
12-19-2011, 05:16 PM
Even though it doesn't apply to US citizens, i still think it's wrong. We should be treating all people with the same rights, regardless of nationality because damn it, that's what it's all about in the end, people and our inherent rights.

Oh well..

Tea
12-22-2011, 02:20 PM
more than seven days worth of food
OH MY GOD, I knew the LDS church was run by terrorists!!!! Glenn Beck has been part of it all along!

mostlymad
12-25-2011, 10:12 AM
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1108PSISHOVD/PPSIM832/PR
And this unsourced, truthiness fearmongering has what to do with the ndaa? It sounds more like a tea party oh-noes-the-us-is-gunna-be-communist-like-those-awful-brits crap I hear a lot around here.

halloween
12-26-2011, 05:37 AM
Montana knows where its at (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate)

Harry Seaward
12-31-2011, 03:53 PM
Obama has signed NDAA, even though he had "serious reservation" about it. Welcome to martial law, folks.

Happy New Year!

halloween
01-02-2012, 11:08 AM
Don't we have to wait for the courts approval now?

Jinsai
01-03-2012, 03:20 AM
This is a fucking awful thing that has happened, and Obama must explain himself NOW.

Deus Ex Machina
01-03-2012, 09:21 AM
Don't we have to wait for the courts approval now? No, laws that pass congress and get the presidential seal of approval are immediately official. In order for the courts to have a say, someone subject to the law in question has to appeal their way up to the Supreme Court, who can eventually find (or fail to find) the law unconstitutional.


As for it seeing a lot of 'abuse', I honestly don't think that will happen. The United States has a long history of occasionally suspending the rights of her citizens, starting with the Alien and Sedition acts, but only taking advantage of that suspension selectively so as not to frighten the public and lose their hall pass. I'm not in any way saying that this is not awful. It is most certainly awful awful awful; but I doubt that the government is gearing up for mass arrests or the introduction of a police state.

I imagine that they'll use their new powers very selectively, against people who appear unusual, have a hard to pronounce name, have no social support system in this country, and in other equally cowardly ways.

Tiz
01-09-2012, 12:46 AM
Hey all. First post.

My inference is the media found a lovely opportunity when they saw the NDAA passed. It feeds into the highly profitable doom-and-gloom/Big Brother conspiratorial sensationalism that Alex Jones makes a killing on. I agree with the above post in that this decree will be used quickly, and quietly. Although if I had to ballpark the intended use - I would assume it doesn't involve Iran (we're going to war with them, regardless.)

I think it has to do with Operation Fast And Furious.

mfte
01-12-2012, 07:26 AM
S (http://www.infowars.com/lauren-digioia-talks-about-arrest-and-26-hours-of-detention-and-torture-for-ndaa-protest/)peaking of doom and gloom Alex Jones

Heres a good video of a woman's first hand experience of being detained after protesting NDAA

http://www.infowars.com/lauren-digioia-talks-about-arrest-and-26-hours-of-detention-and-torture-for-ndaa-protest/

halloween
01-12-2012, 10:48 AM
S (http://www.infowars.com/lauren-digioia-talks-about-arrest-and-26-hours-of-detention-and-torture-for-ndaa-protest/)peaking of doom and gloom Alex Jones

Heres a good video of a woman's first hand experience of being detained after protesting NDAA

http://www.infowars.com/lauren-digioia-talks-about-arrest-and-26-hours-of-detention-and-torture-for-ndaa-protest/

I'm not a law student, but is it possible for her to sue over this, because first she never got the right to a lawyer? Or the fact that she got released make it so it was somehow "by the books"? I can't imagine how this would have gone down if they had arrested someone who was in some significant position/job/wealthy/celebrity.

Tiz
01-13-2012, 06:45 AM
S (http://www.infowars.com/lauren-digioia-talks-about-arrest-and-26-hours-of-detention-and-torture-for-ndaa-protest/)peaking of doom and gloom Alex Jones

Heres a good video of a woman's first hand experience of being detained after protesting NDAA

http://www.infowars.com/lauren-digioia-talks-about-arrest-and-26-hours-of-detention-and-torture-for-ndaa-protest/

Prison Planet Fannypacks must be flying off the shelves.

mfte
01-13-2012, 09:16 AM
I'm not a law student, but is it possible for her to sue over this, because first she never got the right to a lawyer? Or the fact that she got released make it so it was somehow "by the books"? I can't imagine how this would have gone down if they had arrested someone who was in some significant position/job/wealthy/celebrity.

I would think that this NDAA bill by design allows law enforcement to detain people for an undefined amount of time.... not sure about the lawyer call in question.

halloween
01-13-2012, 09:19 AM
I would think that this NDAA bill by design allows law enforcement to detain people for an undefined amount of time.... not sure about the lawyer call in question.
Well i meant about this specific arrest, not about the detainment under the NDAA bill.

mfte
01-13-2012, 09:50 AM
Well i meant about this specific arrest, not about the detainment under the NDAA bill.

hmm. we had a something like this here in Toronto during the g20. People detained without lawyers calls or charges. There was an inquiry into it after the fact but I don't believe that anything resulted from it.

halloween
01-13-2012, 10:00 AM
hmm. we had a something like this here in Toronto during the g20. People detained without lawyers calls or charges. There was an inquiry into it after the fact but I don't believe that anything resulted from it.

Meh, I can't deny I'm not entirely surprised.

Deus Ex Machina
01-13-2012, 01:47 PM
Well i meant about this specific arrest, not about the detainment under the NDAA bill.

I don't approve of the majority of police tactics, but they don't seem particularly nefarious in this case. She was not detained under the NDAA, this was just a regular arrest as far as I can tell. The NDAA is a bad, bad thing, but no one should be under the impression that this suddenly gives the police a set of new privileges. If the government wants to detain you indefinitely under the NDAA, the President, by way of the Armed Forces, has to be the one doing it. The police alone can't suddenly decide to indefinitely detain you (without consequences).

Did they violate her legal rights? They brought her in, questioned her, treated her for whatever illness she had going on, and released her within 72 hours. IANAL, but I imagine that her timely release qualifies as her access to a lawyer.

halloween
01-28-2012, 06:51 AM
The enemy expatriation act is not cool. (http://rt.com/usa/news/expatriation-act-citizenship-ndaa-737/)

theruiner
01-28-2012, 07:05 AM
^^God DAMMIT.

Pillfred
01-30-2012, 05:28 PM
That is pretty damn scary but still nothing new. It seems like they are just filling in the gaps the patriot act left open. Not to just throw this out there but it's this kind of shit that honestly makes me want to move to a different country where i can get fucked over in a different language. The pic of Mel Gibson i put up in random stupidity speaks it pretty good with the bit about no-one protesting the patriot act and how all the geeks are up in arms over the inter webs..... I digress.

This little bit i find rather scary as well, "Instead, said Obama, “My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” I'm glad Obama and his administration don't plan on wholesale roundups but if it is really left up to a few peoples discretion to decide that the butter side up eaters are terrorists, than I can't feel very good about any of this. I am much more worried at this point about our government than some dirty terrorist. I'm pretty sure i have a better chance of getting jumped my a group of 6th graders than being attacked by the bogey man.

DF118
09-13-2012, 10:42 PM
This has now been blocked as unconstitutional. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/judge-blocks-controversial-indefinite-detention-law.html)

DF118
09-18-2012, 09:36 PM
The block has now been blocked by another judge. (http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-judge-reinstates-ndaa)

Sutekh
02-18-2013, 07:29 AM
Second of all, it can happen to them, but they're too stupid and short-sighted to see it.

What potential scenarios are people too stupid and short-sighted to see?

I think saying that people have "it won't happen to me, so I don't care" attitude is selling them short.

It's more a case of "I'm not involved in organised crime or terrorism, so it won't affect me"

If people were being locked up for non-serious things and people were saying "well it doesn't affect me", then you could accuse them of lacking humanity