HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » NDAA 2013 - Indefinite de...

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:49 PM

 

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back

Source: Russia Today

Lawmakers in Washington have stripped an amendment from next year’s National Defense Authorization Act that could have kept the government from indefinitely detaining US citizens without charge or trial.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) told reporters on Tuesday that an amendment to the 2013 defense spending bill approved only two weeks earlier had been removed. That amendment, authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), was pitched as a solution to a clause in the current NDAA that allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens without due process or habeas corpus.

Under the 2012 NDAA, US President Barack Obama is affirmed the power to put any American citizen behind bars if he or she is suspected of assisting in any way with forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its allies. That provision, Sec. 1021, says any person who commits a “belligerent act” against the country can be imprisoned indefinitely “without trial” until the vaguely-worded period of hostilities has come to an end.

Pres. Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law on December 31 of last year, but included a statement at the time that condemned the powers under Sec. 1021 that he awarded himself.

Read more: http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-indefinite-detention-trial-403/



We need to pressure the whitehouse to veto the bill until indefinite detention is stripped

32 replies, 4991 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back (Original post)
naaman fletcher Dec 2012 OP
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #1
naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #2
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #3
lib2DaBone Dec 2012 #4
Rwolf Dec 2012 #21
CitizenPatriot Dec 2012 #5
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #10
just1voice Dec 2012 #19
green for victory Dec 2012 #22
Vattel Dec 2012 #6
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #11
Vattel Dec 2012 #23
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #25
green for victory Dec 2012 #26
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #27
Vattel Dec 2012 #28
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #29
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #14
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #7
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #12
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #20
tammywammy Dec 2012 #24
blkmusclmachine Dec 2012 #8
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #30
azurnoir Dec 2012 #9
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #15
azurnoir Dec 2012 #16
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #13
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #18
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #31
Is That All There Is Dec 2012 #17
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #32

Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:51 PM

1. How about a source NOT from RT? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:02 PM

2. Would you accept, say, the NY Times?

 

NY Times would never lie about WMD's in Iraq, for example.

Anyway, here is Salon's take:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/ndaas_indefinite_detention_without_trial_returns/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:04 PM

3. much better!

 

and yes, I tend to trust the New York Times a lot more than the present incarnation of Pravda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:26 PM

4. I don't get it... why would Carl Levin put this back on the table?

 

Well, ya.. I do get how the money flows to the Military Contractors.... but this law is unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lib2DaBone (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:17 AM

21. The proposed NDAA for 2013 doesn’t clarify what constitutes a (belligerent)

The proposed NDAA for 2013 doesn’t clarify what constitutes a (belligerent).
Under the vague provisions of NDAA 2012 and 2013 the President could accuse anyone of being a (belligerent) e.g. (directly aligned with militants or supporting hostilities against the United Stated or one of its allies (by mere political or other association); any activity, statement, writing or communication to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention. Hitler used similar laws to intimidate and shut down the press when it opposed the Nazis. Is that where Obama is going?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:51 PM

5. "he awarded himself"?

I was unaware that Obama was a senator currently.

they do realize he doesn't have line item veto powers, right? that he had to fund the military and he issued the signing statement to inform how the law would be interpreted under his administration. He also made them go back and redo this POS so it was less egregious than when they started?

RT ... Sorry. I'll read the NYT. Serious issue that needs to be addressed but not by people who don't even understand how our government works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CitizenPatriot (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:44 PM

10. Bullcrap. If he signs is he buys it. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CitizenPatriot (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:18 PM

19. Sure are a lot of RT bashers

 

Ever even watch it? It blows the doors off of the corrupt U.S. media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to just1voice (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:16 AM

22. us media is utterly worthless

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:52 PM

6. The government does not have the right to detain citizens indefinitely without habeas & due process.

Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:47 PM

11. LOL. Are you being sarcastic? The government has detained citizens indefinitely w/o habeas corpus.

Where have you been. And when you say, "Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise." you show that you are not very opened minded to counter opinions. Kinda like our friends on the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:33 AM

23. You need to distinguish doing something and having a right to do it.

A more interesting counterargument would be taken more seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:16 AM

25. My point is that if we citizens dont care that the government is walking on our rights

then it really doesnt matter if they "dont have a right to do it." The American people have looked the other way while our government violates the Constitution via the Patriot Act, FISA spying, and indefinite detention. No uproar when Bush did it and then when Pres Obama gets elected, no remedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:39 AM

26. The American people have looked the other way while our government violates the Constitution

 

*not* This American.

There Was an uproar when bush did it. You didn't hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:57 AM

27. Not sure why you think that you need to tell me that. I was of course

referring to the vast majority of Americans. In the last election we didnt even have a candidate that was dedicated to reinforce the Constitution. In addition, approx 68% of eligible voters DID NOT VOTE FOR Pres Obama's reelection.

We must get the message out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:11 PM

28. Sorry, I missed your point. I guess we agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:23 PM

29. Sometimes my points are a little hard to follow. At least for myself.

My point is that it isnt enough for the Constitution or a law to declare something if we dont honor it and enforce it.

The Constitution does not allow indefinite detention of citizens. Yet Georgie Bush arrested, detained and tortured in broad daylight and the American people (most) didnt give a shit. And further the Super Supreme Court didnt give a shit also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:35 AM

14. George Takei is one of many Japanese US citizens who spent years in US prison camps during WWII.

 

Oh my.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:00 PM

7. Obama did not have to sign this monstrosity. He also didn't have to send lawyers to reinstate it

 

after section 1021 regarding indefinite detention was struck down as unConstitutional via a lawsuit by Chris Hedges and others. Combined with HR347 and the increasing police state about which he's said nothing, done nothing to counter, activists and journalists are rightly frightened for their freedom. Indefinite detention without trial never left!

Those who have marched with Occupy and other freedom fighters already understand that the Bill of Rights is gone. Extending the Patriot Act confused the hell out of me. Why, Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:49 PM

12. Those of us that thought that when we got a Democrat in the presidency, what Bush screwed up would

be set right, were naive fools. He clearly doesnt want to give up his power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:27 PM

20. Did he sign it this year

I read a month ago that he promised to veto it, although he had promised to do so in the past and then didn't. But has he signed the latest one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:40 AM

24. No, the 2012 NDAA has not been signed.

It just came out of reconciliation between chambers Tuesday night and I believe the House passed the final version yesterday or day before. I haven't read that the Senate has voted on it. There are two main things that Panetta & Obama threatened veto over - Gitmo and MEADS funding.

edited to correct 2013 to 2012. It's a bill from 2012 covering fiscal year 2013 funding.

Found an article, it has passed the Senate. Obama hasn't signed it, but he didn't sign last year's until 31 Dec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:56 PM

8. Obama WANTS Indefinite Detention in the bill.

No more Eyes Wide Shut

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:51 PM

30. Would you expect a president to give away power? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:35 PM

9. well election season is indeed over it seems

back to real business

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:41 AM

15. You don't know about NDAA section 1021, HR347, the Patriot Act extension, etc.?

 

You speak as if you do and that it is a trifle. Go march with Occupy or unions or any freedom fighters and get beaten up by cops and you'll learn very quickly that things are not as they seem in this country and that they must immediately be brought back to Constitutional values. Obama said to Egypt at the beginning of the Arab Spring, to respect and treat well their protesters. Since then, 7400+ US Occupiers have been beaten and arrested with not a single peep from the white house. Silence is complicity. Worse; DHS has been "watching" Occupy from day one, according to FOI-attained documents. A DHS head, Peter King, outright calls Occupy "losers". With friendly federal agencies such as this against the Bill of Rights...

Did you see the articles this week regarding hidden microphones on public buses to record conversations, or armed SWAT teams in Arkansas who are going to "protect" citizens by asking for ID? Or the 64 drone bases being built inside the US from which to "monitor" us because we're obviously all terrorists (or, because someone is becoming ludicrously rich through selling these technologies?)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:04 AM

16. no I was simply being circumspect in my reply n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:19 AM

13. What we really need need is scotus to rule it

unconstitutional once and for one all (unlikely with the current court majority who kiss the ring of the GOP) or better yet a constitutional amendment to ban it but sadly both of those things are unlikely to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:35 PM

18. not a frickin chance with this scotus. and since 9/11 the courts have usually been pretty wimpy on

stuff like this

tortured by the cia? tough shizz (say the us courts): national security comes first

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:52 PM

31. I think they have had two chances to rule on it and have blundered both times. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:55 AM

17. You came for Their

 

2nd Amendment rights and others took your 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th when you were not looking. Good bargain, remember, what you may like in the Constitution others may not. When you open the Document for your interpretation, it gives license to others as well. Sometimes really nasty dirty scoundrels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Is That All There Is (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:55 PM

32. No one "opened the Document for interpretation," The Constitution has been open for

interpretation from the beginning. And opened for the SCOTUS interpretation since Marbuy vs. Madison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread