Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What Do You Think - National Defense Authorization Act
CJH    12/30/2011 1:33:07 PM
Alarmism? National Defense Authorization Act sent to W.H.

" Those who say that we have written into law a new authority to detain American citizens until the end of hostilities are wrong. Neither the Senate bill nor the conference report establishes new authority to detain American citizens – or anybody else,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich), one of the key negotiators on the issue, who at times expressed frustration with the administration and opponents of the provisions over what he called “misstatements” about what they contained."

The National Defense Authorization Act is the Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties Americans Face

Ron Paul And The Tea Party Can't Save You: 2012 National Defense Act Is 'Terrifying'

"It doesn't matter if a last-minute waiver is in the bill; the offending portions are currently worded so vaguely, that any US citizen can be considered a "terrorist" or an aid to terroristic activity. Any US citizen who is inconvenient to the US government can be detained and silenced."

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

Bill Text Versions 112th Congress (2011-2012) S.1867

 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
CJH       12/30/2011 11:50:11 PM
S.1867.ES / Title X / Subtitle D
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    EDITORIAL: Obama and dictatorship   1/8/2012 10:58:51 PM

"Sorry, defense authorization isn’t opening the door to a liberal police state"

LINK...

"All dramatics aside, no matter what the murky NDAA says or means, it cannot strip Americans of their constitutional rights. Chief Justice John Marshall laid out this logical principle in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, which established the standard of judicial review. He wrote that if a law conflicts with a rule or right under the Constitution, “the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, [therefore] the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” This is a bedrock principle of American politics. Even if the most expansive reading of the defense authorization is correct and it does represent some kind of White House power grab, it doesn’t matter, because any such provision negating rights held by citizens would be struck down as unconstitutional once it was adjudicated"
 
I wish I could be as confident of the editorial's conclusions. But I can't.
 
There is no reason to believe that, say, the OWS won't incrementally evolve into a "cultural revolution" carried out by a domestic "red guard".
 
Is OWS is a training ground for future political thugs as well as a means of getting people used to the constant presence of activists in the streets of their communities?
 
With Obama finally engaging in the leftist habit of stripping the defense budget of funds the military may wind up enfeebled and politicized.
 
If there is in effect no law, there would be no need of a criminal justice system or of criminal justice people.
 
The significance of this measure might be that early in the evolution to despotism it would be necessary to detain persons who would be key to the formation of any organized opposition.
 
What really makes me concerned that something like this could actually happen here is the realization that the actual rule of law and the constitution are no longer operative. Not only that but probably the majority of the people neither know nor care either. It essentially all was canceled due to a lack of interest.
 
So don't just believe things will somehow magically continue on as they have in the past despite the fact that the population no longer cares whether there is rule of law or not. That just isn't going to happen.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Ron Paul is a liar....    1/9/2012 9:59:09 AM
but so is that no-good bastard, Carl Levin, for the other side. The truth is that this revokes the Posse Comitatus Act of 1873 and that is the DANGEROUS aspect of the legislation. OPPOSE this in the courts and in the Congress. Its an infringement on civil rights in the US, period.
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       1/9/2012 12:49:48 PM
Which is why separation of legislative and judicial powers is so important.
 
Imagine what laws would now be in effect were it not for the supreme court enforcing the first amendment among others.  
 
Well, or just imagine Britain, where legislation becomes more Orwellian with each government - to the point that it is now a criminal offence to knowingly or inadvertantly "cause harassment, alarm or distress" irrespective of how subjective and ill-defined those terms are.
 
Just another reason to hate the left.  
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    We Are Beyond That Already   1/9/2012 1:18:43 PM

 
but so is that no-good bastard, Carl Levin, for the other side. The truth is that this revokes the Posse Comitatus Act of 1873 and that is the DANGEROUS aspect of the legislation. OPPOSE this in the courts and in the Congress. Its an infringement on civil rights in the US, period.

 We've heard supreme court justices calling the constitution a living document. We've seen McCain-Feingold passed by both houses and signed by GW Bush. We hear people advocate driver's licenses for illegals. We saw ObamaCare passed in the dead of night through the use or abuse of the budget reconciliation process with Pelosi insisting members vote for it without reasding it.
 
To me, the handwriting on the wall has clearly been that our constitution and the rule of law that made us a republic and not a democracy (rule by majority) are dead issues.
 
We are governmed by a consensus of power blocks which compete with each other on the basis of wealth (or plunder). This explains Obama's war on the economic underpining of conservatism, ie free market capitalism.
 
To me the mad rapacity of members of Congress for wealth and power has rendered both houses so obnoxiously corrupt as to make them ineffective and to risk their being ignored by the other branches of government and everybody else. They are throwing away their "mandate of heaven".
 
We see judges making new law.
 
We see the liberals engaging in a level of slash and burn politics which robs us of civility and degrades the state of the nation in favor of advancing their empowerment. And they have gotten away with this for decades.
 
We have had elites who for decades have strained to tear down all social norms and standards of behavior of morality, of logic, etc. This process more than any other creates conditions in our society which favor the rule of barbarism - i.e. the employment of brute force to win all arguments. This will render self government impossible and makes civilization impossible.
 
Conclusion, it should be surprising to us if Carl Levin was even capable of caring about any existing laws. It's all about power, not law now.
 
We in this country need to take stock and self assess. We need to own up to who we are and what we are doing as a people. And then we need to accept what has happened to our government and decide where we go from here.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics