Posted on 01/01/2014 5:17:37 AM PST by IbJensen
Not quite. The National Defense Appropriations. Act would be the budget. Each year if the process is working normally, the policy objectives established by Congress end up in the Authorization Act and the money gets allocated via the Appropriations Act. A lot of stupidity makes its way into both, but the Authorizations Act is typically both more dangerous and a direct break on some of the political social experiments that might otherwise occur without oversight.
I should have been more clear.
The HAC and SAC (appropriators) independently work on their own version of the NDAA/Act/Bill. The HASC and SASC (authorizers) independently work on their own version.
After approval by their respective chambers, the HAC/SAC get together to work out their budget difference, and after approval by their respective chambers, the HASC/SASC work out their budget differences.
After that, the House and Senate versions of the military’s Authorization and Appropriations budgets are debated in conference committee where horse-trading takes place and a final, single version of the Act/Bill is agreed. Once agreed it is sent to the House and Senate for final approval (both chambers must approve, word-for-word, the same piece of legislation.)
A single NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) is sent to the president for his action. From the FY13 Act, it states: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled” (It is a joint bill sent to the president.)
Indeed, the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act (pg 1) states: “This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Defense AUTHORIZATION Act for Fiscal Year” and goes on to say; “To authorize APPROPRIATIONS for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.” (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf).
So, as you can see, there is no National Defense Appropriations Act, just a single National Defense Authorization Act.
In my experience, during negotiations, the appropriators hold real power and the authorizers ‘recede’ to the appropriators when it comes down to it.
I am sure my detailed response was not necessary for you, but given most people never really are exposed to the budget-building process, I thought a primer was good to have.
To me, it is a very complicated and hard to explain process. It is maddening, actually. Oh, and like all things ‘government,’ some of the process may be modified or adjusted from time to time.
Cheers.
Red Hampshire...one of the most heavily-regulated states in the Union...hardly 'free'.
Spot on.
Yes, there definitely was something nefarious attached to it in 2012.
Unlimited detention of American citizens on domestic soil, with no recourse to an attorney. This part of the act has continued in 2013 and 2014.
I’m surprised this was not mentioned.
Not only was it not mentioned, but there is an attempt on this thread to hang all of this around the neck of George W. Bush.
When people became concerned with this part of the act, Obama at first said he wouldn’t sign it. It was passed. He signed it. He then said he wouldn’t enforce it. All those who believe him, raise your hand.
Some prominent left-leaning people brought a suit against this part of the act in New York City in 2012. The judge rulsed against them.
Congressman Amash has been the leading opponent of this provision.
It was until the liberals moved in from NY, Mass, Del, NJ and brought their politics with them.
>>NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, the defense budget, the military’s budget.<<
I’m pretty sure everyone already knows that. The legislation contained within the NDAA over the last few years is what’s got folks up in arms.
Yep, indefinite detention, (and picked up and incarerated by our own military is permitted), of American citizens with the Feds not required to render ANY due process. Any ‘terroristic’ activity, (Remember VP Biden said the Tea Party were terrorists), as deemed by the Feds, is what can result in indefinite detention. This is a Nazi Germany style thing that after 2 years now still has not hit home for most Americans. ANYONE who supports this is no Conservative. (Including my former favorite, Allen West, who voted for it, along with many other Republicans). This is not tin foil stuff. This really passed. First on a late night 12/31/2011, (Yep, New Years Eve!!!), vote if I remember right.
I understand. I was responding to a post wherein the person was asking what “NDAA” was.
Regarding “The legislation contained within the NDAA over the last few years is what’s got folks up in arms.”
I read the legislation and to me I find a lot of angst over a non-issue.
When I am being told something I usually try to find the source document and read it myself. In this case I did and find protections remain.
Consider, from the referenced NDAA, “LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS, SUBTITLE D—COUNTERTERRORISM, Section 1033—Habeas Corpus Rights:” “This section would state that nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40).”
Oh. . .and if you can direct me to the section that states US citizens are liable for indefinite detention and other such threats, please do, as I want to read it and mark for reference. Thanks.
“The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled ‘Counter-Terrorism’, authorizing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil.”
—from Wikipedia
The only false statement I see in this is the mention of “wide attention.” Sections 1021 and 1022 have not gotten nearly the amount of attention they should have received.
Almost everyone I speak to about this has never heard of it. In a meeting of fairly well-informed people not too long ago, the fight against the NSA surveillance got lots of applause, and when the next sentence was spoken, about the fight against unlimited detention of Americans, only one person clapped, followed belatedly by some others.
Thanks.
I really don’t go to wiki and I don’t use them as source material. I look for the source document itself. I appreciate the effort, of course.
The final paragraph of my post comes from the source document and contrary to the hype, it points out that US citizen rights are protected.
The final paragraph of my post quotes: “LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS, SUBTITLE D—COUNTERTERRORISM, Section 1033—Habeas Corpus Rights:” “This section would state that nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40).”
The sections you reference, 1021-1022, are interesting.
Sec 1021 addresses “Extension of authority to make rewards for combating terrorism.”
It states: “(a) EXTENSION.—Section 127b(c)(3)(C) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2014’’.
(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that outlines the future requirements and authorities to make rewards for combating terrorism. The report shall include—(1) an analysis of future requirements under section 127b of title 10, United States Code; (2) a detailed description of requirements for rewards in support of operations with allied forces; and (3) an overview of geographic combatant commander requirements through September 30, 2014.
As far as I can tell, no controversy there.
And Sec 1022 addresses; “Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”
It states: “(a) IN GENERAL.—No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.
(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not
apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO DEFINED.—In this
section, the term ‘‘individual detained at Guantanamo’’ has the meaning given that term in section 1028(f)(2).
As far as I can tell, this section stops the president from closing gitmo or transferring the slim from gitmo to the US. So, no controversy there.
Now, Sec 1028: “REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION,
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.” With Sec 1028(f)(2) stating: “includes an assessment, in classified or unclassified form, of the capacity, willingness, and past practices (if applicable) of the foreign country or entity in relation to the Secretary’s certifications.”
Can’t see controversy there.
Unless there is another part of the source document that says otherwise, I go with the plainly written words in Sec 1033—”nothing shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus” to US citizens.
I think what we see/hear is the usual, and much needed, critical eye on the government examining potential areas of abuse. What I also see/hear, is a section that is clearly written to go after terrorist slim and protect US citizen rights-—but the section protecting the rights of US citizens is conveniently over-looked for some reason.
Therefore, I hypothesize, people are now reacting to alleged abuse written into the NDAA rather than challenging what others are telling them what to feel. I bristle at being told what to think about anything so I read source materials to find out if what I am being told is true or not.
I am tired of hype and over-heated rhetoric spewed for whatever aim. It baffles me why, with source materials out there, more people aren’t engaging in critical thinking; we presume the worst from our government (of course, as we should), but somehow we do not presume others may have their own agendas at play and therefore they are willingly misled when those nefarious people manipulate them for their own ends.
Cheers.
According to the article, this was first in the 2012 NDAA, renewed by the 2014 NDAA sent to Obama for his signature. I just don’t see how GW Bush signed the 2012 bill and I’m pretty sure it won’t go to his desk for signature this year either.
It passed unanimously here in Michigan.
Senate Bill 94: Prohibit Michigan National Guard executing federal “indefinite detention”
Passed 35 to 0 in the Senate on December 11, 2013, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
See Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” at http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=676539
I’d stand in that line as long as it took. Then I’d tell the folks behind the counter to go f*** themselves.
The only thing missing in that photo is the border collies.
The law contradicts itself. That is what the controversy is about. That was what the lawsuit in NYC was about. Who knows which part of it will be taken seriously? Why add that amendment if the law was clear without it?
I’d like to ask Allen West why he voted in favor. Maybe he was misled along with many other congressmen.
Police using lawful gun ownership as an excuse for “No Knock” home invasions
by Coach Collins
by Doug Book, editor
Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “...must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”
In August of 2006, police in Collin County, Texas obtained a warrant to search the home of John Quinn based on information that Quinn’s son might be keeping a controlled substance on the premises. Although the warrant “...did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry,” the County SWAT Team broke through Quinn’s door unannounced, “...based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household.” Not aware of who had broken into his home, the suddenly awakened Quinn was shot by officers as he grabbed a nearby gun for the purpose of defending his life, family and property. All firearms in the home were legally owned by Quinn. Police discovered less than 1 gm of cocaine on the premises.
When Quinn took the Collin County SWAT Team to court for ignoring the terms of the search warrant by turning it into a “No Knock” warrant, the court ruled that “...because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.” In short, a judge decided John Quinn represented a criminal danger based upon the legal exercise of his 2nd amendment rights.
The Rutherford Institute has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Quinn case, writing to the Court that:
“...in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.”
The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that law enforcement may NOT look upon the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights as an inference of guilt. For example, police may NOT presume that because an individual asserts his right to remain silent or speak with an attorney, he is deserving of additional suspicion of guilt.
Should Americans who exercise their God given, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms be refused the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? The suggestion by law enforcement, courts or lawmakers that the exercise of one constitutionally protected right should somehow render an American ineligible for the free exercise of—or protection guaranteed by—another right is despicable, disgraceful and a thoroughly unconstitutional assault on each of us.
Law enforcement has been given the “legal” authority to view Texas gun owners as potential criminals and to treat them accordingly. Every armed Texan is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Does this mean police may legally gun down the holder of a Concealed Carry license on sight, based on the belief that being armed makes such a person likely to kill an officer?
Courts have dramatically weakened our 4th Amendment protections during the past several decades. If this trend is not reversed, open warfare will eventually become the only means of reclaiming lost liberty.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Additional reading:
http://www.examiner.com/article/government-violations-of-4th-amendment-tsa-airport-procedures
Thank you.
I am not sure where the law contradicts itself and can’t find quotes or exact references. Would you be able to help?
Again, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.