I'm generally not one to yell for recalls just because an elected official behaves badly but NDAA2011 is a direct attack on our rights and for once I agree with the liberals and see the need to take direct and deliberate action to remove these people that have blatantly violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

I'm sure that I will see the National Defense Authorization Act used in a unacceptable manor before the end of 2013. I don't understand why this was sweep into law with so little discussion.

It is funny...my friends and family still think I am making this up. The fact that I brought it up weeks ago and the "News" still hasn't covered it only makes them think me even more conspiracy-based. This must be how Jeffin felt here.

Why are there ads for bulletproof vests today?

Tedly, why the hell do you go and say "I agree with the liberals on this."

There were just as many republicans that voted against this bill in the Senate as there were Democrats. And it's a Dem President that's going to sign it into law.

Who you agree with are true Americans who honor their oaths to the Constitution, versus those who would take us from 1930 Germany to 1940 Germany.

those who would take us from 1930 Germany to 1940 Germany.
#5 | Posted by adammm

.....that's where some politicians feel most at home.......

Adammm, sorry to speak in general terms. By liberals I meant the people behind the recall effort in Montana. I'm well aware of the voting stance between Republicans and Democrats. I still need to question their motive in as there is no mention of the House which also pass this bill. In Montana I believe it was House Democrats who voted yes on NDAA but I guess that's partisan politics for you.

It is funny...my friends and family still think I am making this up.

#3 | POSTED BY KANREI

I got pretty much the same reaction from my family as well. My little brother, a devote Obamanoid, even screamed in 3 separate emails that this is "Bush's fault" and I need to own it! Like WTF I didn't really mean to light the fuse on his tampon. Fucking liberals, can't live with them, can't kill them, fuck.

Same thing Ted. When I finally proved to them it was true, they then said "Obama will veto it." When I told them Obama is the one who insisted it be included, they answered with "I doubt that." Then got mad at me for telling them.

Gotcha Ted. And you're right, the "Bush's fault" line is such bs- it's Obama signing the bill.

This really is a prime example of how we're doomed to repeat history. In Sept 1930 Germany opted for "presidential decrees." Three years later Hitler takes power, and Germany goes from republic to utter facism in six months. It doesn't take decades, or military coups, or war or anything. Just politicians using that one new legislative "Enabling Act", and an entire country can fail in the blink of an eye.

Why are there ads for bulletproof vests today?
#4 | Posted by kanrei

hence the reason ..
~ libs see ads 4 pot growing supplies, big gvt, central planning, welfare scams, etc
~ conservatives see ads 4 jobs, US Constitution stuff, GUNS & BIBLES, NCAA Baseball, & Kevlar vests

btw .. what size do you wear?

There is a very simple rule I go by in regards to policies like this: Would I trust the worst President with these powers? If not, then I can't support the powers.

Just because one supports the current President is no reason to support laws that will remain in effect long after the current President is retired.

the answer is that 'Cade's ad software covertly "sniffs' your browsing history

A) I prevent it
B) Nothing in my history would lead to bulletproof vests as I don't even own a gun
C) I am hardly a conservative.

This must be how Jeffin felt here.

#3 | Posted by kanrei

Except you didn't mention that it was an Illuminati Jewish Terrorist plot to control the minds of man.

NDAA and SOPA are bad laws and people deserve to get angry over them.

Not enough will, of course.

SQUIRREL!

Be Well.

A long, long time ago
I remember when this country was really free
And I knew that when I grew
Even though I am a Jew
I could one day seek the Presidency
But Obama came and made me shiver
With every policy he'd deliver
Bad news on my door step
I couldn't take one more step
I can't remember if I cried
When I learned about our rights denied
The TSA looked me deep inside
The day Democracy Died

And the Obamanoid were cheering...

#13 .. ok .. that's a pretty good story, stick to it!
hmmm .. perhaps you or Fam are sub-conciously TeaPartiers?

browser cookies don't lie

hmmm .. perhaps you or Fam are sub-conciously TeaPartiers?
browser cookies don't lie

#17 | POSTED BY L_E_LIGHT

hmmm this would explain why L_E_'s adds always center around women's underwear and disposable douche's? ;)

He is right of course it does track your browsing history, I can always tell when the wife has ordered some candles because the adds will be for Parytlite.

#16 | Posted by kanrei

This may be one of your best.

This law is a cancer. I hope the courts strike it down.

B) Nothing in my history would lead to bulletproof vests as I don't even own a gun

#13 | POSTED BY KANREI

I bet it's all those neo-Nazi and skinhead sites you visit.

Well at least some states want to force their representatives to listen and act on the peoples wishes.

NDAA and SOPA are bad laws and people deserve to get angry over them.
#15 | Posted by dethspud

I find myself in complete agreement with spud. Be afraid, be very afraid.

The righties have begun our downfall of freedom, it will continue until our drugged out population gets off the drugs and realizes that we need to worry about who we put in office.

#24 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR AT 2011-12-27 01:23 PM | REPLY | FLAG: If I only had a brain.

I don't have facebook so the link doesn't work, but just read about it in HuffPo. Says it's the president of the Oath Keepers (that group that some of the left calls right wing militant extremists) who drafted the recall petition. He was also a former Ron Paul staffer.

Even though I'm sick of saying it, and it certainly falls on deaf ears (#24), this is not some right wing bill. It was passed by a Dem Senate with equal opposition from both parties and will be signed by a Dem president. Both parties are out to destroy the Constitution, and both parties have those few crazies who uphold their oaths.

glad there's an American Civil Liberties Union.

btw... how (and who wrote; who voted) did this part get in the bill and what are the guidelines for enforcement?

Why are there ads for bulletproof vests today?

#4 | Posted by kanrei

Hmmm...I got an ad for Crocs.

#28 | Posted by ichiro

Yeah I love it when the super lefties call them, "Militant Extremists" ... who's laughing now motherfuckers! Yer gonna be sucking that militant extremist's dick once they finally just declare martial law on us, ain't you?!

"Oh shit! They were right all along! Why am I getting cavity searched by a Marine in my house! It's not even Friday night yet!"

Stop with all the recalls, just vote them out of office next time. Or do you people also think we should recall obummer for signing it?

Democrats Republicans Independents
All Votes

Needed To Win
Aye: 283 (65%)

93 190 0
No: 136 (31%)
93 43

Sloppy chart but basically the GOPpers voted 190-93 for it and the Dems
93-42 for it.

I can't see anyone here claiming their Party are the good guys. Bachmann and Ron Paul couldn't be bothered to vote.

NDAA = in your face fuck the constitution by congress and POTUS w/o SCOTUS intervention. It's a declaration of war on the people by the govt. Its not the first one either. The War ON Drugs has 1M SLAVES working the chain-gangs. Slavery is back in the USA.

Stop with all the recalls, just vote them out of office next time. Or do you people also think we should recall obummer for signing it?

No, for an issue this important one would impeach Obama for signing it.

Procedures dude, procedures.

I've always said that Obama is no different then Bush as regards foreign affairs. They are also no different as regards who pulls the strings in this country. Ultimately, the debt "can" will have to be dealt with and if we can't grow and/or inflate our way out of it, the public will bear the brunt of measures to deal with it. The public will then become extremely "restive" and this act will then be expanded to deal with that "restive" public---and you can bet that Obama wouldn't have any compunctions about using it. Why do you think the MSM supported this guy. Afterall, He had charisma; he could BS with the best of them. The weak were mesmerized by him and some are still----we know them on this website. Obama the great "socialist" of our time. Remember the roots that Hitler grew from. When tough times come, those with the gift to move the weak rise to power.

#24 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR AT 2011-12-27 01:23 PM | REPLY | FLAG: If I only had a brain.

#25 | Posted by Tedly at 2011-12-27 02:46 PM | Reply

Heck, give him half-a-brain.

Heck, take all my brians, not much is needed here anymore.

My Dem senator Harkin has earned my vote for the forseeable future by voting against this shit.

My Repub senator Grassley can go fuck himself. I wish Iowa would recall his stupid ass.

The only good coming out of this bill is the hilarity of the Obamatards, who once so passionately argued for habeus corpus, and who are now fully endorsing indefinite detention of American citizens, shaking under their piss soaked afghans worried about what Republicans will do to their civil liberties. (lol)

I am sad Bill Nelson voted for this as I planned on reelecting him. I am now looking into third party candidates for his seat.

Yes Kenrei, it is a shame but it clearly shows just how little our representatives actually represent our people.

my friends and family still think I am making this up.

That's because you are.

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

You are wrong Joe, but that never stopped you before.

"1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.” - Lindsey Graham

You can either read the law, or listen to a blowhard who supported the law's passage. The text of the law couldn't be any more clear that the military detention requirement does not apply to US Citizens.

The text of the law couldn't be any more clear that the military detention requirement does not apply to US Citizens.

You can say that over and over and over all you want, we already tend to ignore you as full of shit anyway. The facts don't stand up in your side. One phrase does not an entire law make and, if you actually would read it you would see that. For example, a US citizen captured out of America CAN be detained by the military and, as Lindsey Graham says: 1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.

Take it up with them. Lindsey Graham knows FAR MORE THAN YOU

One phrase does not an entire law make

No. But one phrase can, and often does, determine who a law applies to.

As I've said before, I have no doubt that Obama would violate any Constitutional principle in existence and detain anybody he wants to detain - but this law isn't going to allow him to do that.

Read the law. Learn something.

Joe,

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

So the president can waive the requirement to hold a citizen in military custody. It doesn't say he has to. On the surface, it sounds like it would give the President the authority to choose one way or the other. I'm not seeing how this statement protects citizens from the possibility of indefinite military detainment; all it says is it's not a requirement, not that it can't still happen.

Also, if not held in military custody, is it still possible to hold them in civilian custody without trial?

So the president can waive the requirement to hold a citizen in military custody. It doesn't say he has to.

Where are you getting that from? The section I'm citing says the requirement to detain covered persons in military custody "does not extend to citizens of the United States." That's not an optional waiver.

all it says is it's not a requirement, not that it can't still happen.

Agreed, but if you look at the language of Section 1032, it says that the military "shall" hold covered persons in custody. Thus, saying that the "requirement" to hold someone in custody does not apply to US citizens is negating the entire use of that statute as to US citizens.

I don't dispute that Obama and the military will do this anyways. But the NDAA creates a requirement for military custody and then negates it as to US citizens, so the bill itself is a wash as to US citizens.

Agreed, but if you look at the language of Section 1032, it says that the military "shall" hold covered persons in custody. Thus, saying that the "requirement" to hold someone in custody does not apply to US citizens is negating the entire use of that statute as to US citizens.

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2011-12-28 10:58 AM

But note that it tends to rule in the idea that the baseline grant of detention authority in 1031 does in fact extend to citizens. Otherwise there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in section 1032, since the 1032 category is a subset of the larger 1031 category

Read your own link, Kanrei.

"As most readers know, the Senate subsequent to my post below adopted an amendment speaking directly to this issue.

There was one amendment to S. 1867′s detainee section that made it through: Senator Feinstein's amendment stating that the bill should not be read as favoring or disfavoring an interpretation of the AUMF (or section 1031 of S. 1867) that would recognize that its detention authority extends to US citizens captured in the US or otherwise outside of Afghanistan. In relation to this, note the following statement by Senator Feinstein, offered in the course of explaining the impact of this amendment:

So our purpose in the second amendment, number 1456, is essentially to declare a truce, to provide that section 1031 of this bill does not change existing law, whichever side's view is the correct one. So the sponsors can read Hamdi and other authorities broadly, and opponents can read it more narrowly, and this bill does not endorse either side's interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide."

I did read it. Did you? It clearly says it leaves the issue open.

It clearly says it leaves the issue open.

Glad we agree.

We don't. You said there is no chance for citizens to be detained and I say there is.

You said there is no chance for citizens to be detained

No I didn't, retard. I said that this law does not specifically authorize it, but that it will probably occur anyways.

So post 42 wasn't you? Let Rcade know someone has your password.

You mean where I quoted the statute? Keep trying.

You mean where I quoted the statute?

Yes, the one where you said I was lying when I claim this bill COULD allow the detention of US citizens and then followed with proof that it COULD. The fact that the bill leaves it to the courts to decide means that yes, it COULD allow the detention of US citizens.

I said it could and you said I lied. That means you are saying it can't. Get it yet? How can you be a lawyer with such horrible reading comprehension skills?

you said I was lying when I claim this bill COULD allow the detention of US citizens

When did you say that it "could?" In #43 you quoted Lindsay Graham as saying that it "does" apply to American citizens and said Graham knows more than I do. Now you're backtracking and saying it "could." That's fine, but at least admit it.

I always said it could and quoted Graham saying it does. I have said in this thread "
There is a very simple rule I go by in regards to policies like this: Would I trust the worst President with these powers? If not, then I can't support the powers.

Just because one supports the current President is no reason to support laws that will remain in effect long after the current President is retired.

#12 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-27 10:30 AM |"

Hell, I have never even said Obama would. I have always maintained that this law does allow it, not that it would happen, but that it could happen under this law. Learn to read.

I have always maintained that this law does allow it

No, it doesn't. The law doesn't allow or disallow it.

So the sponsors can read Hamdi and other authorities broadly, and opponents can read it more narrowly, and this bill does not endorse either side's interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide."

AKA it COULD happen. This Bill leaves room for it to happen. It opens the door for it to happen.

The law doesn't allow or disallow it.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2011-12-28 01:28 PM

Not what you said.

The text of the law couldn't be any more clear that the military detention requirement does not apply to US Citizens.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2011-12-28 10:00 AM |

Tell Rcade someone has your password.

the military detention requirement does not apply to US Citizens.

Read it again.

The military detention requirement does not apply to US Citizens.

Whether it "allows" or does not "allow" detention is different from whether it "requires" detention. You'll probably pull a Dorky and call this "parsing," but words matter when it comes to the law.

while you quack and pontificate, your real rights have already been taken away without you even being aware...this ndaa and all the rest of the shit they float in front of you is just window dressing

No, for an issue this important one would impeach Obama for signing it.

Procedures dude, procedures.

#35 | Posted by Tedly

Riiight.... You expect the same congress who passes a law to impeach a president for signing said law.

Too funny!

Yeah... fighting and bickering with each other over who said, "It could happen first." Is exactly what they want us doing. This bullshit ruins citizens from within... they pit us against each other and we allow them to do it..... thus we never get around to doing aything about it :/

#16 | Posted by kanrei

Excellent!!!

They passed this law to cover Obama's ass for killing Al-awalki asshole.

He was an American citizen--in a foreign country and declared an enemy of the US.

You know there had to be some FISA ruling that he was an enemy combatant so they could drone him to paradise.

There won't be amy impeachment.

Someone has to file some lawsuits to find this unconstitutional.

It is surprising that the media is not covering this at all??

Riiight.... You expect the same congress who passes a law to impeach a president for signing said law.

#65 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

Sarcasm escapes you doesn't it?