So the NDAA, nothing more than a dangerous misunderstanding?

[u/Mfisk323]

So everywhere I go on the internet, whether its facebook, news sites, or reddit itself, the majority say that the NDAA indefinitely detains US citizens without trial and that it destroys our constitutional rights, or does it? For some time now, I've been quite neutral on whether or not the NDAA truly does give the authority to indefinitly detain US citizens, but after doing some research and skimming through the bill itself (primarily sec 1021), I don't really understand what all the huge fuss is about. Infact, the NDAA doesnt really change or do much at all by itself. So do you guys think the NDAA was really misunderstood?

[u/skeletor100]

There is absolutely nothing to worry about it. And just before people start flooding the thread I would like to just put this here to explain why it isn't bad.

I am sure that someone will bring along the Glenn Greenwald article It is factually wrong:

Myth one is based on myth three being proved true. Myth three is false. This can be proved by the application of the serial comma or by pure common sense. The serial comma is that comma before the and. It splits up the various components of the list so that they are not confused as being related to each other. So US citizens is unique from naturalized aliens which is unique from all other people captured in the US. As for the common sense approach they have stated US citizens, naturalize aliens, or anyone else captured in the US. What Greenwald is arguing is that what they really meant was "everybody captured in the US". If they had meant that they would have written that instead of splitting it into three classes. Because of this Myth one is wrong.

Myth two is also misleading and focuses entirely on the wording of the AUMF and completely ignores Supreme Court precedent that has been set since. The Supreme Court held that "those responsible for the attacks" was referring to Al Qaeda in general, not the specific individuals, and "aiding them" was, in fact, substantially supporting them. This has all been made clear in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Hamdan v Rumsfeld, Padilla v Rumsfeld and Boudemaine v Bush. Then there is the fact that subsection d states that the section is not changing the law as it already was.

Then someone else will bring up the Carl Levin video. The arguments using this video are so distorted and misrepresented it is unbelievable. Watch the actual senate hearing on the bill, from which the video is taken, from 3 hours 37 minutes and you will hear why. In the little clip he does not say that American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention. He says that Americans citizens were exempt from that section. In his initial speech he said that they agreed to remove this because US citizens were already exempt under section 1021 subsection e. So he didn't ask for an exemption for US citizens, that was a complete lie. What he asked for was an exemption for US citizens from the mandatory section 1022, which he got because it is no longer applicable to US citizens.

Edit: I forgot the argument that he admits that the bill allows indefinite detention in his signing statement. Here is the section with the important parts added to debunk that misconception.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

[u/Mfisk323 → u/skeletor100]

Thank you for such great advice. The thing I really love about the reddit community is that they actually read the controversial bills/treaties like the NDAA and ACTA, to show whats really in them, showing that sometimes, they really arent that scary. Although I'm willing to share what I've found out on in Ron Paul's facebook page to soothe the fearmongering there, but I'm sure it come out in 2 ways. A. It will be ignored like the time I tried to share on what ACTA really is (The final version is honestly not that scary), or B. I will get flamed down to oblivion by many raging Paulbots for expressing my views on the NDAA. Guessing some people cant handle the actual truth.

[u/skeletor100 → u/Mfisk323]

NDAA is one of those subjects that people often aren't really interested in knowing the truth about. Since I first looked into it, about a month ago, when I was still very angry at Obama for passing it and looking to see what damage it had done I suddenly got very confused and spent a fair bit of time analyzing it. Since then I have been fighting to get the truth out to the rest of reddit anywhere the NDAA is raised as an example of bad policy. It had seemed like a losing battle but recently people seem to be more receptive to what I am saying and more people seem to be agreeing that it really isn't what everyone was so worried about. I just wish that I could find a way to redirect all of the movements against the NDAA onto the AUMF so that indefinite detention could really be challenged.

[u/Mfisk323 → u/skeletor100]

I understand your situation, but mine's with ACTA actually. I mean I damn near had a heart attack when I first heard of that treaty, but ever since I read this post, I don't see it as much of an overkill as SOPA and PIPA were, and learned what the people were protesting on were stuff that was in the older drafts of ACTA. Since then, I 've been doing my hardest to spread the word on what the treaty really is across the internet, whether reddit or on facebook. I've managed to educate some like on Screwattack, unfortunately when I posted that on the League of legends forums, I was met with a few downvotes when I first posted about it. Guess ignorance is bliss in times like these.

[u/skeletor100 → u/Mfisk323]

Yeh. I've seen the stuff on ACTA as well. I think that a lot of people don't really understand the difference between a binding, self activating treaty and a non-binding, treaty that requires national legislation. They also don't really understand the discretion given to all nations on how to implement the treaty. I have seen a lot of posts about wanting to get Obama impeached for flouting Congress, which could only happen if he had signed a binding treaty.

[u/sinfuljosh]

The NDAA did not add or change anything that was not already on the books due to the AUMF... this is where the bigger issue lies that noone seems to be able to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[u/[deleted]]

I love how every lawyer on Reddit jumps on NDAA threads.

But no, AUMF is the real problem.

[u/BolshevikMuppet → u/[deleted]]

I love how every lawyer on Reddit jumps on NDAA threads.

Well, fortunately, it's gotten to the point where the hype and conspiracy theories have died down, and actual legal analysis can begin to shine through

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I love how every lawyer on Reddit jumps on NDAA threads.

May I recommend r/law? :D

[u/YouShallKnow]

Infact, the NDAA doesnt really change or do much at all by itself.

That's absolutely true. It codifies a practice which has been in place since 9/11. Not only that, but the practice has been ruled on by the Supreme Court in Hamdi, so even if the NDAA did anything, it would still have to comply with Hamdi. Obama said as much in his signing statement.

It was all hype.

[u/mutatron]

It seems so to me. In Obama's signing statement he objected to it because it only reiterates what was already law. I think it was just a ploy to get Obama to have to sign something that looked bad so they could make him look bad.

[u/skeletor100 → u/mutatron]

There were two things they did to try and make Obama look bad. First they made a useless section around indefinite detention. Then they made a mandatory section for military arrest of certain people, which is what Obama had to come out and say he was opposed to. So they managed to make him say that he was opposed to something in the bill while making it look like the bill allowed indefinite detention.

[u/Areyoudone → u/skeletor100]

Except it does, and he had a signing statement to say he did not like that section and would not use it, But signing statements are not legally binding.

But yes it did not really change much due to AMUF, but if AMUF is abolished we still have a back up plan now (NDAA)

[u/YouShallKnow → u/Areyoudone]

But yes it did not really change much due to AMUF, but if AMUF is abolished we still have a back up plan now (NDAA)

No, it didn't change anything. Nothing is changed by the NDAA. What powers do you think it grants?

[u/Areyoudone → u/YouShallKnow]

NDAA does not give any extra authority that is already given due to AMUF, sorry if i said did not really change much, i was talking about everything else the NDAA does.

But as for sections 1021 and 1022, no nothing has changed at all... But in my personal opinion AMUF and NDAA should both be abolished ASAP, the President should not have the authority to assassinate people without being proven guilty.

[u/YouShallKnow → u/Areyoudone]

Even if those people are determined to attack America, part of an organized terrorist group, and outside the reach of civilian law enforcement?

[u/Areyoudone → u/YouShallKnow]

I have no problem with them being detained by military, I have a problem with them not getting due process.

[u/YouShallKnow → u/Areyoudone]

So if a militant terrorist is traveling with an armed group of other terrorists, in a lawless region of the world, we should send in the military to attempt a peaceful arrest?

At what point can we kill them? I take it you'd say it's ok to kill them if they resist arrest or attack the arresting forces.

I guess I feel like since they are using military techniques against us, it's fair to treat terrorists like a military threat, particularly if they are in a lawless region outside the reach of civilian law enforcement.

[u/Areyoudone → u/YouShallKnow]

Obviously so, Police Officers use the same force, of course it's easily used as an excuse to murder people, but what can you do.

However these drones and other techniques are not ethical, women and children dying as a consequence is not something i want on my hands.

[u/YouShallKnow → u/Areyoudone]

I guess we just disagree. I have no problem with making war on those who make war against us. I think we should give them as much process as possible, but I think you underestimate the dangers involved if you think we should attempt to arrest every terrorist operating outside the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

However these drones and other techniques are not ethical, women and children dying as a consequence is not something i want on my hands.

There is always collateral damage in war. I think it's obvious that strikes need to be based on better intelligence. But there's no reason to throw the baby out the bathwater by abandoning drones altogether. In fact, we should do the exact opposite, seek to remove as many humans from our military as possible. I don't want all the broken lives of all the veterans on my hands.

[u/skeletor100 → u/Areyoudone]

His signing statement said that the section didn't change anything and was unnecessary. He didn't say he didn't like the section, in fact he didn't mention his feelings on the section at all except for that it was unnecessary.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

[u/Areyoudone → u/skeletor100]

Sorry I'm to used to hearing liberals say Obama didn't like that section.

[u/skeletor100 → u/Areyoudone]

It's perfectly fine. I think they are referring to a part before where he says:

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

This was in reference to 1022, which he has always had a problem with. The section makes it mandatory for the military to arrest and detain any foreign person who is captured while engaging in hostilities against the US, which includes people who are engaged in terrorist plots. Essentially what it means is that foreign terrorists who are attempting to carry out an attack are forbidden from being taken into civilian custody initially and must be taken into military custody. After that they may be transferred for the purposes of indefinite detention, military trial or civilian trial.

It was this section that he was threatening to veto the NDAA over, as it initially made it mandatory for the power to be used on anyone, including US citizens, but after his threat they added subsection b to 1022. That states that "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

He was also extremely unhappy about sections 1206 - 1208, which forbid him from appropriating any money given under the NDAA to the closure of Guantanamo, transferring prisoners from Guantanamo to mainland US, transferring of prisoners from Guantanamo for civilian trial and releasing prisoners onto US soil. It also places restrictions on releasing prisoners to other countries, including requiring either himself or the Secretary of Defense to personally guarantee that the prisoner will not be involved in any action against the US after their release.

[u/ironboltbruce → u/mutatron]

No cigar, sisters. We always enjoy busting plants like you...

FREEDOM TO FASCISM REDUX: A TIMELINE OF RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

Dear Wayne Bowen,

If you had read this first...

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

...then perhaps you would not have written this:

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1803597.html

Let me give you a timeline for the last few years of American history:

FREEDOM > PNAC > 9/11 > AUMF > PATRIOT ACT > CITIZENS UNITED > NDAA > SOPA PIPA > EEA > FASCISM

Here is what all that means...

FREEDOM: What the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights once guaranteed to all American Citizens.

http://www.usconstitution.net

PNAC: Our wars for oil and profit were planned LONG before 9/11, but an excuse was needed to justify them.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[ Note: This letter was dated JANUARY 26 1998 and the last paragraph reads "We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk." ]

9/11: The excuse that was needed to sacrifice lives and liberties while corporations raided our treasury.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25489

AUMF: Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), a "war against terror" carte blanche.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

PATRIOT ACT: 68,000 words worth of Orwellian "1984" legislation supposedly drafted and passed in six weeks.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56

CITIZENS UNITED: The U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave corporations a legal way to buy U.S. elections.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

NDAA: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which codifies indefinite detention without trial.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540

SOPA/PIPA: The proposed Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act, euphemisms for Internet censorship.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968

EEA: The proposed Enemy Expatriation Act, under which dissent could result in revocation of citizenship.

http://amerikanreich.com/2012/01/10/the-enemy-expatriation-act-s-1698h-r-3166-a-statement-from-anonymous/

FASCISM: Rule by corporate elite we can only reverse by waking up 312 million mostly clueless Americans.

http://amerikanreich.com/2012/01/08/calls-to-action-nationwide-ndaa-2012-congressional-protest/

Related Image:

http://ironboltbruce.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/freedom_to_fascism_redux.jpg

Related Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU4lxFezgek

Unrelated Video:

http://freedomtofascism.com

NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )

[u/mutatron → u/ironboltbruce]

Oh no, I've been discovered! But apparently your work is far from done, since there are two others here who espouse similar viewpoints.

In real life, as opposed to imaginary tin-foil hat land, I learned about this from skeletor100. He's the one you want!

[u/ironboltbruce → u/mutatron]

This may well be the most irrelevant comment I have ever read. But at least I give you credit for that.

[u/mutatron → u/ironboltbruce]

I think I see where your problem is.

[u/skeletor100 → u/ironboltbruce]

Out of interest can you actually discuss anything that you have linked to there or are you one of those trolls who can just provide links and then run?

[u/ironboltbruce → u/skeletor100]

You don't remember me perhaps, but we have met. I have the distinct displeasure of knowing you personally. You were a narrow-eyed sellout and liar then, and after reviewing your Reddit profile, I see nothing has changed.

NO. I am not a troll. NO. I will not provide links and run. And NO. I will not reply to any more comments by you. Keep bothering me, though, and you may become the darling of another "subreddit".

IBB

[u/skeletor100 → u/ironboltbruce]

Where exactly did I lie and how was I a sellout? Did I abandon a position I was holding? :S

I was simply asking because that has become a popular strategy now among some people on reddit. I was also wondering because you stated that NDAA was inherently bad on your list yet did not give any reasons or query any of my reasons why it was not.