Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are we losing our right to a Trial?
#1
White House Approves Of Bill Allowing The Military To Imprison Americans Without Trial

Despite his promise to veto amendments within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) President Obama said Wednesday he will approve the law allowing the U.S. military to arrest and hold anyone it deems a terrorist, even on American soil.

Phil Hirschkorn of CBS News reports the Obama administration abandoned its veto saying the final version of the bill had been "softened." The minor adjustments to the wording now give the President power to issue a waiver of the military detention requirement and allow the White House to use its own judgment in putting the controls into place.

A White House statement says, "We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto."

Executive Director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth told CBS, "By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law. In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side."

The ACLU agrees. "If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American's reputation for upholding the rule of law," Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office says. "The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era, and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill."

What are everyone's thoughts on this?
StogieChat's Resident Classic Truck Restoration Amateur.

--Graham
Reply
#2
If a strong terrorist suspect, then I say yes! You and I have nothing to worry about don't we? But I don't want a potential terrorist to be able to flee capture or the country!

While we are at it, Congress should use it Constitutional powers to to eliminate the 9th Circuit Court. And all Marxists trying to infringe on my rights should be used for target practice! AN eye for an eye or a right for a right! Yeah I am in a mood today!
Reply
#3
This has too much potential for abuse. Just as people are quite often accused of crimes they didn't commit and later are released, or still sit in jail hoping for new proof to release them, this bill can cause some major issues down the road.

What are we to become, another North Korea? Their military does this and we just watched several years of pleaing to get our citizens back.

Could someone blogging about terrorists be considered a terrorist? Someone posting online about how bombs are made could be considered someone contributing to terrorists. One could even be a suspected terrorist just from the contacts they have with other people who are on a "watch list" due to their Arabic decent or their family members. I bet the Wikileaks guy is considered a terrorist on some level. I could even be on a suspect terrorist list because I deal with many people in far countries for tobacco, sending money to China and DR for goods, AND I don't agree with this bill. I also talk to the Arabic folks on occasion when I stop for coffee at the quickie-mart!

I do agree that we should not be harboring terrorists. Making it possible for a person to be arrested without trial or true verification of the evidence by common peers is unacceptable. Evidence can easily be fabricated and deemed "fact" if its the same people handling the hatchet. On a much lower level, imagine how many more speeding tickets would be handed out IF just our police officers could issue them and know there would never be a court case to call them on it.

Tank, I agree....terrorist suspects should be brought in, or at minimum closely monitored like the FBI would do for any crime. But there must be evidence and conviction only if the evidence is fact, not fabricated.
Reply
#4
Well said Eric. Anytime that the government is involved there is a 99.9% chance of abuse.

I do not like this Sam-I-Am.
I do not like his healthcare scam.
I don't like the tax here or there,
or this regulation everywhere.
Reply
#5
I think when my Criminal Justice courses resume after the new year, this will be the main topic of discussion. I really hope this isn't all about the "home grown terrorists" aka militia groups that get together all across this great nation studying the Constitution.
Git R Dun!
Reply
#6
Despite the hysteria, histrionics, and hullaballoo, it's worth pointing out that NDAA is the annual military budget, not some nefarious New World Order designed to herd us all into FEMA re-education camps or some other bull$hit Tank believes in. There will be another NDAA in 2012, and in 2013, and every year following. Apparently it is the new reichwing strategy to make a big honking deal out of every mundane, pedestrian, business as usual piece of legislation allowed to move past their Big Wall of No, as though it were the first time such a thing had ever even been considered.

Additionally, the original language in the bill, the provision everyone's shrieking about, came from the Senate, not President Obama. And he was going to VETO it. The compromise language, while not as good as the Udall Amendment, does in fact protect American citizens on American soil.

At the end of the day, I can only imagine what Tank would be saying if President Obama HAD vetoed the defense budget. LOL!
NANP™
Viking1
Reply
#7
I'm afraid we will soon find out NANP, what Tank thinks.Tongue
They call me The Mum - Jimmie the Mum
Viva Mumcero - Mahk 12/4/2010 - http://www.stogiechat.com/forum/thread-20737.html
Honorary Shield Brother
Weak people seek Revenge, Strong people Forgive, Intelligent people Ignore
Reply
#8
"not some nefarious New World Order designed to herd us all into FEMA re-education camps or some other bullshit Tank believes in." Man those George Soro's websites you read spew this talking point as its something normal conservative people believe? HAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a riot! Smile

Reichwing? I am suprised you did not spew the term Tea Idiot like you do on Facebook? By the way are you still proud of your Occupy Wall Street's actions? I know you loved to defend their Constitutional rights even when those rights infringed on the people who actually work by blocking their business and interfering with commerce. And then there was the violence. The Heathen must be Proud? But I must say they created and save a lot of jobs because of all the defication that need to be picked up!

I still recall the Left trying to paint the Tea Party as racist because the President is black when you ignore the fact that he is a Marxist and we don't give a $hit about the color of his skin. Now with all the Wall Street's rapes I am sure its safe to say we can call OWS "Rapists". Or "Wall Idiots" is a great term as their hands are up against the wall all the time as they are getting arrested! Smile
Reply
#9
(12-18-2011, 11:25 AM)Not A Nice Person Wrote: Despite the hysteria, histrionics, and hullaballoo, it's worth pointing out that NDAA is the annual military budget, not some nefarious New World Order designed to herd us all into FEMA re-education camps or some other bull$hit Tank believes in. There will be another NDAA in 2012, and in 2013, and every year following. Apparently it is the new reichwing strategy to make a big honking deal out of every mundane, pedestrian, business as usual piece of legislation allowed to move past their Big Wall of No, as though it were the first time such a thing had ever even been considered.

Additionally, the original language in the bill, the provision everyone's shrieking about, came from the Senate, not President Obama. And he was going to VETO it. The compromise language, while not as good as the Udall Amendment, does in fact protect American citizens on American soil.

At the end of the day, I can only imagine what Tank would be saying if President Obama HAD vetoed the defense budget. LOL!
I think people's problem with the changes to the NDAA stem from the fact that "terrorists" can now be detained indefinitely without due process.

Now if we look at what the Department of Justice, FBI, and ATF all consider signs that someone is a possible terrorist (i.e., suspected terrorist). They even ask that Surplus Stores, Gun Stores, etc... report people who fit into ANY of the category's listed on a brochures they send out.

By the way, this one Brochure that was sent out in CO: http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/9cv384p...34af01.jpg


Anyway, apparently people who buy Weathered Proof Ammo, Flashlights, High-Cap mags (Probably magazines with a capacity of more then 10 rounds), and Bi-pods can all be suspected of terrorism.

By extension, if they are suspected of terrorism they can be detained indefinitely without due process of the law (because of the changes in the NDAA).


This is a very dangerous thing to exist in the NDAA. Will be be abused? Maybe not. Can it be abused? Yes. Should it be apart of the NDAA? No.
Reply
#10
No New Detention Authority in 2011 NDAA. Period.

Quote:The detainee provisions are seriously flawed, but it is inaccurate and irresponsible to claim, as both the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch have, that this bill represents a return to the “McCarthy era.” This argument overlooks the key factor in assessing the scope of military detention. President Obama has made clear he does not want military detention in the United States, and Congress has already recognized that he has discretionary power to interpret detention authority to rule that out.

Quote:The Obama administration in word and deed has made it very clear that the president does not believe it necessary or appropriate to use military detention authority in the United States. Both Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal al-Shazaad were arrested after attempting mass casualty terrorist attacks inside the United States. In both instances, conservatives called for putting them in military detention, but in both instances, the Obama administration chose to use the criminal justice system.

Quote:We certainly know that in the current hyperpartisan debate, outrage sells. But a more sober analysis reveals that the NDAA establishes no new detention authority.

But hey . . . let's not let a few simple facts get in the way of our Obama Derangement Syndrome! Headbash


NANP™
Viking1
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)