[moovova]

Every lawmaker that voted Yes on this bill should be brought up on treason...toss in Obama for good measure.

[emax]

Here are some alternative looks at the bill:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/rest-of-what-senator-levin-said.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/11/1044215/-The-Rest-of-What-Levin-Said-on-NDAA-Provisions

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nt77r/the_14_senators_who_voted_against_ndaa_all_the/c3brs66

And Marco Rubio, respected as a true defender of US liberty here, defends it:

http://government.brevardtimes.com/2011/12/senator-marco-rubio-defends-ndaa.html

[Talisker]

Essentially, Congress has granted the President the power to ignore the Bill of Rights and detain Americans without due process.

Which brings up the essential question - if Congress passes an unconstitutional law, is it valid?

The law these days operates with blinders so severe they look like welder's goggles. As long as the immediately-previous legal link is remotely justifiable, the progression of law-creation proceeds unabated.

But we're at the point where the passengers are being ordered off the ship into the sea during a storm because theory predicts the ship will weather the storm better without passengers. All the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, and the captain has the order in his hand - but no one is asking what the purpose of the ship is.

[ILS21R]

And....

Department Of Homeland Security Scanning Twitter and Facebook For “Sensitive Words”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827356/posts

For all you Facebook junkies out there...lol

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Because the Ends justify the Means, like any good police state.

[drypowder]

Obviously those in DC are quite aware of the people's discontent (anger) over how they have broken this country essentially for their own self interests. This detention clause is more of their same self preserving legislation and really speaks to their elitism to establish every means of protection from the people by eroding the liberty of the people. Human history repeating. NOTE; a primary way to CONTROL livestock is to make them dependent by the routine appeasement of food.

[ILS21R]

The Truth About the New Detainee Policy in the NDAA
by Justin Amash on Friday, December 16, 2011 at 4:57pm

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.