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

[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.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I do find it funny

Looking at all these places like Greece, a large portion of Africa, the Middle East, Australia, now even the US. Canada is kinda just sitting back there and is going to be the surprise cultural melting pot when the world completely collapses on itself.

It'll happen soon.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Ah, we love you America.

From a distance.

...

A really looong distance.

It's not because we smell bad, is it? Please don't go..

I'm not like these guys... I- I can change... I swear!

 

[Guffe]

If that comes true I could come there as a pretty high ranked military man and start throwing random people in jail for suspision of the most silly shit and then then maybe take back what they've done.
I think that's really horrible, I mean think if someone like I described above here actually for fun starts throwing people in because he can do it and just to se how long it takes before someone stops him.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Anyway, though it is relieving Obama isn't even considering signing off on it, it's pretty disturbing that the congress and senate would both pass it in the first place. I mean really, who the fuck are these people we've elected?

You didn't elect anyone. It's the companies that own the government, the businesses decide whats what. And they have decided that they don't like you camping out in front of their buildings saying that they are big evil people.

 

[Zhukov]

Ah, we love you America.

From a distance.

...

A really looong distance.

It's not because we smell bad, is it? Please don't go..

I'm not like these guys... I- I can change... I swear!

Well, I suppose you could say fear has a certain smell to it...

 

[Sylvine]

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.

Then it seems to me Your problem lies with the 5th amendement, not with section 1031, since that one only states the US citizens are only included as far as the constitution allows it. Seems to follow the problem here lies in the constitution, then?

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.

Yes. Since the whole section 1032 is about the requirement of detention of members of Al-Q and affiliates, it's also the requirement that doesn't extend to the citizens. If they are affiliated with Al-Q, though, their citizenship does not grant them immunity from trial. Certainly not a case of "evil government looking for ways to lock innocent civilians up".

~Sylv

 

[Joel Dawson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791
6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel

Not to sure if the 5th applies so much. But I'm 99% sure this would violate the 6th.
So, IF, this bill is passed. It's in violation of an amendment thus..... has no, or limiting powers.

This is to what I can figure out. I'm no law man.

And the 4th amendment protecting us from unnecessary search and seizure.

 

[Yopaz]

I'm going to be blunt. No single individual really has any rights/freedoms/entitlement. They are an illusion made by masses to help prevent chaos from destroying systems that generations took to establish that form your living conditions. While there may be consequences for violating these illusions, they can still be violated. When the ones in power decide that the rules need to change, they change them. Every system on this planet has some form of corruption within it. It's a fact we have to learn to live with while we do the best we can to reduce its impact. In the words of one who will not be named for now: "Learn to play the game or become a pawn of it. The choice is yours."

Following that train of logic we could also say we have absolute freedom since there's nothing that prevents us from going on a killing spree except for the consequences afterwards. We could easily say that any power or government is an illusion created to avoid chaos.

 

[ryanxm]

This. This is why I'll probably end up moving to the UK one day. Honestly, in what way could this ever help anyone? I can think of VERY few situations, and the potential for abuse is very high. Just google "Afghanistan thrill kill sergeant". Just saying.

Ever get the feeling that America should just drop all of its politicians, all its red tape, all its in-progress bills, all its current lawsuits, etc, and just start again?

I'm feeling it quite a bit here.

I agree. Many of our...things ,for lack of a better word, are out of date. Electoral collage anyone?

Also I hate you for reminding me of that video.

 

[Lilani]

Anyway, though it is relieving Obama isn't even considering signing off on it, it's pretty disturbing that the congress and senate would both pass it in the first place. I mean really, who the fuck are these people we've elected?

You didn't elect anyone. It's the companies that own the government, the businesses decide whats what. And they have decided that they don't like you camping out in front of their buildings saying that they are big evil people.

A very intelligent user pointed out something that I think pertains to this just a bit. It's the exact wording of the bills they passed.

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

If it was the "companies" stuffing the ballot boxes a year or so ago in preparation for these protests their in-house seers foretold to them, then I'd say what they got passed here is pretty much useless for helping them out (unless, that is, most of the protestors are not US citizens or legal aliens).

Now now, there's no need to be ashamed. I didn't realize that either. Whistle blowers are never interested in giving you EXACTLY what's going on, merely the essence of the threat. Specifically the essence of the parts they dislike the most. Little details like that...they don't mind letting them fall to the wayside. Ultimately we're the ones to be blamed though, for not doing our own research as Sylv said.

And please don't give me the slippery slope or gradual takeover bits. I've heard it all before, and though I am rather unsatisfied with our elected officials at the moment, I do not want you to think for a moment that I am in the same tinfoil hat club you seem to be promoting.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm going to be blunt. No single individual really has any rights/freedoms/entitlement. They are an illusion made by masses to help prevent chaos from destroying systems that generations took to establish that form your living conditions. While there may be consequences for violating these illusions, they can still be violated. When the ones in power decide that the rules need to change, they change them. Every system on this planet has some form of corruption within it. It's a fact we have to learn to live with while we do the best we can to reduce its impact. In the words of one who will not be named for now: "Learn to play the game or become a pawn of it. The choice is yours."

Which flies just fine until a bunch of people are really, really, really hungry. Then it can go a lot of different directions. One of those directions ends with all the "powerful people" losing their fucking heads.

Anyways, we'll see if anything comes of the actual legislation once/if it passes. You only need a small handful of extremely bad cases for stuff like this to be overturned.

 

[chronomaster5042]

Stupid stuff I was wrong about

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.

So maybe I should have googled a little deeper before posting that, you are indeed correct about the fifth amendment part, I'm sorry.

 

[RatRace123]

Yeah, this is really really disgusting that a bill like this can even be drawn up, let alone close to passing, but as it's been said above; the wording is very clear and legal US citizens and legal immigrants are exempt.

It's still a goddamn disgrace that something like this could be passed, don't get me wrong, and it's the latest in a very long, recent list of me disappointments in my country but it's not totally the end of the world... yet.

 

[kiwi_poo]

don't worry, guys! historically we should be able to overthrow these retarded governments in about 30 to 60 years.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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

THIS!! Enough with the fucking scaremongering already!!

 

[thethird0611]

Stupid stuff I was wrong about

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.

So maybe I should have googled a little deeper before posting that, you are indeed correct about the fifth amendment part, I'm sorry.

I applaud you for being able to say that. Just earned a bunch of respect for not being a 'I have to be right' person.