Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Brian · 12-14-2011 10:50 AM

Complete destruction of the US Constitution anyone? Am I the only one who felt extremely alarmed by this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13...45407.html

Some of the immediate usefulness of this act is to simply arrest all the leaders of the occupy movement. Once you start using military and just arrest all of these, the movement should die. It worked in tiamon square in china, why not here. American is too spoiled...time for us to become China.

***Mark*** · 12-14-2011 04:19 PM

I saw this last week. Makes me sick.

Brian · 12-15-2011 06:50 AM

The National Authorizatoin Defense Act is officially pass. Obama did not veto. What a lying piece of shit.

TheBoss · 12-17-2011 08:43 PM

[video=youtube;NW-e7z7S6VI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW-e7z7S6VI[/video]

fuck...

Chaos · 12-17-2011 09:04 PM

Quote:The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain – the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself. The bill strikes at the very heart of American values

Is this accurate? I'm not from the US so I don't know exactly what the NDAA is about but, really... "indefinitely" without charge or trial???? That really breaks the most basic human rights principles...

***Mark*** · 12-17-2011 09:13 PM

Between this and SOPA, I feel like I don't even know my own country anymore.

***Mark*** · 12-17-2011 09:19 PM

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defe...it-do-ndaa

Apparently it's not as bad as a lot of people are saying... but still not exactly a great beacon of civil liberties.

stan the man · 12-17-2011 09:29 PM

the provision in this bill that everyone is all upset about just codifies a provision that was in an earlier bill. this law has been in effect since 2001. maybe im missing something but i really don't see what the fuss is all about?

***Mark*** · 12-17-2011 09:46 PM

From what I gathered, the previous bill from 2001 only gave the president right to detain people indefinitely if they were suspected of being involved in 9/11. This bill expands that to anyone who is "suspected of terrorism" in general.

stan the man · 12-18-2011 08:50 PM

where does that come from? i only looked up the sections that the media said people were concerned about (sec 1031 and sec 1032) and it didn't say anything like that at all.

section 1031 defines a covered person as:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon- sible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.

section 1032 defines a covered person as:
(1) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(2) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners

***Mark*** · 12-18-2011 09:17 PM

It's a slippery slope. I don't care who it is, I want them to have due process. Fact remains that person suspected of having connections with Al Qaeda or other organizations can be arrested and put away without a trial.

***Mark*** · 12-20-2011 06:52 AM

Saw this quote today. Says it perfectly in one sentence:

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."
- Ben Franklin

Brian · 12-20-2011 05:46 PM

stan the man Wrote:where does that come from? i only looked up the sections that the media said people were concerned about (sec 1031 and sec 1032) and it didn't say anything like that at all.

section 1031 defines a covered person as:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon- sible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.

section 1032 defines a covered person as:
(1) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(2) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners

The problem about arrest without trial is that you can practically accuse anyone of being associated with al-Qaeda.

crazyhorse · 12-20-2011 06:31 PM

Brian Wrote:The problem about arrest without trial is that you can practically accuse anyone of being associated with al-Qaeda.

Still do you honestly think that if you would get a trial, it would have been a fair one? The only thing that is different now is that the "illusion of democracy" is broken down. Behind the curtains the power still belongs to a handfull of powerfull people.

If Obama or another high-ranking person with a lot of political power wants you out of the way, you won't stand a chance. Not even with a trial.