WARNING! this is a real threat to basic human freedoms!

[tofulove]

according to the article it passed 93 to 7, there is no veto option for it.

 

[Patrick Corners]

according to the article it passed 93 to 7, there is no veto option for it.

In the Senate that is not counting the House of Rep. Then it goes to the president and he can veto it once then it goes back to congress and they can override the veto with a 2/3 majority which almost never happens

 

[Denariax]

-snip, stuff's huge yo-

It's not so much as opinion as I knew a few guys who were sent down there and they pretty much figured that stuff out themselves. And I'm really hoping that Obama Haggar-Piledrives this thing into the ground, because after reading it it does seem like small-scale terrorism to me. Then again I'm always paranoid.

 

[tofulove]

according to the article it passed 93 to 7, there is no veto option for it.

In the Senate that is not counting the House of Rep. Then it goes to the president and he can veto it once then it goes back to congress and they can override the veto with a 2/3 majority which almost never happens

im not sure how the house feels about it, but with a 93 to 7 if the house is on the same fence as the senate all a veto will do is push it back a little bit. and i hope the supreme court is going to say fuck no to it, but im not holding my breath.

 

[Patrick Corners]

according to the article it passed 93 to 7, there is no veto option for it.

In the Senate that is not counting the House of Rep. Then it goes to the president and he can veto it once then it goes back to congress and they can override the veto with a 2/3 majority which almost never happens

im not sure how the house feels about it, but with a 93 to 7 if the house is on the same fence as the senate all a veto will do is push it back a little bit. and i hope the supreme court is going to say fuck no to it, but im not holding my breath.

In the history of the US Congress very few bills have ever been able to pass after they have been vetoed. Even when they have been widely supported. But this will not happen because it will fail in the house I'm willing to fall on my sword if it does happen.

 

[Aethren]

Hmmm, call me stupid but I have a question about this...

"Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States."

What in the hay is that bold part about? I would guess it refers to things like drugcartels and whatnot, but picking up someone from outside the United States, where the US have no legal rights and taking them back and being able to keep them, well forever, without any form offical charge or trial?

We have military bases outside our borders, this bill is for the military. They're not just there to look pretty.

 

[Comando96]

This will be making you guys Pray for Sharia law >.>

I would say I feel bad...

Na even I'm not that cold-hearted. I do feel bad.

 

[WeAreStevo]

Wait for it, Supreme Court's going to bring the hammer down on this one.

like they did on the patriot act?

I'm still shocked that the Patriot act is not only still in existence, but it's lauded by all politicians from both sides of the aisle.

It feels like one of those horrible parodies of High School where one person says "you don't like the patriot act!? You're a terrorist!" and then the other guy says "Nuh-UH! I am TOTALLY about the patriot act. I love it so much!"

It's very disturbing how out of control our government has been lately on limiting all of our "freedoms" while simultaneously applauding living in the "land of the free"...

 

[A Weary Exile]

Here I come, Canada!

 

[ResonanceSD]

Ah, we love you America.

From a distance.

...

A really looong distance.

Unless you're on the Moon, an ICBM can still reach you. And even then.

 

[Jodah]

I still have faith in the Supreme Court. Granted it may be because I am going into the law field but the courts seem to usually do the right thing.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10023-senate-passes-controversial-defense-bill

yes, you read that right.
the senate has pushed forth an act that gives the military the ability to throw you in jail without cause, conviction, or end on mere suspicion.
and we though SOPA was the biggest threat to freedom.

President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the bill.

/thread. Is there really any thing more that needs to be said?

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Good news, Obama has already said he's going to Veto the military thing into the dirt should he ever find it on his desk.

Wait for it, Supreme Court's going to bring the hammer down on this one.

Thank God for balance of power.

It looks like it's going to pass through Congress, but it has to be signed into law, or have a veto overridden to go into effect; and even after that it could be (and should be!) struck down as unconstitutional.

There's no need to panic...yet.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Hey, uh...before this gets completely out of hand:

http://notasenator.tumblr.com/post/13759360157

EC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO 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.
---
The point that they stated with this amendment, which was affirmed through a vote, was that the existing laws regarding detaining US citizens and the due process they receive will not change because of this act.

I think this is worth a gander. This whole thing seems terribly overblown.

 

[Julianking93]

That's it
I'm going back to England.

 

[chronomaster5042]

Yep I'm stupid, never mind.

*note to self double checking sources is a good thing*

 

[Shadowkire]

Hey, uh...before this gets completely out of hand:

http://notasenator.tumblr.com/post/13759360157

I think this is worth a gander.

Quoting for the peace

 

[Jaythulhu]

Ah, we love you America.

From a distance.

...

A really looong distance.

Quoted for truth. However, you forgot:

"In a lead-lined bunker.

...

14 miles below the surface of the earth."

 

[Agow95]

Threat for you, The British Government would never do this, firstly they don't have the balls, secondly if they did then Scotland, Wales, and Ireland would most likely break off and become independant to prevent persecution of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish, So even if England passes it, I'm Welsh

 

[thethird0611]

Did any one of You bother to actually check sections 1031 and 1032, or did You all just assume. Oh! It says so on teh internets! Must be true, then!...?

Under 1031:
"(d) CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES PERSONS.
?The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the
detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens 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."

Under 1032:
"(b) REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
?The requirement to detain a person in military custody
under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States."

Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1253rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1253rs.pdf

So, yeah. Goddamn it, I'm not even a citizen of the US. Do Your own research?

~Sylv

See here's where things get tricky. First I point out the 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The bold part is the important part for this discussion. What it means is as long as we aren't detained by the military in a time of war or public danger, we get these rights. So back to the NDAA, section 1031 extends the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 - 40) to everyone including, US citizens. Meaning the military can detain US citizens if they believe they have connections to terrorist organizations, and since it's the military doing the detaining, the constitution does not apply and therefore section 1031 does apply to the detained regardless of citizenship.

As for section 1032, the way it is worded, implies that US citizens are exempt from the REQUIREMENT of being detained. It does not prevent one from being detained to begin with, it just means they can give us a trial if they want to.

Chrono, you do know in the fifth amendment, that the bold part talks about Military Personnel who are serving, not normal US Civi's? It means that soldiers who do something against the service can have the indictments brought against them without a Grand Jury.

The bill expressly says that it US citizens cannot by law be detained without trial or reason. The REQUIREMENT means that they fail the requirements and are exempt from the law. Read the bill man.