View Full Version : indefinite imprisonment of U.S. citizens without a trail
ApatheticNoMore
12-18-11, 4:31pm
Yes I'm referring to the 2012 NDAA which allows for indefinite imprisonment/detention of U.S. citizens accused of terrorism without a trail.
(The NDAA as such just funds the defense department, I'm referring to specific provisions in the 2012 bill that allow for this). It has passed the senate and the house and it is believed Obama will sign it.
So it seems this means any U.S. citizen can be imprisoned indefinitely for any or no reason at all. Ok, technically they have to be suspected of "terrorism" (itself a very vague term it seems). But without a trial how do we know there is any truth whatsoever to this accusation of "terrorism"? We simply don't!
Yes of course this is a complete trashing of the bill of rights and every principle this country was founded on.
Now I understand there is some controversy because the bill is vague. A bill that threatens to totally trash our bill of rights is vague. Oh my goodness, isn't that reason enough to never ever ever let it see the light of day just by itself? The issues of our basic constitutional protections are too important to be shrouded in vagueness. But on the vagueness itself: some people think this bill doesn't apply to U.S. citizens but the much stronger arguments seem to me to be on the side that it does indeed apply to U.S. citizens.
This is very scary and must be fought (it is indeed very late in the game, but until Americans start "disappearing" or being sent to indefinite detention for engaging in peaceful protest and so on, the game is still on). Write the president and your congress people etc. and let them know what you think about this. (yes I'm assuming you too think the bill of rights is important and that even the potential this might apply to U.S. citizens is very dire, if not hmm well I really have nothing to say to you. Yea, I'll save debate for an issue like "Is the 9-9-9 tax plan a good idea?". Because things like whether the bill of rights was a good idea are to me a given).
I suspected can't say what I think of this bill, or those who supported it, without either violating the rules of this forum, or worse :-).
Ditto, Bae. Suffice it to say that we have redirected some of our end of the year giving to the ACLU.
Yossarian
12-18-11, 9:29pm
So it seems this means any U.S. citizen can be imprisoned indefinitely for any or no reason at all. Ok, technically they have to be suspected of "terrorism" (itself a very vague term it seems). But without a trial how do we know there is any truth whatsoever to this accusation of "terrorism"? We simply don't!
Yes of course this is a complete trashing of the bill of rights and every principle this country was founded on.
Anwar al-Awlaki should have been so lucky.
iris lily
12-18-11, 9:45pm
I wondered if anyone was going to comment on this. I see it as a march toward bigger government, no matter who is in the White House. With each President, citizen rights are removed a bit at a time. The commentator on NPR tonight tried to pin the tail on the Republicans. The Obama Puppet is, apparently, weak and completely under their thumb.
flowerseverywhere
12-18-11, 11:30pm
We allowed it to happen in Guantanamo bay. For years prisoners were held without trial yet there was no public outrage. That disgusted me and this disgusts me more.
We allowed it to happen in Guantanamo bay. For years prisoners were held without trial yet there was no public outrage.
I recall seeing people here protesting that every Saturday on our village green. Until Obama was elected, then I guess they assumed it would just stop happening, so they stopped protesting.
freein05
12-18-11, 11:42pm
Many of the most conservative Republicans voted against the bill good for them. I disagree with them on most everything but they were right on this. It is unconstitutional. Obama gave in. He is supposedly a constitutional scholar!
Many of the most conservative Republicans voted against the bill good for them. I disagree with them on most everything but they were right on this. It is unconstitutional. Obama gave in. He is supposedly a constitutional scholar!
I don't think Obama "gave in". The head of the Armed Services Committee, a Democrat, claims that Obama requested changes to the bill to add the detention powers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ysdsxF3eo
Obama signed up for the Patriot Act extensions too.
Hope and Change. Yay.
At first glance this seems very wrong, yet senate votes were 86 vote yea and only 13 votes nay with one abstaining. Can I assume that such a large majority of our government are ignorant or disrespectful of due process of law or is there some convoluted language that would somehow make this right? I don't quite get it.
Honestly, I suspect bills get passed all the time without the text being read completely by those voting on it, and here we are talking about a handful of words altered in one of the drafts and rushed through.
That is, I think many of our representatives are simply inept, not necessarily knowingly evil :-)
Honestly, I suspect bills get passed all the time without the text being read completely by those voting on it, and here we are talking about a handful of words altered in one of the drafts and rushed through.
That is, I think many of our representatives are simply inept, not necessarily knowingly evil :-)
I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!
That is, I think many of our representatives are simply inept, not necessarily knowingly evil :-)
I may have to give Obama the same benefit of doubt, then :)
ApatheticNoMore
12-19-11, 12:59am
I will have to be "inept" in the voting booth then and "ineptly" manage to vote against anyone who voted for this. By the same measure those who voted against this should be supported. But really it would take obscenities for me to express how little I care which party's "fault" this is (and you might have to put me in a padded room - I don't know about indefinitely - if debate about which parties fault it is that the bill of rights meets it's final shredding starts up. If this some how broke down on party lines you'd have a case but it doesn't).
Because WAY WAY WAY too much is at stake here: If this was indeed a product of "ineptness" then there exists the possibility this can be reversed. Our congresspeople can be convinced to vote for another bill explicitly exempting American citizens from this. In fact at one point Senator Feinstein was fighting for such a thing. Now I'm not a big fan of her but it doesn't matter. I care not who fights for this, just that anyone does. If this was passed out of ineptness what can we do to fight to reverse it? All write our congresspeople obviously. What else?
i think the thing that shocks me -- about this, the patriot act, etc -- is that it seems rather obvious to me that these things were bad news.
and most the people whom i know are against it.
and they vote, and many of us write to our representatives and such.
so what is really happening? how does it get passed if there isn't any popular support? i don't get it.
supreme court save us!
anyway, i had such a huge issue against gitmo and did protest it as well (with a lot of other quakers and related folks), but man, people were ANGRY that we did!
oh, and apparently OWS is now considered 'terrorists.' apparently fox news called the domestic terrorists. but it's not an official designation (yet).
I will have to be "inept" in the voting booth then and "ineptly" manage to vote against anyone who voted for this. By the same measure those who voted against this should be supported. But really it would take obscenities for me to express how little I care which party's "fault" this is (and you might have to put me in a padded room - I don't know about indefinitely - if debate about which parties fault it is that the bill of rights meets it's final shredding starts up. If this some how broke down on party lines you'd have a case but it doesn't).
From what I could tell, this had broad support from both parties and both house and senate. So was not specifically a partisan issue. I ran across a list of who voted how if you want to select your candidates not to vote for and it maybe a long list. I actually look at this more as a broken system.
so what is really happening? how does it get passed if there isn't any popular support? i don't get it.
While it is certainly plausible that there are a lot of inept Congressmen who voted for the bill without reading it or fully considering the implications, I bet there are plenty that know exactly what they are doing. As we see here in the forum and in the wider circles of people I know there is no support whatsoever for this bill regardless of political affiliation. An argument can be made that Congress is beginning to act autonomously from the will of the American people. This would not be the only example one could site. Perhaps its time a few Senators were "detained" long enough to rattle the cage...
flowerseverywhere
12-19-11, 10:32am
While it is certainly plausible that there are a lot of inept Congressmen who voted for the bill without reading it or fully considering the implications, I bet there are plenty that know exactly what they are doing. As we see here in the forum and in the wider circles of people I know there is no support whatsoever for this bill regardless of political affiliation. An argument can be made that Congress is beginning to act autonomously from the will of the American people. This would not be the only example one could site. Perhaps its time a few Senators were "detained" long enough to rattle the cage...
could it be that some companies and special interests benefit from these laws? Maybe private companies that financially benefit by running these types of prisons? And those same private companies making large contributions? Not like the few dollars that a normal citizen might give to a campaign.
bekkilyn
12-19-11, 12:16pm
For whatever it's worth, I will also be voting against whoever votes for this bill, up to and including the current President, democrat or republican alike. I've been following these NDAA issues through Rep. Justin Amash's Facebook page as he has been leading against the fight against this bill. He posted the following to his Facebook on 12/13:
PLEASE READ: Members of Congress who want to grant the President power to indefinitely detain American citizens, without charge or trial, likely will make two false claims about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
(1) They will say that you have nothing to worry about because Sec. 1031 asserts that it does not "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens."
RESPONSE: Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.
(2) They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
RESPONSE: Don't be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.
bekkilyn
12-19-11, 12:21pm
Note also from this video excerpt from a speech by Senator Rand Paul points out just how loosely the definition of "a terrorist" could be applied:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH5N9_6KrR8
could it be that some companies and special interests benefit from these laws? Maybe private companies that financially benefit by running these types of prisons? And those same private companies making large contributions? Not like the few dollars that a normal citizen might give to a campaign.
There will always be a few companies that could profit from such things. In this case I think the dollar amounts and number of opportunities for profit are both too small to be the driving factor behind this (unlike, say...a war). Unless, of course, someone high up has a plan to detain hundreds of thousands of citizens. I'm pretty sure the revolution would put an end to that so don't really think that is a reason, either. This appears to be just the next step in the growth of the government and the dissolution of citizen's rights. In that regard we're like the frog in the pot of water on the stove: how much hotter does the water need to get before we decide to jump?
One other important point is that the military is not a law enforcement organization. It was designed to protect the US from foreign invasion. To use the military for law enforcement puts us one step closer to a third world country and a military dictatorship.
One other important point is that the military is not a law enforcement organization. It was designed to protect the US from foreign invasion. To use the military for law enforcement puts us one step closer to a third world country and a military dictatorship.
And conflicts with Posse Comitatus, without congressional oversight.
And conflicts with Posse Comitatus, without congressional oversight.
Not necessarily. Posse Comitatus does not restrict the National Guard when acting under state authority, which happens at virtually every national disaster as well as some large civil disturbances.
flowerseverywhere
12-19-11, 4:02pm
There will always be a few companies that could profit from such things. In this case I think the dollar amounts and number of opportunities for profit are both too small to be the driving factor behind this (unlike, say...a war). Unless, of course, someone high up has a plan to detain hundreds of thousands of citizens. I'm pretty sure the revolution would put an end to that so don't really think that is a reason, either. This appears to be just the next step in the growth of the government and the dissolution of citizen's rights. In that regard we're like the frog in the pot of water on the stove: how much hotter does the water need to get before we decide to jump?
here is what made me think profit motives in the private sector could possibly be behind this, the article has to do with problems around the world with private companies running detention centers:
"In the United States — with almost 400,000 annual detentions in 2010, up from 280,000 in 2005 — private companies now control nearly half of all detention beds, compared with only 8 percent in state and federal prisons, according to government figures. In Britain, 7 of 11 detention centers and most short-term holding places for immigrants are run by for-profit contractors. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/world/asia/getting-tough-on-immigrants-to-turn-a-profit.html?pagewanted=all
I would love to think there would be a revolution if people started getting detained however through history people have been very badly treated if they were the wrong race or religion. You can find examples of ethnic cleansing, racial and religious prejudice with very little effort.
ApatheticNoMore
12-19-11, 4:48pm
It seems there IS money behind this. I am not yet convinced that money was THE deciding factor that drove this though. That's a case that still needs to be made IMO.
"Among the corporations which have lobbied in support of NDAA FY2012 are several military contractors, including Honeywell and Bluewater Defense, who together have received millions of dollars in Pentagon guarantees this year alone."
http://rt.com/search/?q=NDAA+lobby
@#$@ military contractors. These companies ONLY EXIST by virtue of OUR tax money, really they are entirely creations of government spending on military and homeland security matters. There is no such thing as a free market. And they lobby against the bill of rights ... That takes some nerve. So our own own tax dollars come back to enslave us. >:(
Anonymous is targeting Senator Portman:
"By Thursday morning, an Anonymous operative released personal information pertaining to the lawmaker, and revealed that not only was Sen. Portman among the politicians to vote “aye” on the legislation, but it has also been revealed that the senator had good reason to do so.
According to a OpenCongress.org, Sen. Portman received $272,853 from special interest groups that have shown support for NDAA.
According to the information posted by the operative, the nearly $300,000 in special interest monies lobbied at Portman could have helped him purchase around $1.7 million in real estate in Ohio.
The next lawmaker to receive anywhere near as much as Sen. Portman is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada and third-ranked official in Congress, who pulled in more than $100,000 less than his Ohio counterpart with $172,635."
"Among the supporters of NDAA are California-based manufacturer Surefire, L.L.C., who won a $23 million contract from the Department of Defense three months ago. Also contributing to the cause (and the lawmakers who voted ‘yes’) are Honeywell (who secured a $93 million deal with the Pentagon last May and a $24 million contract this year) and Bluewater Defense, a longtime DoD-ally that produces, among other garments, fire resistant combat uniforms"
http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-ndaa-portman-torture-913/
Are these corporations behind these specific provisions of the NDAA though (as opposed to just for the bill in general, again which is merely a funding measure). And are those kind of dollar figures meaningful? Maybe senators regularly receive that kind of money all the time for one piece of legistlation or other (that's cynical I know but ...).
One other important point is that the military is not a law enforcement organization. It was designed to protect the US from foreign invasion. To use the military for law enforcement puts us one step closer to a third world country and a military dictatorship.
The issue is a little thornier than a simple law enforcement action. The law is designed with enemy combatant's in mind, whether actually engaged in combat or not.
If I am engaged in planning a terroristic attack on my neighbors and am found out before I complete my plans, should I be released on bail and given the opportunity to complete the deed? Should I be subjected to a public trial, where the details of what the prosecution knows will be transmitted to my co-conspirators, allowing them to re-group and change targets? It's quite the moral dilemma I think.
The issue is a little thornier than a simple law enforcement action. The law is designed with enemy combatant's in mind, whether actually engaged in combat or not.
If I am engaged in planning a terroristic attack on my neighbors and am found out before I complete my plans, should I be released on bail and given the opportunity to complete the deed? Should I be subjected to a public trial, where the details of what the prosecution knows will be transmitted to my co-conspirators, allowing them to re-group and change targets? It's quite the moral dilemma I think.
It is. Our first impulse is knee jerk, and I'm not saying we are right or wrong, it's just so hard to know. We, as average citizens on the street, can't possibly know all the details, and probably shouldn't. What the congress knows would probably make our hair curl, and what the President knows would most certainly cause us to curl up in a ball in the corner mumbling and drooling.
I think what it really comes down to is, do we trust the ones we elected? Do you trust the one you voted for, or even didn't vote for, putting aside any partisan bickering. Do you believe your elected leaders have weighed all the info and voted for the good of the country? If not, vote them out. If you do trust them, then ask them why, and hope they can give an explanation you can understand/trust. Some of these people are trustworthy. They can't be, everyone of them to a man/woman be corrupt/on the take.
I'm sure you are not surprised that I trust Barack Obama. Maybe he hasn't done all I would have hoped he would as President, but I do believe the man is honest. And i trust him to make decisions that are for the good of the country. Sure I would really like to know the reasons behind this legislation, but I also am smart enough to know I maybe can't know all the reasons behind it. I trust Obama, but i think about the possibility of a Gingrich becoming President and having these powers.(((shudder)))
So, although I really don't believe all the fear mongering about thousands of Americans being rounded up and put in detention camps on a whim (funny, when it was a republican president trashing our rights no one was wringing their hands about this) I have to vote no to this, on the admittedly little info I have.
But as I said earlier, I don't know. And I can't know. and the way things go, even if something underhanded is going on, we won't find out about it for 30 years in some aging politicians memoirs.
ApatheticNoMore
12-19-11, 7:17pm
So, although I really don't believe all the fear mongering about thousands of Americans being rounded up and put in detention camps on a whim (funny, when it was a republican president trashing our rights no one was wringing their hands about this)
Where were you? EVERYONE was wringing their hands about human rights abuses when W was President. The wars and the human rights abuses (Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, torture and extrodinary renditions and two wars). This is why I felt I lived under a dark cloud every day for 8 years, everyday some new abuse would come out, each worse than before. If THAT was a dark cloud though then what exactly is THIS? It is darker by far, as I feel around for a flashlight or a candle or something, that much is sure ..... I no longer recognize my country.
But do I trust Obama, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney etc.? No. Not the way I trust legal protections. You know what I would tend to trust? A country of laws not of men.
We are a government of laws, and not of men.
Saying "trust our elected officials" betrays the very foundational philosophy of our country, and so I reject that approach.
This is simply a bad law, and it got passed and signed by people who either were evil, or were so inept and inattentive as to betray their constitutional responsibility.
They should all be thrown out of office.
And those of you who rationalize why this law is "OK", shame on you. "May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
We are a government of laws, and not of men.
Saying "trust our elected officials" betrays the very foundational philosophy of our country, and so I reject that approach.
This is simply a bad law, and it got passed and signed by people who either were evil, or were so inept and inattentive as to betray their constitutional responsibility.
They should all be thrown out of office.
And those of you who rationalize why this law is "OK", shame on you. "May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
You said it better than I would. I agree 100%.
We are a government of laws, and not of men.
Saying "trust our elected officials" betrays the very foundational philosophy of our country, and so I reject that approach.
This is simply a bad law, and it got passed and signed by people who either were evil, or were so inept and inattentive as to betray their constitutional responsibility.
They should all be thrown out of office.
And those of you who rationalize why this law is "OK", shame on you. "May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
+1
ApatheticNoMore
12-19-11, 8:17pm
Obviously thinking along the same lines as I was posting my reply before I saw bae's. But when a bill is this monstrous, there is nothing to be done but oppose it completely and forever.
.
And those of you who rationalize why this law is "OK", shame on you. "May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
It's too bad that seems to be the consensus opinion. It would have been interesting to discuss the nature of individual rights, whether they have limits (which we know they do), and whether those limits are justified in a "greater good" sort of way.
We could have even gotten into the subject of national defense and acts of war and enemy combatants and the duty of governments to act upon threats, as well as the manner in which it is done.
Maybe another time.
Originally I was actually going to respond with my thoughts on how this horrendous law could've been made at least somewhat palatable. But the more I think about it, and about the numerous detainees at Guantanamo who were/are held for years and likely guilty of nothing, the more I don't think it's possible. Certainly a start would be to at least make a specific definition of terrorist and terrorist act, but even that would be a weak consolation if the person was still not able to defend themselves as to whether they actually met that definition or not. No, the more I think about it the more I agree with Ben Franklin's statement (paraphrased) that people who are willing to give up freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither. And I can't imagine a more important freedom then freedom from the fear that my government might lock me up indefinitely and not allow me to defend myself. Without that freedom pretty much every other freedom is meaningless since they all follow from that beginning.
flowerseverywhere
12-19-11, 10:41pm
Bae and jp1, great posts. I still don't understand though what was behind this law being passed? It seems so obvious to everyone that has posted that it is frightening to say the least.
It's too bad that seems to be the consensus opinion. It would have been interesting to discuss the nature of individual rights, whether they have limits (which we know they do), and whether those limits are justified in a "greater good" sort of way.
We could have even gotten into the subject of national defense and acts of war and enemy combatants and the duty of governments to act upon threats, as well as the manner in which it is done.
Maybe another time.
As i said, knee jerk. Unfortunately, in this climate, if you show an interest in trying to understand the reasons behind something you might disagree with, you are immediately set upon and branded a traitor of some sorts. So much for reasonable discourse. Like you, I am puzzled by this action, but wanting more information before i grab my pitchfork.
I absolutely refuse to run from one crisis to another in constantly spun up angst. What really puzzles me about this is how many of our representatives (who we elect to enforce/uphold/respect the law) voted for this. I really want to know why.
Yes, we are a nation of laws, but without men/women to represent the law, it means absolutely nothing. Saying we are a nation of laws, not men may sound pretty, but means squat. Men wrote those laws, and it's men/women who give those laws power. Laws/rights are given, and they can be taken away. Ask the Supreme court, who in fact are mortal.
Just because Alan and I, and I'm sure a few others, want to understand this action by our elected officials, doesn't make us traitors, evil, or deserving of chains. Actually it makes us responsible citizens. This is citizenship 101.
This law is really not justifyable as a limitation on our due process rights. It just isn't.
There have been plots via domestic terrorists that have been twarted before, handled through the normal court system, without the issues around "co-conspirators changed locations!" or "he's out on bail and went ahead and did the deed!" I just haven't seen any trustworthy news that would make this scenario less than improbable (not impossible, but improbable).
That being said, I also agree with bae on this one.
also, i did have huge "?!" regarding the patriot act and several others in prior eras. it just didn't seem like a good idea to me. still doesn't. i do feel that it could easily become a huge mess, and that it would be hard to back out of easily since this law does exist.
not that i'm calling anyone a traitor, etc (like bae's post does), but i agree about the government of laws, not of men idea.
Habeas corpus is a really really really important thing. It's been part of English common law since at least the 1300s. It is so important that the Constitution of the United States of America says, quite clearly:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
You don't just get to throw it out because it would make life easier.
There's been quite a bit of discussion by the Supreme Court about this. I'll recommend William Rehnquist's treatment of the subject in his book "All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime".
Sounds like an interesting book.
Another thought occurred to me -- why should we have to "guess" at "why" our leaders would choose to do this?
If it is something that should have popular support (and, as a representative government, i believe it should), then it "should" be explained to the public as to WHY this law would be preferable to the alternative, explicit in what the alternative is (with examples of how that is both reasonable and probable alternative outcome without the law), and clear in how it would be implemented to protect our rights while simultaneously allowing for this exception/exemption.
Bae and jp1, great posts. I still don't understand though what was behind this law being passed? It seems so obvious to everyone that has posted that it is frightening to say the least.
I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that the people discussing this here and the people who voted for this law are quite different from each other. Aside from the financial aspect of the prison industrial complex goading our elected officials into voting for this bill, I'd suspect there's also a lot of cowardice on their part along the lines of "if I don't vote to be tough on terrorists and then, god forbid, some bad terrorist act happens I'll lose my job becuase my opponent in the next election will say I was weak on terrorism and that's what caused the awful terrorist event. And that's much worse then saying I was weak on supporting the constitution, since no one will really care about that if nothing bad has happened."
I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that the people discussing this here and the people who voted for this law are quite different from each other. Aside from the financial aspect of the prison industrial complex goading our elected officials into voting for this bill, I'd suspect there's also a lot of cowardice on their part along the lines of "if I don't vote to be tough on terrorists and then, god forbid, some bad terrorist act happens I'll lose my job becuase my opponent in the next election will say I was weak on terrorism and that's what caused the awful terrorist event. And that's much worse then saying I was weak on supporting the constitution, since no one will really care about that if nothing bad has happened."
I suspect this has a lot to do with it. From some earlier posts, it's apparent how quickly some are to cry traitor, and in this political climate, opponents will use anything and everything, even if they know it to not be true. I would still like an explanation. So many voted for it. That's the troubling part.
Habeas corpus ...You don't just get to throw it out because it would make life easier.
That's really what it boils down to, isn't it? I agree with Alan that this topic could provide a platform for an interesting and in depth discussion of the limits of civil liberties, but in viewing the legislation I can not shake the gut feeling that we've gone a step too far. The "for the good of the many..." argument is a valid filter when prioritizing how to spend the many's money, but falls into a very dark gray area when we begin to suspend the liberties of individuals for the greater good (JMO).
I've found this issue particularly disturbing, not so much in the details, but the principal and have spent some spare time reading up on it. I think people are reading into the motives more than is there. A similar incident would be the Patriot Act slipped past the public by G W in 2001. In Michaels Moore's movie, Farenheit 9/11, he quotes congressman John Conyers, Jr. as saying, "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process".
ApatheticNoMore
12-21-11, 12:24am
The argument against this is that there were apparently many amendments proposed to the NDAA (that related precisely to these controversial provisions), that were designed to reduce the power of the NDAA, and they were mostly defeated. Mark Udall had amendments, and Rand Paul, and Feinstein - all toward weakening in various way these provisions and they were voted against:
discusses provisions:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-national-defense-authorization-act-opens-the-door-to-a-police-state/
This kind of makes the "we didn't know what we were passing" argument a little doubtful I think, the fact that they actually voted on all these amendments specifically pertaining to these provisions (and they voted them down :( )
But honestly I don't really care if our congress people are evil or just stupid or cowardly. If they are just stupid and cowardly it will be easier to work with them to get this changed. If they are evil more pressure must be brought to bear (the pressure of public outcry of course). But the only thing that matters is this must be changed ... must or ... well they have removed all legal protections preventing a police state.
Dear congresscritters:
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE ....
FOR PASSING IT!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.