National Defense Authorization Act sections 1031 and 1032

[The Ruiner]

"Those that would sacrifice Liberty for security will have neither."

Did you come up with that?

You mean like Aminutjob over in Iran? Once they develop a nuclear weapon he will be all like "April Fool's!!" we were just kidding about that whole Iran thing.

Yeah well, regardless of nuclear weapons, Iran gives many provocations for action to be taken.

Legal scholars disagree and your ability to read is pretty poor.

The only thing that section states is that the military can choose whether they hold someone indefinitely or not if they are a US citizen (which, if you understood the bill, you would understand the military is required (it`s in the bill earlier and it`s in the sections you site) to hold someone indefinitely if deemed a terrorist by the executive (meaning if you are an American you might see the light of day again, maybe, if the military decides you are not really a threat (unilaterally without oversight). It means nothing.

Dude, give me one "legal scholar" that refutes what I have just stated. Just friggin' one...And for extra credit, give me another that corroborates your position.

No politicians, no youtube videos (unless by a CREDENTIALED video maker), no organizations with alterior motives... show me just one LEGITIMATE independent analysis that supports any of the whacky shit you guys are spouting.

 

[budlover13]

Did you come up with that?



Yeah well, regardless of nuclear weapons, Iran gives many provocations for action to be taken.



Dude, give me one "legal scholar" that refutes what I have just stated. Just friggin' one...And for extra credit, give me another that corroborates your position.

No politicians, no youtube videos (unless by a CREDENTIALED video maker), no organizations with alterior motives... show me just one LEGITIMATE independent analysis that supports any of the whacky shit you guys are spouting.

Uh....no.

Thomas Jefferson i believe. But i was as unsure then as i am now. Love my SourD

You didn't actually think i was claiming that as my own did you?

 

[budlover13]

Did you come up with that?



Yeah well, regardless of nuclear weapons, Iran gives many provocations for action to be taken.



Dude, give me one "legal scholar" that refutes what I have just stated. Just friggin' one...And for extra credit, give me another that corroborates your position.

No politicians, no youtube videos (unless by a CREDENTIALED video maker), no organizations with alterior motives... show me just one LEGITIMATE independent analysis that supports any of the whacky shit you guys are spouting.

i guess several sitting US Senators voicing EXTREME concern over absolutley demolishing the documents our country was founded on doesn't deserve a little scrutiny and clarity?

 

[blimey]

Did you come up with that?
No politicians, no youtube videos (unless by a CREDENTIALED video maker), no organizations with alterior motives... show me just one LEGITIMATE independent analysis that supports any of the whacky shit you guys are spouting.

Anybody with any political power will have motives. Even if they don't it wouldn't be hard to find a plausible angle and say that is an *ulterior motive.
However some prominent people opposed to it are (not including senators), FBI director Robert Mueller, DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson, Obama Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as well as all these other security experts and high ranking military officials. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/11 23 2011 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF A ROBUST MULTILAYERED APPROACH.pdf.

 

[NoDrama]

Uh....no.

Thomas Jefferson i believe. But i was as unsure then as i am now. Love my SourD

You didn't actually think i was claiming that as my own did you?

It was Ben Franklin, and I agree with you. The language gives the MILITARY carte Blanche to pick up , interrogate and shove in a hole anyone the executive feels might be a threat. The executive COULD say that anyone who owns a gun is a threat, anyone supporting RP is a threat, all militia members are threats, anyone over the age of 40.....

 

[The Ruiner]

Anybody with any political power will have motives. Even if they don't it wouldn't be hard to find a plausible angle and say that is an *ulterior motive.
However some prominent people opposed to it are (not including senators), FBI director Robert Mueller, DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson, Obama Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as well as all these other security experts and high ranking military officials. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/11 23 2011 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF A ROBUST MULTILAYERED APPROACH.pdf.

Do you know why there are against the bill??????

Because of the friggin' budget cuts contained in the other 1100 pages of the friggin bill!!!

That's why!!!


How friggin' surprising!!!

 

[OGEvilgenius]

There's a boat load of analysis out there, and there are quotes from the Senators who inserted the amendment. Everything I have said about this bill is completely true. Doesn't take much effort to find it either.

 

[The Ruiner]

There's a boat load of analysis out there, and there are quotes from the Senators who inserted the amendment. Everything I have said about this bill is completely true. Doesn't take much effort to find it either.

And none of you can cite any of it, and none of you can come up with anything but rhetoric.

You all have come up with jack squat when it comes to actually PROVING your case. Rhetoric is not proof.

 

[mugan]

see some times its good not to liv in a super power, all i got to worry about is pirates on the other side of the fuckskin country , well unless The us tries to invade us cuz they just got to have every thing now don't they. and then am just gonna smoke my self to death before they make it to my spot . and al go down fucking shooting beliv me . al be like one of em crazy kids in Iraq. i mean you got to know ppl don't want your help when they strap bombs to there kids to get rid of you

 

[beardo]

[youtube]TrqKTkgKxyA[/youtube]

 

[beardo]

[youtube]pRnjQi3GRXA&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[mugan]

you guys best start dichin that place man, i hear Euro is not so bad LOLZ!

 

[beardo]

you guys best start dichin that place man, i hear Euro is not so bad LOLZ!

I hear Ethiopia and Estonia are both pretty good, been wanting to go to the churches in Ethiopia anyways

 

[mugan]

Word!! but a word to the wise , Africa has some awesome hidden places but make sure your not going there to make muny make sure your going to spend it lolz employment here sux and the available jobs are hard to get cuz of nepatisim

 

[deprave]

Do you know why there are against the bill??????

Because of the friggin' budget cuts contained in the other 1100 pages of the friggin bill!!!

That's why!!!


How friggin' surprising!!!

And none of you can cite any of it, and none of you can come up with anything but rhetoric.

You all have come up with jack squat when it comes to actually PROVING your case. Rhetoric is not proof.

What do you have to back up this claim? Don't mean that to be on the offensive, I am genuinely curious, It wouldn't suprise me if you are correct but I'd appreciate more info.

It does seem a bit sketchy to me either way..you know how the ACLU and Politicians are....and their argument is fairly weak but I'm not a legal expert or anything, and then on top of that I don't trust the government either way...I see more evidence otherwise so lets hear your evidence...I see how the bill might be interpreted your way but I don't see a whole lot of people arguing for it who aren't war mongers...Did you study law?

It seems every time this discussion is brought up nearly everyone sides with the ACLU on this as far as journalist at least. I am not hearing people come out and say that its wrong just read the bill, your the only one bar a few blogs. A lot of people are really worked up about this.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Read the bill. It says exactly what I said it says. Senator Graham, Senator McCain have said the exact same things I have said on the Senate floor (different context in the sense they support them).

 

[blimey]

Do you know why there are against the bill??????

Because of the friggin' budget cuts contained in the other 1100 pages of the friggin bill!!!

That's why!!!


How friggin' surprising!!!

I'm not sure if you read the link I posted. It is a letter from those people about sections 1031 and 1032.

we oppose legislation that would require military detention of terrorism suspects

And the title is: STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF A ROBUST MULTI-LAYERED COUNTER TERRORISM STRATEGY
Power corrupts. It's been proven for the last 3,000 years and is one of the main reasons the constitution was written.
This takes the power out of the state government and local law enforcement and the judicial branch and puts it all in the executive branch's hands.
To me it's kind of regardless whether or not the bill specifically states that the government can kid nap people. The fact that it is such a blatant violation of the separation of powers and obvious disregard for the constitution makes me think that worse is coming.
P.S. I know somebody will probably say this is all just derived from paranoia with no solid fact, but think of it this way, you don't go balls deep in a girl's ass right away, you work the tip and get her wanting more. Kind of like how the government is scaring people into thinking they live in a war zone, so they should give up their rights for protection.
You have to remember that the government plays "long ball", stuff they do now could have intended affects in 10 years with all that time in between to bolster it.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Obama has said he won't veto it anymore. His administration now realizes that the provisions he requested removed that supposedly protect American's actually do not, so he will sign it into law, and the American Experiment is truly over.

 

[beardo]

This ought to solve the unemployment problem
They can begin to implement the final solution

 

[mugan]

I'm not sure if you read the link I posted. It is a letter from those people about sections 1031 and 1032.
And the title is: STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF A ROBUST MULTI-LAYERED COUNTER TERRORISM STRATEGY
Power corrupts. It's been proven for the last 3,000 years and is one of the main reasons the constitution was written.
This takes the power out of the state government and local law enforcement and the judicial branch and puts it all in the executive branch's hands.
To me it's kind of regardless whether or not the bill specifically states that the government can kid nap people. The fact that it is such a blatant violation of the separation of powers and obvious disregard for the constitution makes me think that worse is coming.
P.S. I know somebody will probably say this is all just derived from paranoia with no solid fact, but think of it this way, you don't go balls deep in a girl's ass right away, you work the tip and get her wanting more. Kind of like how the government is scaring people into thinking they live in a war zone, so they should give up their rights for protection.
You have to remember that the government plays "long ball", stuff they do now could have intended affects in 10 years with all that time in between to bolster it.

wow you can't put that any other way.