Posted on 12/17/2011 11:36:51 AM PST by appeal2
There's been a lot of controversy in the non-mainstream media concerning the latest iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, specifically the provisions of Senate Bill 1867 (Indefinite Detention). The law was passed by the full congress after several modifications concerning detention of enemy combatants. Without a full reading of the full statute, I too was alarmed, especially after it was passed with so little fanfare. However, this controversy appears to be much ado about nothing. A closer examination reveals that this is effectively a modification of the orginial Authorization to Use Military Force that was passed on September 18, 2011, in the aftermath of the 9-11 Attacks. The language of the statute deals directly with al Qaeda and Tale-ban members/associates. There appears to be nothing in the statute to expand it's applicability to members of FreeRepublic.com, RedState.com or other right thinking sites. While there certainly is a potential for abuse, as we have witnessed with the Patriot Act on numerous occasions, on its face this law doesn't appear to be the final death knell to the US Constitution.
Key words are “Not Yet Repealed”. Just as the Supreme Court finally recognizing the 2nd amendment as protecting gun ownership does not mean government isn’t thinking of ways to ban them, so this altered bill doesn’t mean big brother isn’t scheming to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If there is potential for abuse, abuse there will be.
The NDAA is an unlawful “Bill of Attainder”.
Look it up!!
There's been a lot of controversy in the non-mainstream media concerning the latest iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, specifically the provisions of Senate Bill 1867 (Indefinite Detention). The law was passed by the full congress after several modifications concerning detention of enemy combatants. Without a full reading of the full statute, I too was alarmed, especially after it was passed with so little fanfare. However, this controversy appears to be much ado about nothing. A closer examination reveals that this is effectively a modification of the orginial Authorization to Use Military Force that was passed on September 18, 2011, in the aftermath of the 9-11 Attacks. The language of the statute deals directly with al Qaeda and Tale-ban members/associates. There appears to be nothing in the statute to expand it's applicability to members of FreeRepublic.com, RedState.com or other right thinking sites. While there certainly is a potential for abuse, as we have witnessed with the Patriot Act on numerous occasions, on its face this law doesn't appear to be the final death knell to the US Constitution.Just don't brandish a slice of pizza that has bites out of it so that it resembles the silhouette of a gun.
I’m no lawyer, nor do I hire people to interpret these things, but I have been reading it for 2 days. My eyes are about to bleed.
I’ve performed about 20 careful cross-references in that time, and the whole thing confuses the hell out of me.
What I find disturbing (This is not the first time this has happened) is how the government can, and does, sign into LAW that suppliers to the government (Boeing, for instance) CAN NOT charge them more, and must fulfill contracts (Which are already lowest-bidder) out of their own pocket. I would be pissed if my client passed a law to protect himself, instead of just shopping elsewhere or accepting reasonable expectations.
That’s not the reference.
The reference is that the law says basically you can be branded as an “enemy combatant” and that would be a crime, you can then be detained, AND YOU DON’T GET A TRIAL!
That’s a Bill of Attainder. The legislature CANNOT, no matter how much it might want to, bypass the Courts.
Separation of powers and all that jazz.
http://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/we-must-inform-ourselves/96-no-more-lies-just-liberty
I haven’t tortured myself by reading it, but my understanding is that the government has carte blanche to define “enemy combatant”. Once done, you can be detained at will.
As we have noticed, since 9/11 the government has broadened the definition of terrorist to include a wide range of behaviors and acts that have no logical connection to “terrorism”.
So, IMO, by being the final arbitrator of how terms are defined, the federal government can pretty much piss on the Bill of Rights at will. While all the time claiming it is only targeting “enemy combatants”.
Hauling people away in the middle of the night and sticking them in Gulags? Err, I mean “camps”?
Believe one thing, because it ALWAYS happens.
If we go on this path, the Killing Fields just like Cambodia are not far behind.
Not far at all.
It is a Bill of Attainder and a violation of Habeas Corpus.
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.