Replies

Thank you for answering what I did not ask for.

I asked for a direct link to the actual legislation and you provided a link to the Huffington Post (some commentator) telling you what to feel. I asked for the actual legislation, facts, and you mistakenly provided a link to a commentary.

But no matter, if you wish to feel what the HP or other want you to feel, instead of reading and thinking about for yourself, great, have at it. (It is clear you never read the legislation yourself and instead choose to let others tell you what to think).

Others may not wish to be misled.

For those that want to read the actual legislation rather than be willingly misled, I provide the actual legislation and relevant parts that prove—prove—that US citizens can’t be held indefinitely/scooped up off the street.

Looking in the FY12 NDAA, I found an interesting Section (Title X General Provisions). It is in this section we find what is causing the reactions we are observing.

Subsection D-Counterterrorism, para C (1), pg 1562
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf).

In the FY12 NDAA, the relevant Section reads:

Subsection D – Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

. . .thus far. Sec 1021, c(1), appears to support your case. . .but not:

In the next paragraph, 1021 e, it clearly and plainly states:

“(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.”

And, very important to note,
“(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Well. . .what about that.

So, Americans can’t be snatched up off the street and held indefinitely. It plainly says so.

And in the FY13 NDAA ((http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf)):

SEC. 1029. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED.
Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 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 or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.”

In plain language it is clear US citizens can’t be scooped up and held indefinitely.

I say again, the US government is prohibited, in plain language from scooping up American citizens and holding them “indefinitely.” (Like for POWs of any war)

Why aren’t more Americans reading for themselves what the law says in plain language? Lazy, perhaps? Rather be told what to think? Too willing to follow what others are telling them what to feel as long as what they are being told is bug-a-boo about the military (you know, the same military they thank for their service).

What we see/hear is the usual, and much needed, critical eye on the government examining potential areas of abuse but being manipulated for twisted ends, and those doing the twisting are confident that they won’t be found out because they believe Americans simply won’t take the time to educate themselves.

The ACLU and other anti-American scum hate the idea that we can hold terrorists for the duration so they are convincing a lot of otherwise sane Americans (that should know better) that they are just as much at risk of being squirreled away forever as Achmed the terrorist.

Basically, people are 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. In this case, even Ray Charles can see the whole alarmist thing is a scam to mislead people into backing anti-American scum.

We presume the worst from our government (of course, as we should), but somehow many do not presume others may have their own agendas at play.

It baffles me why, with source materials out there, more people aren’t engaging in critical thinking.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17296-michigan-passes-law-nullifying-ndaa-indefinite-detention
********************
After voting to oppose the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014 for that very reason, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) issued a statement explaining his vote. That statement begins:

Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process.

The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any president, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.
*************************
Michigan becomes just the second state — Virginia was first — to pass an act nullifying the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA. As The New American has reported, there are several states and local governments considering similar measures.
****************************************
On December 9, a Missouri lawmaker joined the fight against the federal government’s assault on liberty. As reported by the Tenth Amendment Center:
****************************

And perhaps you didn’t realize that obama just signed the new NDAA for 2014 while on vacation in Hawaii, which means just a few days ago. Catch up.
If doj decides you might be a terrorist. who you gonna appeal to?
Maybe you didn’t notice that it took a Rand Paul filibuster to get holder to admit that US Citizens could be targeted by drones on US soil.
Maybe you didn’t notice that just over the weekend, obama used executive orders to allow mental health issues which has been prohibited BY LAW from being reported to be now used in background gun checks and ‘clarified’ by doj.
How much protection do you think you are going to receive from this government of the criminals, by the criminals, for the criminals?
If obama decides the TEA Party is a terrorist organization and the doij ‘clarifies’ it as such, where do you go for redress?