National Defense Authorization Act 2012 = creepy

This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.

To view other archive projects go to https://archives.mabination.com

Yoorah wrote on 2011-12-01 02:03

By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons -- without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you "indefinite detention" for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.

Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.

Details: There is a scary provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (fiscal year 2012) which is typically passed by Congress each and every year to continue funding our military operations around the world.

This provision is not a mistake or error; it has vocal backing from some of the most powerful Senators in Washington, including Sen. John McCain and Sen. Carl Levin.

Read more here.

The intent is to make it easier to detain and interrogate US citizens suspected of being involved in terrorism. But there are obvious problems with this kind of approach, in terms of how it could be abused. Yet, it enjoys bipartisan support from both the house and the senate? At least Obama said he'll veto it.

Kind of creepy.
Shizuo wrote on 2011-12-01 02:09

But aren't peaceful protests protected by the first amendment? Unless I misunderstood something in government class...
Then again, the government has been pretty harsh on peaceful protests lately anyway :/
Chillax wrote on 2011-12-01 02:23

Quote from The Act:
(b) 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.

That's what it says. It's probably for the better that this act gets vetoed, though.
Armi wrote on 2011-12-01 02:35

Quote from Shizuo;677280:
But aren't peaceful protests protected by the first amendment? Unless I misunderstood something in government class...
Then again, the government has been pretty harsh on peaceful protests lately anyway :/

The government can define a statement differently, what constitutes being peaceful?
Yoorah wrote on 2011-12-01 02:37

Quote from Shizuo;677280:
But aren't peaceful protests protected by the first amendment? Unless I misunderstood something in government class...
Then again, the government has been pretty harsh on peaceful protests lately anyway :/

In theory, yeah. But with this, they could label anyone as a potential terrorist and any protections people would normally have would no longer apply. Or at least, that's how I understand it. I'm no expert on law. :P

Quote from Chillax;677290:
That's what it says. It's probably for the better that this act gets vetoed, though.

According to my friend, they are "allowed but not required." Key word is allowed. :|
Haven't read it myself, though.
Shizuo wrote on 2011-12-01 02:56

Quote from Yoorah;677304:
In theory, yeah. But with this, they could label anyone as a potential terrorist and any protections people would normally have would no longer apply. Or at least, that's how I understand it. I'm no expert on law. :P

According to my friend, they are "allowed but not required." Key word is allowed. :|
Haven't read it myself, though.

Wait. I'm no expert on law either, but I'm pretty sure they can't pass anything that goes against the constitution. So, arresting someone for saying something against, say congress or the TSA on facebook or whatever as the article says would be considered unconstitutional, yes? By the first amendment, people should be able to say that they don't like what congress is doing without getting arrested. It gives them the right to express their opinions. Now, they can't say that they're going to go in and kill everyone in congress, but you get the point.
I'm just going by what the article says. And sorry if I misunderstood anything. I'm about half-asleep...

EDIT: in other words, they can't simply disregard people's rights.
Chillax wrote on 2011-12-01 03:02

Quote from Yoorah;677304:
According to my friend, they are "allowed but not required." Key word is allowed. :|
Haven't read it myself, though.

A Control+F of this part (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112AhCldS:e464889:) of the bill yielded no results for "allowed" or any loophole regarding part B of Section 1032. There could be much ado about nothing, but this bill is so huge that I don't really have the time to read it in its entirety and analyze it.