Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Welcome to the New America

Razgriz

Razgriz

Shall we write beautiful stories together?
Supporter
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
This is probably a bit old, but the prospect of having this be a law just shows that Obama should NOT be elected President if he's going to pull bullshit like this:

Josef Stalin, anyone?

I'm still trying to find what the bill actually states, but what I'm reading here does not make me happy in the slightest.

EDIT:

Here's the actual language of the bill (it's 926 pages, so be prepared for a LONG read): Say goodbye to your rights
 
The website you chose to get your information from is known as a right-wing radical collective, infamous for their paranoia and falsehoods. I'm not going to say any article coming from them is about as reliable as say The Onion, but I'm surprised they referred to the President as 'Obama' and not 'that n***** in the White House.'

This is the first I'm personally hearing about this. Were there any credibility to it, I'd expect the news to be all over that sort of thing, this being an election year and all. I do remember Bush creating this law when he was in office. At most, maybe Obama signed some sort of extention of that? But I'd be surprised if that much were even true.

I'm going to personally dismiss this as malarky unless a more credible source can be provided.
 
As Day Fades said:
The website you chose to get your information from is known as a right-wing radical collective, infamous for their paranoia and falsehoods. I'm not going to say any article coming from them is about as reliable as say The Onion, but I'm surprised they referred to the President as 'Obama' and not 'that n***** in the White House.'

This is the first I'm personally hearing about this. Were there any credibility to it, I'd expect the news to be all over that sort of thing, this being an election year and all. I do remember Bush creating this law when he was in office. At most, maybe Obama signed some sort of extention of that? But I'd be surprised if that much were even true.

I'm going to personally dismiss this as malarky unless a more credible source can be provided.
Click to expand...
Umm. He posted a link to the bill itself. And it does not take much reading to get to the effective date and signed date.

But anyway. The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-signs-defense-bill-pledges-to-maintain-legal-rights-of-terror-suspects/2011/12/31/gIQATzbkSP_story.html

ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

and etc ad nauseum. Most with their own bias little spin on it.
 
I saw his second link, but I'm not about to crack open a 926-page bill; I'll leave that heavy reading to the people that get paid to do it. That being said, thank you KG for the much more reliable links.

I'm really surprised I missed this. I'm even more disappointed in him that this is true. As much as I support Obama on, this is some very real bullshit, and the bit about promising it'll only be interpreted in the best of ways is such a copout. That's too much power, and who's to say how long it'll be, this administration or one down the line, before its use becomes more and more questionable. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
 
As I said, all you have to do is look at the effective date, and the signed date to know when it was seen by the POTUS. It is generally on the first page.

But anyway. As I said, this is not surprising. Not at all.
 
@Fades
While it may be a radical site, most of their information at least addresses what the issue is. Every site has its bias, and just because something posts a lot of BS doesn't mean we should ignore it based on that set of criteria alone. Do you honestly think the liberal radical sites are any better? Or any radical site? Or anything at all? Everything is biased in one way or another; I was merely using that site to bring up the issue at hand. And if you look at the relevant sections of the bill, you'll see the true danger that the bill poses.

All I can say is......This man is NOT my president; I do not regard him as such.
 
'Addressing' and 'taking something and running with it' aren't quite the same thing.

Not everyone has a bias. There's bias to be seen on both sides, yeah, but neutral sources of information and opinions do exist(and a stance can be taken without it being a biased one).

That being said(that bias does exist in both parties), the right wing is well known for a special brand of ridiculousness the left couldn't even dream of touching.


This is all really irrelevant though, and splitting hairs/digressing. I've agreed with the general negative sentiment of the thread. I stand by my statement though that you could've chosen a better source for your original link. It's not a big deal; it is what it is.

Also, again, I'm srsly not gonna pore over 900+ pages of lawyerese. I appreciate the links KG presented.

I have nothing more to add.
 
So, I've read over Divison A, Title X, Subtitle D, and the sections that follow, pertaining to this whole totalitarian scare. This effects the following, as written in the bill itself, and qouted truthfully:

" (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
4 this section is any person as follows:
5 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
6 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
8 sible for those attacks.
9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
12 States or its coalition partners, including any person
13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
15 forces

Basically, if one is a terrorist or traitor, and the government knows so, the government will detain them. They will not randomly pick a person off of the street, and start kidnapping citizens en mass from their beds. They will not, for no reason at all, detain people out of paranoia. It would be a waste or resources and time. You're an idiot if you think they will actually bother to do this; they don't have the money or manpower to execute and sustain such an operation (to just start snatching people up randomly and numerously).

The following details what is to happen after being detained:

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-
17 position of a person under the law of war as described
18 in subsection (a) may include the following:
19 (1) Detention under the law of war without
20 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
21 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
22 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
23 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
24 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
25 84)). 428
†S 1867 ES
1 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
2 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
3 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
4 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-
5 try, or any other foreign entity

A person will in fact face trial. They are just giving themselves room to cut through the bullshit when they know they have their man/woman-- a trial will be held at the end of hostilities/war. Otherwise one MAY be faced with a trail after being detained. It would be counter-productive to hold an innocent person, when the real culprits are still out there, yes?

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States

This says that a person won't be beaten, tortured, or any of the like. A person's human rights, not pertaining to specific lawful freedoms, shall be upheld.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
16 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
17 regarding the application of the authority described in this
18 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
19 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
20 subsection (b)(2)

Just noting that Congress will be briefed regularly. It isn't a rampant power-play by the executive branch.

SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.
20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the
21 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
22 shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
23 a report setting forth the procedures for determining the
24 status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization 443
†S 1867 ES
1 for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) for pur-
2 poses of section 1031.
3 (b) ELEMENTS OF PROCEDURES.—The procedures
4 required by this section shall provide for the following in
5 the case of any unprivileged enemy belligerent who will
6 be held in long-term detention under the law of war pursu-
7 ant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force:
8 (1) A military judge shall preside at pro-
9 ceedings for the determination of status of an
10 unprivileged enemy belligerent.
11 (2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at
12 the election of the belligerent, be represented by
13 military counsel at proceedings for the determination
14 of status of the belligerent.
15 (c) REPORT ON MODIFICATION OF PROCEDURES.—
16 The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate
17 committees of Congress a report on any modification of
18 the procedures submitted under this section. The report
19 on any such modification shall be so submitted not later
20 than 60 days before the date on which such modification
21 goes into effect.
22 (d) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DE-
23 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘appropriate commit-
24 tees of Congress’’ means— 444
†S 1867 ES
1 (1) the Committee on Armed Services and the
2 Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
3 (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the
4 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
5 House of Representatives

This is just going over the fact that the government will have their shit together, and have reason for their actions-- they aren't just acting out of paranoia. An unprivileged enemy belligerent is someone who is actively attacking the United States, civilian or not, or has SUPPORTED those that are attacking the United States. Like before, traitors and terrorists, basically. Interestingly enough, it's just a modification of a classification set in place by the Bush administration. The Obama admistration merely added that a member of the Taliban/ Al Qaeda are now considered an unprivileged enemy belligerent, which was missing from the previous label of unlawful enemy combatant.

I've gone at this long enough, both reading and putting this post together. This is my interpretation of the bill, and from what I'm reading it's being blown way out of proportion. They are denying a person the right to REQUEST a trail, however one will be getting one anyway. It's essentially set up to allow the government to interrogate those they know to have been in unlawful connection with terrorists, and to do so without the interference of the judicial system, until after they get what the information they want. If they have no information to obtain, they'll likely push the detained person(s) to trial.

I have not quoted the section of the bill pertaining to this matter completely. I have only quoted what is relevant to this thread, and the fears that many normal citizens may be having. I have quoted all text from the bill faithfully. My interpretation comes with no legal weight or credibility.
 
As Day Fades said:
'Addressing' and 'taking something and running with it' aren't quite the same thing.

Not everyone has a bias. There's bias to be seen on both sides, yeah, but neutral sources of information and opinions do exist(and a stance can be taken without it being a biased one).

That being said(that bias does exist in both parties), the right wing is well known for a special brand of ridiculousness the left couldn't even dream of touching.
Click to expand...

I am not a rightwinger. I do not align myself with the republican party. However to say that they take it to a level of ridiculousness that the left couldnt dream of touching is plainly false. The level of idiocy that the left wing media propagates is just as ridiculous as the other.

Anyway. We all agree. Signing this bill into law was a blatant violation of the oath he swore when he stepped into office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom