Quote
dollabill
hmm didn't work for me... can you just do a CTRL+F for nazi for me?

can you nazi for yourself?

---

don't clap between movements

Quote
Kathaariancode
Thanks for posting that! Glad to see for certain that the detainee provisions won't affect US citizens.

your welcome...but actually the npr article is false, the amendment to remove the parts of the ndaa that stated that a us citizen could be indefinitely detained without trial was defeated 2-1, there is the curious wording on page 430: "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—10 (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."
this is like asking if robbing a bank is illegal and being told "it isn't required that you rob a bank",
and in other parts of the ndaa it casts a wide net for who can be indefinitely detained without trial without making any exception for american citizens, and it passed on dec. 15, the 220th anniv. of the passing of the bill of rights, WTF!!
[www.examiner.com]
[www.thenewamerican.com]
[www.fox19.com]

That's exactly the part I thought had been added as an amendment, and that's some tricky wording. I wish this bill would've received more media attention, its really sort of scary how little coverage this bill got, and what's even more scary is a government with the powers of SOPA and the NDAA.

What about part (e) of 1031 then? Does the part about "existing law" include constitutional protections against the detainment of US citizens?

The part I'm referring to:
(e) 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.

Also: Suddenly hoping rather strongly Ron Paul receives the nomination for the GOP ticket. Else there will definitely be one more vote for Mickey Mouse come November of 2012.

Quote
Kathaariancode
What about part (e) of 1031 then? Does the part about "existing law" include constitutional protections against the detainment of US citizens?

The part I'm referring to:
(e) 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.

Also: Suddenly hoping rather strongly Ron Paul receives the nomination for the GOP ticket. Else there will definitely be one more vote for Mickey Mouse come November of 2012.

this is confusing also, it seems to contradict other parts of the bill, i think what it is referring to is that the executive branch has ultimate authority in these matters and that this bill doesn't challenge that authority: [www.gpo.gov]
also, i definitely hope ron paul wins the nomination, i voted for obama in 08 but now i feel like i was duped and that he was sold out to the bankers and globalists all along

[www.salon.com]
this is the best article on all of this i've come across, it explains the differences between the 2001 AUMF and the new ndaa

You lost me at Hitler's brain.

---

We belong dead.
[www.last.fm]
[sordidalley.blogspot.com]
[popwreckoning.com]
[blog.kexp.org]

Quote
hexakosioi
[www.salon.com]
this is the best article on all of this i've come across, it explains the differences between the 2001 AUMF and the new ndaa

That does quite a bit to clarify for me, thanks for posting! It also exposes one of the unintended benefits of the bill. As the writer explains, the bill gives the President powers of detainees that the Obama and Bush administration have argued were inferred by the AUMF since it's passage, but having that clause written in law gives the Supreme Court to check the constitutionality of the law if it so desires.

Quote
Kathaariancode

Quote
hexakosioi
[www.salon.com]
this is the best article on all of this i've come across, it explains the differences between the 2001 AUMF and the new ndaa

That does quite a bit to clarify for me, thanks for posting! It also exposes one of the unintended benefits of the bill. As the writer explains, the bill gives the President powers of detainees that the Obama and Bush administration have argued were inferred by the AUMF since it's passage, but having that clause written in law gives the Supreme Court to check the constitutionality of the law if it so desires.

your welcome, i didn't think about the supreme court having that power, hopefully they will use it, i've been reading alot about this bill, it really is scary all these powers were given contradicting the bill of rights, i hope nothing bad comes of it, innocence until proven guilty and a fair trial are such a central part of a free society it's really disturbing they now have stuff like this passed into law

I think anyone who is familiar with my posts here knows what I think about this.

---

[hackberrygarage.tumblr.com]
[eavesdroppingvulpine.tumblr.com]

go congress!