Drones. Drones. Drones.

[lil weasel]

 

[T]he government can't use it to indefinitely detail citizens or residents because other legislation protects the right to due process.

Do you mean the ‘other legislation’ would work considering who is doing ‘disappearances, by a man who writes his own laws (Presidential Orders)… like how Orders of Protection keep battered women safe?

 

you're such a buffoon. no one is taking away all the guns... you idiot

Keep it civil.

Right, you don’t grab them all at once or there would be a Revolt. So you start small and eat away at them. Little bites here and there.

 

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it….

 

[Clem Fandango]

[T]he government can't use it to indefinitely detail citizens or residents because other legislation protects the right to due process.

Do you mean the ‘other legislation’ would work considering who is doing ‘disappearances, by a man who writes his own laws (Presidential Orders)… like how Orders of Protection keep battered women safe?

 

you're such a buffoon. no one is taking away all the guns... you idiot

Keep it civil.

Right, you don’t grab them all at once or there would be a Revolt. So you start small and eat away at them. Little bites here and there.

 

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it….

This is total gibberish. Sometimes I wonder if you are just completely senile and are being tube-fed misinformation by the right wing press and can't even reproduce it in a cogent fashion.

 

Again, did you just wake up one day and look in the mirror, to find Slamman staring back at you, or was it a gradual process, handily explained by fog-based analogy like this non-existent gun ban you are so afraid of?

[lil weasel]

Can't keep it civil? Does it make your 'arguements' stronger when you abuse other members.

 

 

The US State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to "prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad" (read: distribute propaganda) It also removes a ban on domestic propaganda. This means that the government will have the power to influence public opinion through a wide variety of methods. Expect to find official US government propaganda on TV, radio, and social networks in the near future. In a day and age when nearly every teenager spends at least some time on sites like Facebook, the effect that government propaganda will have on their impressionable minds is worrying.

After reading that I began to wonder: Is anyone on these forums singing a Pro-Governmental soothing lullaby?

 

For more read NDAA 2013

Edited February 13, 2013 by lil weasel

[Dingdongs]

You're quoting some shaky news source. That's not from the act.

 

By the way, the 2013 NDAA was modified to satisfy all of your concerns - so you can stop now. Look up the Lee- Feinstein amendment

 

For now I will sing myself a pro government lullaby and go to sleep. Night!

Edited February 13, 2013 by Irviding

[sivispacem]

 

Google NDAA Obama indefinite detention

A couple of brief pointers:

 

1) The provision clearly stated, as I've already said (I do find I have to repeat myself an awful lot with you, perhaps you should learn to read properly in the first place?) that US citizens and resident aliens would be entitled to any rights they possessed under existing legislation above and beyond anything that NDAA could do. So, basically, you could only be detained "indefinitely" (and it wasn't really indefinite, more indeterminate, as it's designed for use against illegal combatants and therefore is measured against the conduct of the conflict) if you weren't a US citizen or resident alien.

2) The clause which permitted detention of this kind was stripped out of the 2013 NDAA entirely.

 

In fact, I'll quote the 2012 bill in full and highlight the clause:

 

 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;

50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection

(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

 

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

 

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported

al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged

in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces.

 

© DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a

person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may

include the following:

 

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until

the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for

Use of Military Force.

 

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States

Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009

(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).

 

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent

tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

 

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country

of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

 

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit

or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the

Authorization for Use of Military Force.

 

(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.

 

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary

of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application

of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’

for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

 

So, in order:

 

1) A clear and narrow definition of where it can be applied.

2) A reference to existing international provisions which allow detention of combatants indefinitely during the course of a conflict under the laws of war (see the Geneva Convention)

3) A clear mandate that expresses the 2012 bill neither expands or restricts the rights of the president in it's authorisation.

4) The mother-load, where it clearly states that there is absolutely no applicability to US residents or citizens, who in essence cannot be detained indefinitely without their citizenship being revoked.

 

Let me repeat it for posterity:

 

(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.

 

So lets re-cap. US citizens can only be indefinitely detained if they are captured and held abroad. Those detained and held in the US would be required to have their citizenship stripped or be in violation of their constitutional rights. Yet again, you've been demonstrated, with cold hard logic, not to have the fainted clue what you're talking about.

 

 

@Weasel- well, if you insist on posting "review" information from an unnamed source with a dubious knowledge of the subject matter from a blog whose tag-line is "A PLACE TO STUDY AMERICA'S IMMINENT SOCIETAL COLLAPSE", then what more can we say to dissuade you of your madness?

Edited February 13, 2013 by sivispacem

[TheJonesy]

All this law-laden argumentation has made my mind a little dizzy, so let me try to clarify what's going on:

 

The OP is concerned that these newer provisions the government is taking to ensure national safety from suspects believed to be supporting immediate terrorist groups are secretly small steps being taken to slowly decompose the relationship between government power and citizen rights? And one step includes the allowance of our President to assassinate a suspect deemed extremely hostile with reasonable grounds, but fears that this will ultimately provide a grey area of government logic that would allot them to kill whomever they please?

 

As far as my personal opinion is concerned, I somewhat sympathize with - obviously non corrupt - government officials. Advancements in technology and, more importantly, accessibility to technology really lays much strain to how national security can be dealt with. I say this because it must be tasking to weigh the conflict of just how much prevention you can establish against terrorist, and even domestically criminal, acts without crushing people's faith in the government's willingness to preserving their rights.