Every lawmaker that voted Yes on this bill should be brought up on treason...toss in Obama for good measure.
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
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
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.
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
Because the Ends justify the Means, like any good police state.
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 Presidents expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the Presidents 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 doesnt 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. Feinsteins 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 countrys 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 NDAAs backers succeeded in part because of the bills 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 countrys constitutional rights to block the NDAAs dangerous detention provision. Once the American public sees for itself whats included in the NDAA, Im confident they will demand we do so.