National Defense Authorization Act sections 1031 and 1032

The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
"Those that would sacrifice Liberty for security will have neither."
Click to expand...
Did you come up with that?

NLXSK1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah well, regardless of nuclear weapons, Iran gives many provocations for action to be taken.

OGEvilgenius said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

budlover13

King Tut
The Ruiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Uh....no. :neutral:

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

budlover13

King Tut
The Ruiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

blimey

Active Member
The Ruiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
Uh....no. :neutral:

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?
Click to expand...
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

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
blimey said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
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

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

mugan

Well-Known Member
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 :shock:
 
mugan

mugan

Well-Known Member
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

deprave

New Member
The Ruiner said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
The Ruiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
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

blimey

Active Member
The Ruiner said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
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

beardo

Well-Known Member
This ought to solve the unemployment problem
They can begin to implement the final solution
 
mugan

mugan

Well-Known Member
blimey said:
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.
Click to expand...
wow you can't put that any other way. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top