Obama Signs Martial Law Bill: NDAA Now Law

[Guest ThePunisher]

Yeah, but we're not all criminals yet. Working on it daily, though.

- OS

We're not the criminals, but the politicians and government beauracrats are sure looking and acting like criminals.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Look. Every time a law is passed, it's intent

is to criminalize someone's behavior. I don't

know how everyone else feels about this, but

I question every law that gets passed.

If you value what freedom you have, you would

do the same.

We are already living in what is beginning to

resemble a police state and some think " Aww,

your bashing cops again", which I think is hilarious,

but this gradual creep of rights lost starts to

become obvious after a while. That just tells me

how numbed some people have become.

Just an observation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good observation. There are many in this country not just numbed, but totally brain dead.

[Moped]

We're not the criminals...

YET!!!

[Oh Shoot]

We're not the criminals, but the politicians and government beauracrats are sure looking and acting like criminals.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand

[mav]

You know what find amazing is how many people will bitch about laws like these, but yet will vote for the very same politicians (even in the primaries) who support such legislation. Does anyone honestly think Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum , etc... would actually veto a bill like this?

[kieefer]

The Storm Troopers were going to knock down our doors when the Patriot Act was signed too weren't they?

Bottom line is that the Congress passed this bill, that's the real problem isn't it? If you want freedom and liberty, find out who you're sending to Washington. Sure, RP would have vetoed it like every other bill he sees except for those earmarks that supports his state of course, but really, it wouldn't have gotten to this point without a Senator. Who knows, there's probably a bill that already covers what's in this one.

Presidential elections seem to get everybody riled up but its ALL ELECTIONS that folks need to pay attention to.

cliff note version - Senate passes National Defense Authorization Act | The Raw Story

actual bill - http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

[mav]

... but its ALL ELECTIONS that folks need to pay attention to.

I couldn't agree with you more, and am guilty of not doing that myself.

[macistan]

Just some background - the NDAA is passed annually, it contains nearly all funding for the military and veteran's support programs. Obama signed with statement (which presidents usually do when they disagree with a bill, but can't veto it because of the impact a veto would have). He was pretty much forced into a corner since the provisions we're all worried about were tacked onto a major, major bill at the end of the session when he couldn't send it back without shutting down the military and VA program funding for months. The signing statement's here: Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House but the jist is "Hey, we don't need those provisions and they're dangerous -- but I don't have a choice because if I don't sign this, we don't have a military."

Regardless of where you stand politically, it must be acknowledged that this isn't Obama's fault. He didn't ask for the provisions, they were forced onto the bill by Senators Carl Levin and John McCain. Remember: the President doesn't make laws, his job is to execute the laws that are on the books ("executive branch"). The law was created, written, and passed by the House and Senate. Be sure to make your voices heard by the appropriate people through letters and phone calls before the election, and take into consideration how your representatives voted when you hit the ballot box this year. Reps who supported the NDAA and indefinite holding of American citizens without due process in TN...

1. * Lamar Alexander [R]
   
2. * Bob Corker [R]
   
3. * Roe, Phil [R]
   
4. * Fleischmann, Chuck [R]
   
5. * DesJarlais, Scott [R]
   
6. * Cooper, Jim [D]
   
7. * Black, Diane [R]
   
8. * Blackburn, Marsha [R]
   
9. * Fincher, Stephen [R]
   

Only two of our Congressmen voted against it, Steve Cohen [D] and John Duncan [R]. One Republican and one Democrat stood alone from all their colleagues and voted to protect the Bill of Rights. Every other representative for the State of Tennessee voted against the fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights. Remember that on Election day. Preferably, remember it in a vocal manner that lets the candidate know why you voted the way you did. On a side note, Montana (God bless them!) have already launched a campaign to recall all their reps who supported the NDAA. Montanans Launch Recall Of State's Congressional Delegation Over Votes On NDAA, Indefinite Detention

[oldogy]

Why we need single item legislation.......Damn these rambling bills where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

oldogy

[Guest bkelm18]

I'm guessing none of you who are aghast by this law actually read any part of it? If you had, you would have seen the part where US citizens are exempt... GHASP. But that would mean those right wing propaganda spewing talking heads are full of ****! No! That can't be!

Seriously, this tin foil crap is really getting old. I've give up. Believe whatever you want.

[kieefer]

What, passed annually!

You mean those Ronulans had their panties in a wad again and attempted to hookwink us.

Too funny.

+1 macistan & bkelm18

[hornett22]

It's shocking to me how many here don't understand how these things work. Spend some time actually reading the bill and its amendments. You'll find it to be not quite what the loons are spewing. No storm troopers are going to be kicking down your door. You'll be ok.

Kinda like after Katrina?

[mav]

I'm guessing none of you who are aghast by this law actually read any part of it? If you had, you would have seen the part where US citizens are exempt... GHASP. But that would mean those right wing propaganda spewing talking heads are full of ****! No! That can't be!

Seriously, this tin foil crap is really getting old. I've give up. Believe whatever you want.

I certainly have not read the bill and I seriously doubt anyone else has read the entire 500 plus page bill. However, I have read the two sections 1021 and 1022 that raises questions for a lot of people.

[( 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.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend

to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to

the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States./QUOTE]

If you read both sections in their entirety, there is so much legalese that there is a lot of room for interpretation. The reason I point that out is Obama made the following statement yesterday.

I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. 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.

I really don't know what to make of his comment. It can be intrepreted several ways.

Look, I hate this conspiracy s*** probably as much as you do. My biggest problem with this law is that it legalizes indefinite detention. Future laws can broaden already existing legal powers that are used under the "war on terrorism." Definitions of of terrorism can change. There is the possibility that future laws could nullify the restrictions of this law regarding US citizens. We shouldn't forget that there were senators (McCain, Levin, etc...) that did not want any restrictions on indefinite detention.

So while Alex Jones takes it 10 steps too far as usual, this bill does broaden or add new powers that are very serious and should not be taken lightly or dismissed because of the ravings of a conspiracy theorist.

[Mike.357]

I totally agree with 6.8's comments about criminalizing, OS is spot on too.

I don't get much of anything congressman do. WTF? It so much seems like they are setting us all up.

Maybe this bill does not head us all to Gitmo, but darn how far is it from that?

I see threads and comments all the time where people talk about all the ammo or guns they want to stock up on. I came up today with the idea that I don't need much more than one magazine of ammo. If it takes more than that I am dead anyway.

When the jackbooted governers want us collected up for the common good we are as good as dead anyway. Your 52 guns and 18,000 rounds aren't going to do you any good.

And near as I can tell they do not need new laws to gather us all up. Arrest me and stick me in a cell, who is gonna stand up for me right now?

Edited January 2, 2012 by Mike.357
atrocious typing

[Lumber_Jack]

And near as I can tell they do not need new laws to gather us all up anyway. Arrest me and stick me in a cell, who is gonna stand up for me right now?

Truth

[Guest ThePunisher]

Kinda like after Katrina?

+1:up:

[Lumber_Jack]

The problem I have with the whole discussion is I can't listen to Alex Jones long enough to get the gist of the story. Every time I turn on his radio show I have a hard time not driving off a cliff.

There has to be a better proponent of liberty and source of information than him

Sent from my Mom's basement

[Guest ThePunisher]

The problem I have with the whole discussion is I can't listen to Alex Jones long enough to get the gist of the story. Every time I turn on his radio show I have a hard time not driving off a cliff.

There has to be a better proponent of liberty and source of information than him

Sent from my Mom's basement

The Democraps hate the conservative voices of truth. That is why they would like to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". If there is 4 more years, this will be on their agenda to get done as well as shut down the Internet.

[Lumber_Jack]

The Democraps hate the conservative voices of truth. That is why they would like to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". If there is 4 more years, this will be on their agenda to get done as well as shut down the Internet.

Alex Jones is far from the "voice of truth". Sure he speaks some truths about government, and laws, but he also thinks our drinking water is being poisoned.

I can't listen long enough to sort out the BS from the truth.

Sent from my Mom's basement

[JPR1959]

I certainly have not read the bill and I seriously doubt anyone else has read the entire 500 plus page bill. However, I have read the two sections 1021 and 1022 that raises questions for a lot of people.

Section 1022 pertains to MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS. I don't believe our government is going to detain law abiding citizens, at least I hope not.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm guessing none of you who are aghast by this law actually read any part of it? If you had, you would have seen the part where US citizens are exempt... GHASP. But that would mean those right wing propaganda spewing talking heads are full of ****! No! That can't be! Seriously, this tin foil crap is really getting old. I've give up. Believe whatever you want.

I certainly didn't say anything about or did I infer tinfoil was in order. It's the nonbeliever that uses terms like tinfoil, sticks his or her own head in the sand. The point I was trying to make is that we let these guys and gals in DC keep on making new law when old law is either enhanced or superceded. It becomes overwhelming at some point, probably fifty or sixty years ago and snares otherwise innocent people into criminals. Since you read the entire bill, I wouldn't dare argue any individual point with you, but did you find anything in it to your distaste? Evidently not. Did it broaden the power of the military at all on sovereign US soil in any way that could be used against a citizen of the US? I'll gladly take your word as gospel. Where did this gossip start from? I recall a video with McCain and Rand Paul debating it on the senate floor. Those are the only two talking heads I will refer to. Otherwise, I was referring to the many laws that get passed each year that are mostly unnecessary and adds to the expense side of our overall problem in this country. I personally wish that the Senate and the House were part time and a Budget was a requirement instead of this spendthrift bunch of bastards getting away with theft on the American people. I imagine there is plenty of crap buried in there(NDAA) to perpetuate the wrong part of military spending. You know, the pork, etc. But if you give the Congress and the White House a pass and let them just keep on enacting more laws, what do you really get? There comes a point in time where this stuff has to stop. And I would just as soon not let the politicians repeat history, which is what I see coming down the pike. OS, thanks for posting that quote:D Edited January 2, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[mav]

Section 1022 pertains to MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

Partially correct. Here is the exact wording of part of Section 1022

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under

section 1021 who is determined—

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

( to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

Section 1021

( 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.

Yes, this does apply to foreign Al Qaeda terrorists. However, this is also applicable to non-US citizens or illegal residents who are deemed terrorists and are captured on US soil. They do not have to be solely related to Al Qaeda nor do they have to be on foreign soil.

As I stated earlier, my problem with this bill is legalizing indefinite detention. Well... you can go back and read what I posted.

Edited January 2, 2012 by mav

[hornett22]

And yet our southern border still remains pretty much unregulated.

Bring our troops home,put them at the borders,arm them to the teeth,lock and load!

Edited January 2, 2012 by hornett22

[macistan]

The thing that bothers me the most is that people will see this, be horrified by it (or at least recognize its a step in the wrong direction), and instead of voting out the clowns who wrote and passed it, they'll vote for that rep to get another term because of some silly social issue that's not nearly as as important to the future of the Union as letting our Reps run wild -- letting them remove the checks and balances built into our system of government and letting them attack individual freedom under the guise of protecting us from terrorists, protecting copyright, stopping immigrants, or stopping criminals. So many people are perfectly fine with their Representatives sponsoring and writing laws that violate both the spirit and the letter of the Bill of Rights because that particular politician appears to have "good family values" or brings home a little pork or agrees with them on some pointless social issue.

If we keep voting in people based on smoke and mirrors issues like gay rights, abortion, union/labor, Israel, etc, etc - then they're going to keep passing laws that attack the core of our country because we aren't punishing them at the ballot box when they do it.

"Sure, they voted to strip away due process and the right to a trial...but the other guy would let gays get married and that's way worse than letting the Government grab people off the street and hold them for as long as it wants with no trial, no oversight, no burden of proof, and no review."

Edited January 2, 2012 by macistan

[jughead]

as many statutes as there on the books i submit that 99.9 percent of us break the law EVERY day no matter how hard we try not to. as far as a reason to buy more guns who needs one. if i see a weapon i like and it doesnt cause a problem with grocerys or beer money i probably will buy it.