The Bill of Rights - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 4th, 2012, 08:36 AM   #1
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,109
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default The Bill of Rights

Our elected government is getting bigger. Now they are going after our rights.... the bill of rights.
New Years Eve Obama signed a bill to take away our rights. And the media has not mentioned it once. I wonder why?

http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_ND...hts_Obama.html
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 4th, 2012, 08:38 AM   #2
XXXJ
Desert Rat
 
XXXJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-09-07
Location: Memphis, Mi
Posts: 5,630
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default




Quote:
1032(a), (4)(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
__________________
If I didn't think with my penis, I wouldn't think at all

I hope I am not a racist, I mean I drive fast, But I am not specialized at it.
XXXJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 10:44 AM   #3
Medic8
You call, we haul.
 
Medic8's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Southgate, MI
Posts: 1,492
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I wish I had the time to sit down and read the actual language of the bill. When I first heard about NDAA, I put on my tinfoil hat and said "this will NEVER pass"... but alas, here it is. XXXJ's post has a part of what I want to see.

The part that I would like, if what I'm gathering from XXXJ's quoted section holds true, is that people who are in this country illegally, with the intention of causing acts of war (ie Terrorists); they no longer have protection under the Constitution while under trial from OUR legal system.
Medic8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 10:49 AM   #4
Rockstar
sɐƃǝʌ sɐן
 
Rockstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-25-07
Location: Taylor,Mi
Posts: 8,504
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

You Have No Rights.... you live in the USA. we are like other places like Iran No Rights to anyone.... we are going to fit right in now...
Rockstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 11:36 AM   #5
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXJ View Post
(a), (4)(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

It's not nearly that simple...

http://www.redstate.com/justinamash/...tainee-policy/


Posted by Rep. Justin Amash
Saturday, December 17th at 9:30AM EST

On Thursday, Congress gave the President sweeping new power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empowers the President to detain anyone who “substantially supported” groups he determines are “associated forces” of terrorists.

The provision at issue, sec. 1021, was tucked into an 1800-page conference report that was shuttled through Congress in a matter of days. Given the complexity and weight of the issue, I was interested to read House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon’s post on RedState explaining the bill’s detention policy. Unfortunately, the post is almost useless because it muddles two separate provisions of the NDAA.

Sec. 1021, the bill’s discretionary detention provision, authorizes the President to detain persons who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.” None of the quoted terms are defined. We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners. Critically, the bill does not attempt to define “associated forces,” either. Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the government’s detention.

Sec. 1022, the bill’s mandatory detention provision, requires the President to detain members of al-Qaeda who have planned or carried out attacks against the U.S. or its coalition partners. Only sec. 1022 states that it “does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

(You can read the language of both provisions in the conference report. Sec. 1021 begins on p. 653; sec. 1022 begins on p. 656.)

What’s troubling is that Chairman McKeon’s post gives you the impression that it defends sec. 1021—the discretionary detention provision—when, in fact, his post is all about sec. 1022, the mandatory provision. The post conspicuously defends “the provision,” without referencing a specific section number. And, at the end, it includes a chart titled “Section 1021 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act,” even though one of the two quotes in the chart is from sec. 1022, not 1021.

Sec. 1021—the provision I and other constitutional conservatives are most concerned about—is much more difficult to defend. Its expansive, undefined, and dangerous detention power goes well beyond what Congress authorized in its September 2011 Authorization for Use of Military Force (9/11 AUMF), even though the bill claims it only “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF. To understand how much power sec. 1021 gives to the President, consider the 9/11 AUMF’s text, which Congress passed just days after the most deadly attack in U.S. history:

[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The 9/11 AUMF authorizes force only against persons and groups who have a connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 AUMF says nothing about detention, let alone the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Despite the 9/11 AUMF’s plain language, the past two administrations have argued in court that the 9/11 AUMF authorizes the President to indefinitely detain certain persons the administration determines are enemies. Both administrations also have claimed the 9/11 AUMF applies to persons and groups that are “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. No 9/11 nexus is required, according to the President.

Section 1021 thus claims that it merely “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF, including the alleged authority to detain persons the President determines are “associated forces.” While the section is framed as an affirmation, it can be viewed as that only if Congress adopted the President’s expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF—an action Congress never had taken before Thursday. To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who “substantially supported . . . associated forces.”

Who could this cover? An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group. Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S. Under the NDAA that just passed Congress, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, and without charge or trial.

NDAA proponents sometimes point to an amendment to sec. 1021, added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as proof that the NDAA doesn’t apply to Americans. The amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.

In fact, the Senate expressly rejected a provision that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens. Sen. Feinstein offered another amendment to sec. 1021 that stated the section “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” That amendment was rejected 45-55. Sen. Feinstein’s other amendment, which does nothing to protect U.S. citizens, passed 99-1.

Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. I strongly believe in protecting the country’s security and equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies. But the American people cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate our constitutional rights.

The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity. And I concede that this issue takes time to understand. Over the next few months, I hope to join others who value our country’s constitutional rights to block the NDAA’s dangerous detention provision. Once the American public sees for itself what’s included in the NDAA, I’m confident they will demand we do so.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 11:42 AM   #6
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Why would the President need to clarify this in a signing statement if it wasn't clearly written into the law already?


Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 11:48 AM   #7
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,498
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

We've been over this before. A simple bill does not over rule the Constitution.

And the President does not write legislation, the legislature does that. So don't blame Obama, blame Congress.

Obama was in a "damned if he did, damned if he didn't" situation. If he signs he is accused of taking away people's rights, if he vetoes he accused of not supporting the military (the bill is actually a military funding bill). So he took a page from the Bush strategy, and signed it with a statement that he would just ignore that parts of the bill he disagreed with.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 01:18 PM   #8
XXXJ
Desert Rat
 
XXXJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-09-07
Location: Memphis, Mi
Posts: 5,630
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Long winded interptations does not change the simple language of the bill.

Irregardless, this portion should have stood on its own separate bill.

Gitmo is a fine place to hold jihadists until the end of time. I have no problem with that.
__________________
If I didn't think with my penis, I wouldn't think at all

I hope I am not a racist, I mean I drive fast, But I am not specialized at it.
XXXJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 06:44 PM   #9
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,231
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medic8 View Post
The part that I would like, if what I'm gathering from XXXJ's quoted section holds true, is that people who are in this country illegally, with the intention of causing acts of war (ie Terrorists); they no longer have protection under the Constitution while under trial from OUR legal system.
Until they declare you a terrorist for disagreeing...
mschaffer66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 06:57 PM   #10
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
We've been over this before. A simple bill does not over rule the Constitution.

And the President does not write legislation, the legislature does that. So don't blame Obama, blame Congress.

Obama was in a "damned if he did, damned if he didn't" situation. If he signs he is accused of taking away people's rights, if he vetoes he accused of not supporting the military (the bill is actually a military funding bill). So he took a page from the Bush strategy, and signed it with a statement that he would just ignore that parts of the bill he disagreed with.
Agreed, I blame congress, all of them. But Obama could have had a spine and vetoed the bill. Then sending it back to congress who would have re-written it to provide for the military spending. It's not like his popularity can get much lower.

Until someone has the balls to do what is right, they will all continue to do what is wrong. That's why we are circling the drain.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 07:32 PM   #11
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,498
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
It's not like his popularity can get much lower.
It could go lower, just look at Congresses approval rating.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2012, 07:33 PM   #12
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,498
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschaffer66 View Post
Until they declare you a terrorist for disagreeing...
That is the danger.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2012, 06:38 AM   #13
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
It could go lower, just look at Congresses approval rating.
Oh yeah.

In this case though his base would have been happy and his opposition unhappy. His numbers would probably have gone up a few points.

Political theatre.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2012, 09:04 PM   #14
Rockstar
sɐƃǝʌ sɐן
 
Rockstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-25-07
Location: Taylor,Mi
Posts: 8,504
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Sorry the dick ride is closed for the rest of the day!! You'll have to find someone else's nuts to jump on....
Rockstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.96017 seconds with 63 queries