Unless you are a good little drone. Followed this for a little bit, then got irritated by it so I stopped. But it has now apparently passed into law. I dont expect most members on here to really understand what the law means to them, or how it can effect them. But hey here it is anyway.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article32324.html
Not sure how legit the site is, but it gives a basic overview of what was passed.
Thoughts?
Patriot act. lol.
Who ever named that was on point.
“You voted against the patriot act?!”
Ron Paul is so overrated and I’m sick of this fad we have now to say how awesome he is.
South Park put it best in one of their episodes. “Those that want to go to war say AI. Those that vote against it are gay”
On a side note this wasn’t about the patriot act. But rather its hopped up on steroids sister.
I know.
I just giggle every time I think about how it got voted in with almost no scrutiny.
Considering the times I cant say that i was surprised that it did. The whole country was in shock and something had to be done. But i do think that it was the beginning of a pretty slippery slope. The part that bugs me though is that the “comrades” used similar excuses to pas laws very similar to these ones. IDK just my 2 cents. On a side not anyone on here ever read the Promitheus Deception?
Between the lack of organization in our government and the current state of media/social media this would be hard to be abused anyways
We are going to have to agree to disagree on that. After all. You wouldnt want to be called “gay” for not agreeing with it would you? to me it just seems like the line between who is a “bad guy” and who is just a regular guy speaking his mind is starting to become very thin and blurry.
This is really low on my list of issues I have with the government. If we manage to get some campaign finance reform, tort reform, a real energy policy, trade agreements that aren’t killing our economy, take a tough stance against China’s currency manipulation and blatant patent violations, get health care costs under control and lower taxes for the 53% then I might start caring about this.
Like LZ said, the chances of this being abused against a legit US citizen are extremely remote.
This is just the process of getting on paper what we’ve already agreed to via our silence.
---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------
Probably not against white ones anyway huh?
---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------
Probably not against white ones anyway huh?
Legit citizen knows no color. Illegal border jumper from Mexico, I could see them getting mixed up with this. Even someone here on a student visa from one of those “frenemy” countries like Saudi Arabia probably has legit reasons to be concerned about this. And while I don’t agree with either of those situations getting caught up in an “enemy combatant” label the bottom line is no one is forcing any of them to come here and they are more than welcome to simply stay in their home country if they don’t want to take the chance.
Jays you are missing the point. The law is not aimed at foreigners. As I understand it it was written in a way that takes away a CITZEN’S rights, not a foreigner’s. If it was aimed at foreigners who would give a dam lol.
The text is way too slippery. It doesn’t explicitely exclude US citizens from “covered persons” but later has a vague text about how this doesn’t affect existing laws regarding citizens. It also gives the president a big fat loophole to operate outside of this law as long as he sends congress a letter saying it’s for the greater good, er, national defense. Here’s the full text:
Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(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.
(c) 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).
H. R. 1540—266
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
H. R. 1540—267
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.
Thank you John McCain for making beastiality legal again. And to think people voted for that dip shit to run the World.
Did you forget to take your medicine? The old law lumped butt sex and bestiality into one banned offense. Now that DADT is repealed gay soldiers can have butt sex with whoever they want so that part was repealed and the bestiality part was part of the same sentence that was repealed.
I shake my head at you for making me waste 45 seconds figuring out what the fuck you were talking about.
And I thought you were all about the new world order? What’s this nonsense about POTUS running the entire world?
It seems to me if the media was doing its job this would be common knowledge. If I had to guess, you knew about the military guys peeing on dead people.
18 January 2012
Mr. Speaker: I rise today to introduce a very simple piece of legislation to repeal the infamous Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, quietly signed into law by the president on New Year’s Day.
Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of presidential authority under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law. Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects – including Americans – and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely. No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court.
This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas. A great man named Solzhenitsyn became the hero of so many of us when he exposed the Soviet Union’s extensive gulag system. Is this really the kind of United States we want to create in the name of fighting terrorism?
Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has “substantially supported” certain terrorist groups or “associated forces.” No one has defined what those two terms mean. What is an “associated force”?
Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our Constitution to support such outrageous legislation. One senator even said about American citizens picked up under this section of the NDAA, “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'" Is this acceptable in someone one who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution?
Mr. Speaker, of course I recognize how critical it is that we identify and apprehend those who are suspected of plotting attacks against Americans. But why do we have so little faith in our justice system? Have we not tried in civilian court and won convictions of hundreds of individuals for terrorist or related activities? I fully support our continuing to do so, but let us not abandon what is so unique and special about our system of government in the process.
I hope my colleagues will join my effort to overturn the shameful Section 1021.
You’ll never guess who is standing up for our constitution. But his support is just a fad…
If you don’t think this is one the most important issues I hope you are one of the first ones “taken” although if you are that clueless they will probably let you wander around cluelessly like you have been because you are no threat.
Video…
For all you people who don’t think it was a big deal, maybe you will think differently after reading his next act…
http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com/2012/03/friday-night-surprise-obama-signs.html
Then again you probably won’t think it is big deal until it actually happens, which will be too late.