 sj |
||
|
||
BS: National Defense Authorization Act
|
|
|
Subject: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:45 PM Just to let you know Obama signed this .... it is now law. National Defense Authorization Act - Now What biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:18 PM Aren't you in Canada? It doesn't apply to you. Its a symptom of the way laws are made here. To fund the military he had to swallow that turd. Lucky for you with the Citizens United Ruling, you can send money to defeat the Congressmen who pushed this through. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:21 PM Yes, I'm a Canadian like you .... just wanted to make any Madcatters from the U.S. aware of what is happening ..... that is if they are really interested. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:24 PM Good question in the title of your link, 6. I would like to hear the Obama-supporters' defend this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:36 PM This is a very concerning move by Obama .... a quote from that article I posted .... "There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial." In answer to Jack's statement that it doesn't concern me (being a Canadian) ... well it does in some ways. OK .... so Obama says he would never enact it ... well, who says the next future Presidents won't biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:53 PM I am in the US, this law affects me. The previous policy did not. Until it was signed I had a legal right of habeas corpus. I am not worried, not until the next president is elected. By all means if you do not like the US system. Use your money to change it. As a non-citizen foreigner, you have less restrictions on your spending than my wife and me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:04 AM It can affect anyone who travels to the USA. A great many Canadians do travel to the USA now and then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:06 AM Actually, it's the "Homeland Battlefield Act" that's the problem. It was tacked onto the NDAA. Congress rarely fails to pass funding bills, so all kinds of oppressive crap is attached to them. The myth that Obama didn't want this bill and signed it reluctantly is 100% bullshit. http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/12/senator-levin-revealed-it-was-obama-who.html That's a link to a video clip of U.S. Senator Carl Levin telling you that Obama hisself wanted the detention wording in the bill. Levin's a Democrat. He says the oppressive wording was not in the version they sent to the White House, so Obama sent it back to be nastied up a bit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:11 AM "As a non-citizen foreigner, you have less restrictions on your spending than my wife and me." That being the case, Jack, that non-citizen foreigners have fewer restrictions, send your money to some one you know and trust back home and have them invest it as you wish. That way you can help elect those you want instead of those ya got. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:12 AM Of course the mainstream media has not mentioned the signing of this treacherous bill into law .... the whole thing is very concerning. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:15 AM Nice propaganda effort, eh? This is how you get draconian archconservative legislation passed...you do it when there's a supposedly liberal and "nice" guy serving as president. I call it "Stealth Fascism". Bush probably couldn't have gotten away with it, because people expected Bush to do stuff like that. Obama can get away with it, because his naive supporters don't expect him to do stuff like that. The same kind of thing was done in the UK when Blair, the supposedly liberal and nice guy, took the UK to war in Iraq in spite of massive public protest. If a Labour government would do that, then where can the UK public turn? Nowhere, that's where. The parties all really serve the Oligarchy...and the Oligarchy wages war wherever it wants to, regardless of public opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:19 AM Stealth Fascism .... I like that expression .... and true it is. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:21 AM I read an article the other day explaining how to cover your back in a country where the government "disappears" people. Like America does in Afghanistan and other places. When they come to the door and tell you that they need to speak to you "downtown" or "at headquarters," you immediately call whomever you can and give the names of the officers, badge numbers, stated destinations, etc. You do that because what the authorities do is hold you a couple of hours, to see if anyone inquires about you, then they take you to another location for "processing" or because "detainment is full at this facility." And once you get in the car for transport to another location, your ass is history. They do a couple of more transfers and then take you to the place where you'll meet your end--a ditch on the side of the road, a plane to Guantanamo or wherever. Obama's America, where the media focuses our attention on his black skin instead of his black shirts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:24 AM "Of course the mainstream media has not mentioned the signing of this treacherous bill into law .... the whole thing is very concerning." Possibly they are concerned they'll be the first to have the new law tested on them ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Jan 12 - 01:01 AM and trust back home aye... there is the rub!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Jan 12 - 01:08 AM "If you want somebody you can trust, trust yourself" - Bob Dylan Other than that...it's not too easy to find someone you can trust...but I can think of a handful of people I trust. They all live pretty close by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Jan 12 - 01:37 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Jan 12 - 01:38 AM You trusted Carol and me once. I appreciate that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM Yeah, I basically trust you. Too bad Mr Kucinich was served so badly by the Democratic party machine in 2008. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 12 - 02:44 PM JtS... you can trust me. And I'll vouch for 9, rum, LH, sIx, Beer, ragdoll, Bernie, Sandy... heck, there's lot's of us. I'd be a little leary of Ed T, though. Some a them there Bluenosers, eh? >;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: pdq Date: 06 Jan 12 - 04:15 PM Believers in liberty have prized the The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) of June 18, 1878, right behind the U. S. Constitution. The act spelled out many of our freedoms and banned the use of the U. S. military against the U. S. people. I was listening to brilliant lawyer last night who said that Posse Comitatus is dead. It was just a piece of legislation, not a part of the Constitution, and that it was replaced by provisions of the National Defence Authorization Act. Any word of this on the evening news? Does anybody even care? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 04:22 PM "Any word of this on the evening news?" .... obviously no Does anybody even care? .... I think not, most people seem to be comfortably numb. biLL ... :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:07 PM I was living in Montreal when the War Measures Act was brought in (for the third time--it was used in WWI and WWII also). History has shown us that the Canadian military behaved exempliarily/exemplearely/exemplearily very well. The people who got out of hand were the police. (As an aside, The RCMP didn't want the Act used, but they at that time were considered to be quasi military (an instruction from my militia days was that soldiers were expected to salute RCMP officers if a military officer would be saluted in a similar circumstance)). Anyway, over 465 people were arrested, many of them artists, poets, singers and other writers--mostly French--because at some time or other they had spoken about Quebec sovereignty. It was a flat-out abuse of power, and imo the one very dark spot on Trudeau's leadership that would never allow me to vote for him after that. Today, most thinking people perceive the invocation of the Act at the time as unnecessary and certainly abusive. You good folks in the US had better have a good look at what your president and leaders have agreed to. It sucks, big time. And that type of authoritarianism shows your country to be little better than places like Turkey, Iran, China, North Korea when it comes to civil rights. You just lost them on paper, and even though it's unlikely Obama would use the new law to the detriment of Americans, wtf will you do if a fundamentalist idiot gets in? Hell, some folks on Mudcat were actually seeing Palin then Bachmann as viable. If you are not scared by the NDAA, then it's time you had a good think about it. And visitors to your country: I think you'll see a drop because people just don't like visiting authoritarian states. If as a foreign national I break a law, I deserve the same trail as you'd give one of your nationals. Now, you no longer have to do that. Detain as long as you want. Years, forever. Sorry, but I don't trust ANYone with that type of authorization. You need to repeal that, and if the only way to do it is vote Obama out and an independent in, then do so. It's been said that people get the government they vote for. Did any one of you vote for this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:13 PM Well said 999 ! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:17 PM Yup. I've not visited the USA since George Bush was elected. I see even stronger reasons for not visiting it now. Frankly, the USA scares me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:53 PM Sorry for the thread drift. As for Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act, I think it was a show of force and it was used to do just what he said it was to do during the famous "just watch me interview". I think he kicked ass and I don't understand why he should not have. Can you teach me why, 9? I would really like to know. BTW, the army went through house to house searches en masse after the murder. They did not just arrest artists. Same thing when he directed the army to return to base in PQ from exercises out west via Montreal (not widely publicized). A show of force. As for "Je Me Souviens" on the license plates being a cry to the October Crisis as touted by some Seperatists I knew... really? That kinda bites it IMO. Mayhem and murder or "law and order"? Don't get me wrong. I have said more than once that I feel the Quebecois are far more Canadian at times than many Canadians... in fact, if shit here keeps getting shittier, youse in Ormstowmn might have a new neighbour in the not too distant future. I might even vote for "Levesque". But only after I get citizenship. >;-) And, now, back to our regular programming. As 9 has pointed out, you Yanks are getting screwed royally. Here in Canada, as 9 has pointed out, it can be done at the drop of a hat. Fight it. The whole world looks up to youse guys... or... did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 06 Jan 12 - 07:00 PM The Military Commissions Act (2006) took away habeas corpus, and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act (2006) ended Posse Comitatus. Obama said he would repeal the Military Commissions Act, but that was just another lie. The Nazis at Nuremberg had a legitimate defense in saying they were abiding by the law. German law under the Nazis had been twisted so radically that the judges and civilian administrative officials were operating within it. That's what's being set up in America. Our "disappearances" will be entirely legal. I read the other day that a record number of firearms were sold in the U.S. in December 2011. 2 million gun sales the FBI ran checks on. 2 million guns in one month. So people know what's coming. When Obama re-authorized the Patriot Act he did so from Paris, France. He used an "electronic pen" to sign the thing at the last minute. Technically that signature was and still remains illegal--you need to actually put pen to paper to sign legislation. But Obama broke the law and no one challenged him, and now we have a precedent which will allow him to, technically, run a government in exile when the shooting begins. And it's all so damned unnecessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 07:41 PM Gnu, allow me to give the short version if you will. From Wiki, but a good and factual opinion, imo. "At the time, opinion polls throughout Canada, including in Quebec, showed widespread support for the use of the War Measures Act.[1] The response, however, was criticized at the time and subsequently by a number of prominent leaders, including René Lévesque, Robert Stanfield,[2] and Tommy Douglas,[3] who believed the actions to be excessive and the precedent to suspend civil liberties dangerous. The criticism was reinforced by evidence that police officials had abused their powers and detained, without cause, prominent artists and intellectuals associated with the sovereignty movement.[4]" ######################################## I'm was and still am of the opinion that it was a police matter--NOT a military matter. I know about the 'show of force', etc., but the FLQ was just a gang, not an army or guerrilla force. The invocation of the WMA gave them more press than they ever deserved. They were punks, little more, and little less. IMO, Trudeau made a big mistake. Not as big as the one we see the Americans making, but on a Canadian scale, big. The police abuse was evident in Montreal. The military guys I spoke with were cool. But then the military has a reluctance to kill its own citizens. The cops live in a different world. They deal with scum on a daily basis, and they could have done their jobs without the military. Couple guys I met outside a building in downtown Montreal (Vandoos) asked what I had in the guitar case. I went over to them, opened the case and took out the guitar, sang two songs and put the guitar back. Before I left I asked how it was going. They showed me the FNs they were holding. Both had safeties on. The military was cool. The cops, not so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Bobert Date: 06 Jan 12 - 10:48 PM The right wing NOISE MACHINE is so loud and backed by Boss Hog, Inc. and *Big Media* that Obama must feel like a pinball... If he is lucky he gets 30 seconds of microphone time a day verses hours and hours of relentless right wing ***push, push and more push back***... This is reality in America... You can say it ain't so... You can post the right wing BIG LIES that the American Enterprise Institute or the Americans for Prosperity or the Heritage Council pump out 24/7 trying to get a black president out of office but these are all BIG LIES... Lets do a review of the BIG LIES by the rich people who don't want to pay their fair share: 1. The stimulus didn't work: BIG LIE... 2. Barney Frank and Cris Dodd cause the housing crisis: BIG LIE... 3. No, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the housing crisis: pick you5r BIG LIE 4. Obama created the current deficit: BIG LIE 5. Obama wants to take your money and give it black people: BIG LIE (source: GingRICH and Santorum's statements of the last few dayds) 6. Cutting DoD funding will make *US* vulnerable to being attacked by Iran: BIG LIE... The US Defense budget it greater than the accumulated defense budget of the next 10 countries... 7. Liberals hate America: BIG LIE 8. Man was created 5,000 years ago: BIG LIE 9. Climate change is cyclical and has nothing to do with man burning stuff: BIG LIE 10. We have to disenfranchise millions of black and young voters because they are ap6t to cheat and try to vote twice: BIG LIE Let's get real here folks... The right wing is the wing of the BIG LIARS... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:25 PM Maybe so, Bobert, but 'you know who' just signed a law removing Habeas Corpus if it is convenient to government to do so! That, sir, is fact. Explain it to me. You think it ok to advocate for this guy? Sheet fire, I am ashamed that four years back I was arguing with you to vote for him. Recall that you we're going to give your vote to a person who lost. I love you like a brother, but you are way wrong about this. He sold out the American people. Including you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:32 PM Horse crap. For one thing, Congress cannot pass a law that over rides the Bill of Rights. For another He has said that he won't use those powers. Its the "Defense of Marriage act" all over. Obama has not sold anyone out. Not over this anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Bobert Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:40 PM Habeas Corpus was trashed by Bush a long time ago, brucie... There are hundreds of "Exhibit A's" down in Guitmo... Obama inherited them and tried to change things but the Repubs headed him off at the pass saying, "No way we're gonna let those folks be tried in America"... This is a very bad hand that Obama is having to play without not just a majority but a severely fucked up hand with Senate rules that give the minority all the power (?????????????????????????????)... That is our reality... We no longer have majority rule... We have minority rule and they are ruling with a BIG stick and they have whacked Obama with it every day since he was elected.... I mean, a little perspective is in order here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 07 Jan 12 - 12:03 AM Jack .... Obama said he would never use those powers, and hopefully he won't .... in a year's time there will be (in all probability) a new president, and who knows what kind of nut they will be, and how they will use this new law. He should not have signed it into law. Bush broke the law .... Obama just now made it all legal. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 07 Jan 12 - 10:35 AM "Horse crap." That's a fine old expression, Jack. I use it from time to time, also. The problem is that your Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to your constitution--doesn't really address habeas corpus. True, 5 and 6 seem to, but they reinforce Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: 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. I wonder now when OWS will be accused of rebellion. Then carted away to be heard from no longer. And as for "For one thing, Congress cannot pass a law that over rides the Bill of Rights." Uh, they just did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 12 - 01:37 PM "..and they thought it couldn't happen here!...they were so sure....couldn't happen here"--Frank Zappa Well, we were told... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 12 - 01:44 PM and on that same note..and album..... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: kendall Date: 07 Jan 12 - 01:58 PM As I recall, Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the civil war. If one man's liberty is at risk, the liberty of all men is at risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: gnu Date: 07 Jan 12 - 04:21 PM 9... "The military was cool. The cops, not so much." Perhaps why PET decided to absolutely stop the shit in it's tracks. And... he did. He could paddle a canoe and kick the crap outta reporters and hecklers that got in his face, too. Fuddle Duddle. >;-) I don't think he was grandstanding. I think he was doing what he thought was right. Of course, it's all conjecture as we don't know what he knew... or didn't. In any case, after Tommy, he's my #1 alltime. Sorry for the thread drift... again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 07 Jan 12 - 04:30 PM No problem, gnu. I still like PET, but I changed politically after that October. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 12 - 10:41 PM JTS: "Obama has not sold anyone out. Not over this anyway." ANYONE??????????????????????????????????????????? Jeez.....welcome to Guantanamo! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:25 AM I misspoke. I believe that that law will be overturned by the Supreme Court, even this Supreme Court It was a cheap political ploy like everything else this Republican Congress has done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jan 12 - 03:50 AM JTS: "I misspoke." Yeah, Well the Senate hasn't been too helpful either...still blaming the Republicans for that, too? Jeez, If you are musician/showman..to any degree, can't you recognize 'theater' when you see it? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Jan 12 - 11:05 AM No problem, Jack. Once again, I hope you're correct. I do not expect Obama will use it, but I don't think his government is really in charge of Homeland Security (or the assorted other agencies in the US). I 'sense' that something big is about to happen that will require people to be controlled. Something we have so far thought impossible. Some years back on Mudcat I made mention of the NWO, public cameras with the ability to track individuals, conspiracy by multinationals to enslave the people of this world through economic means, the refurbishment of camps meant for the 'detention' of people, the use of the military and quasi-military groups to perform police functions on American soil against American citizens, the possibility that communications would be controlled by government--anyway, I was ridiculed by many people here and told to take off my tinfoil hat. Anyone want to borrow my hat? Had it for years, but it's just like new. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Bill D Date: 08 Jan 12 - 11:23 AM What we NEED, obviously, is a rule that prevents tacking on amendments to a bill that are not **directly related** to the bill! Or the right of a president to veto parts of a bill.... Trouble is, each party want those when it is convenient for THEIR interests. Obama knows full well what he is signing and how the Republicans are using legislative blackmail to get nasty stuff thru! He is using the best workarounds that he can under the circumstances. Solution? Re-elect him and give him a decent majority in Congress so this shit doesn't happen! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Jan 12 - 11:49 AM Assume everyone elected to the House and the Senate who has been pushing this crap through and who is up for election this time 'round were to be replaced by thinking representatives, and that the pro-Obama faction voted as a block to see that happen. Fact is, there would still not be sufficient numbers in 2012 to effect a change. I did the 'math' about two months back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 08 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM 999 ... "I 'sense' that something big is about to happen that will require people to be controlled. Something we have so far thought impossible." I wonder if that 'something else" would have something to do with what is now happening over in the mid-east which is not being reported in the mainstream media. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Jan 12 - 03:50 PM biLL, I will get back to you, likely off thread. If it's what I think then a few hours won't matter at all, even a few days or weeks. It is not about the joint US-Israeli missile/anti-missile exercises in the mid-east or the posturing of Iran and the two aforementioned countries. It's much more important than that. I just need a bit of time to formulate my thoughts and get a few 'speculations' sorted out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jan 12 - 04:43 PM Dream on!!..Why would ANYONE support this..unless it was in an agenda to use it??..It won't matter if it was passed by Democraps OR Republicunts....That's only theater....'and the big fool says to march on!' GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: gnu Date: 08 Jan 12 - 06:34 PM GfS... for once, I agrre... if you have no intention to use it, why pass it? Scarey shit man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 08 Jan 12 - 08:49 PM I agree, there has to be some agenda to all of this ..... 999 connect with me when you can. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Jan 12 - 11:39 PM I tend to see it that way too. Of course there's an agenda to use it. 999, send me your thoughts on this, okay? I'd like to hear what you have to say about it. number 6 - What are you alluding to in the Middle East? PM me about that if you like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Jan 12 - 02:26 AM Duhhh! All they need is a good excuse to put everything into place..without TOO much scrutiny....or at least enough where political partisanship can explain it away through the script...oooops..I meant 'talking points'...Jeez, I didn't want to sound TOO "politically incorrect"!..now the trick will be to make it all happen, make it all APPEAR that its BECAUSE of politics...when in reality, to top mob bosses were in it all along....utilizing the services of BOTH parties....S-h-h-h-h!! Don't tell Bobert, Jack or Don...they just would NEVER believe THAT!! Hell, I'm with the Band!....I only have to make music....not excuses!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 10 Jan 12 - 06:58 PM "Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being "hostile" against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States." Legally, the term "hostilities" means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists." http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=142186 I wonder what lies Obama will tell about this new bill? He'll juke to the left and then jump to the right. And his followers will say the damned Republicans made him do it or something equally idiotic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: pdq Date: 10 Jan 12 - 08:33 PM The federal government already has the power to take away citizenship from naturalized citizens, but not native born ones. Any naturalized citizen who lied or cheated in the citizenship process can be revoked. Same thing if they ingage in hostile acts towards the US. I'm reasonably sure the president has the power to strip citizenship also. He can also order the person deported. I can't imagine Congress has much to say about that either. If both partents were US citizens, the child's citizenship status cannot be revoked. After all, what country would he be deported to? There is still dispute about children of illegals, a problem that politician will not address due to the inevitable backlash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 10 Jan 12 - 10:39 PM almost 70 years ago(February 19, 1942) President Roosevelt authorized the internment of American citizens and non-citizens suspected as an enemy of the state with Executive Order 9066, .... that was a dark stain on U.S. history. Again, history repeats itself in the U.S. .... will Americans ever wake up. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Jan 12 - 12:45 AM gnu: "GfS... for once, I agrre... if you have no intention to use it, why pass it? Scarey shit man." Maybe you should re-read, and perhaps re-think what you THOUGHT you 'disagreed' with me about......and then find out, I've been VERY consistent..with what you might now just be flashing! ..but then, you head it first, on Mudcat! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Jan 12 - 01:02 AM Typo in previous post: "gnu: "GfS... for once, I agrre... if you have no intention to use it, why pass it? Scarey shit man." Maybe you should re-read, and perhaps re-think what you THOUGHT you 'disagreed' with me about......and then find out, I've been VERY consistent..with what you might now just be flashing! ..but then, you head it first, on Mudcat! GfS Should read: '..but then, you HEARD it first, on Mudcat! (and just got caught up in the 'so-called liberals' anti-GfS bias!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: gnu Date: 11 Jan 12 - 03:07 PM GfS... I doubt I'd change my mind. I only give credit where credit is due. I'll leave it at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Jan 12 - 04:46 PM Yes, and when you 'discover' that the 'agendas' are not random, but part of a string of shit, for a particular reason, which is certainly NOT to give you more freedom...then you may see, that 'credit' is not what I was looking for......but then, 'enlightenment' might not be what you, or others are looking for, either. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 12 - 05:56 PM Most people are looking for... 1. a chance to freely express themselves 2. the truth 3. acceptance, recognition, and love I know those are the things I'm mostly looking for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 12 - 06:25 PM I've discovered that here's how you get number 3 on that list. Give it to others as much and as often as you can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Jan 12 - 12:40 AM Little Hawk: (yo-ho!) "Give it to others as much and as often as you can." You know, that 'doing unto others, as you'd have them do unto you', is not as much of a 'command', as a law..like a law of physics.. when people treat themselves or regard themselves badly, they treat others the same way...you can feel it when they enter a room. The same is true, in the reverse. When people are extremely critical of themselves, they tend to be critical of others, as well. The same is true, in the 'command' of 'Love thy brothers, as you love yourself'....you should be able to 'love' yourself, so you can treat your brothers(or sisters) in the same fashion...besides, how would you know HOW to 'love' others..if you are insensitive to your own needs, Physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. Anger going out, is just that: Anger. When Anger is turned inward, it is called 'depression'. When one is supportive of their fellow man, it seems to create a magnetism, toward that same energy, in you. When you are always out scamming people, through deceit, and treachery, its called 'politics'!(wink)......but the rest was cool! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 12 - 03:36 AM It is exactly as you say, GfS. It wasn't a Commandment...it was an advisory (in my opinion)...and a functioning law of physics, as you say. The "Commandment" was a means of alerting people as to how reality functions. You get back whatever you are willing to give out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Jan 12 - 05:54 AM Let there be light...LAW Turn off the light...Command Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves....Both! Love one another......Privilege! Wealth...Love is the currency of Heaven! Politics.....Not where I'm going!!! Highest Regards, Hawkers! GfS P.S. Is it OK to think about God, and be a 'liberal' in good standing?...I mean are the lynch mobs forming yet?...and if I don't get my spiritual fix from church on Sunday, will the Christian Right be shoving 'liberals' out of their way, to hang me? Oh well.............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Charmion Date: 12 Jan 12 - 08:42 AM Hey, Brucie; Hi, Gnu: I propose that you add two factors to your analysis of the October Crisis. First, consider that that nobody -- repeat NOBODY -- in government, law enforcement or the Canadian Forces -- knew that the FLQ was basically two cells -- Libération and Chenier -- that were so loosely connected that their operations were quite independent. There was no operational command structure, but the authorities had no way of knowing that. Much of what we now know about the FLQ came out of the investigations by the RCMP and Sûreté Québec (Quebec Province Police) of the murder of Pierre Laporte and the kidnapping of James Cross. These findings did not begin to become public knowledge until the resulting trials, and the publication of participants' memoirs beginning with Gérard Pelletier and moving on (eventually) to Paul Rose and Francis Simard. Secondly, the War Measures Act was the only legislation on the books at the time that would allow the federal government to do all the stuff the Prime Minister and his Cabinet feared they might have to do. As my dear old sergeant used to say, If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem you encounter gets treated like a nail. The lesson of the October Crisis for Americans today is that their legislation needs to be flexible enough to give the civil powers a "least force" option. Oh yeah -- and that unreasonable behaviour by the authorities will result in ferocious push-back from a public that didn't know it cared until push came to shove. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 12 Jan 12 - 10:43 AM Good and salient points, Charmion. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: gnu Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:04 PM Certainly seconded, 9. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: gnu Date: 12 Jan 12 - 04:05 PM "Give it to others as much and as often as you can." Ahhhh, isn't that what could happen with this legislation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Jan 12 - 10:41 PM Well, it's one thing to give, as from out of your heart...but another to have things taken by co-coercion...and besides, most of the legislation is to facilitate the facilitators,rather than help those really in need....otherwise, corruption and politics wouldn't be so hand in hand! Oh well...... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 12 - 11:33 PM It's been said succintly as "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." This has generally been the case, although not always if you look at it in a strictly literal fashion. But it's not a literal statement so much as it is a metaphor. That is, if you are treacherous and untrusting, you will likely suffer treachery and lack of trust from those around you. If you are cruel, cruelty is probably what you'll get in return. If you are harsh, harshness is what you'll get. A study of the lives of famous Mafia Dons and of gangsters in general will confirm all of that in spades. They live by the sword...they die by the sword...in one sense or another. Leaders of governments should keep that in mind too. It's called "karma". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Jan 12 - 01:32 AM Well, as I've said before, "Love is the currency of Heaven"....and to all those that think 'Heaven' is some far away imaginary fantasy, just remember..Earth is located in Heaven! Oh No!..and I've been believing and doing WHAT??????? But as someone pointed out earlier...I think it was 'Bluesman'..we're talking over their heads. Regards!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 08 Feb 12 - 06:18 PM For Immediate Release February 06, 2012 EXECUTIVE ORDER BLOCKING PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN AND IRANIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) (NDAA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code... http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/06/executive-order-blocking-property-government-iran-and-iranian-financial- Obama uses NDAA to halt Iranian assets Published: 07 February, 2012, 00:38 ...the president evoked section 1245 of the NDAA, a small script in the act that authorizes Obama the power to freeze property belonging to the Iranian government and stop the nation from accessing any of its funds, including even those held by the Central Bank of Iran. Previous legislation had allowed the US "reject" Iranian transaction, which would simply keep matters from passing through American authorities. By employing section 1245, however, the US is blocking any deals that would involve the government of Iran or their Central Bank. The action to enforce section 1245 makes Obama's record with the NDAA only appear that much more questionable. Under this legislation, the US president has the power to detain and interrogate any American citizen without ever taking them to court or even charging them. Even though Obama promised to never use these powers, he just as well promised that he would never sign the act, only to reverse this position later on. http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-ndaa-act-iran-645/ I'm sick of Obama's supporters trying to make his whole presidency about his blackness or his party affiliation or his so-called "liberalism." This is the act of a dictator. Don't forget that under the terms of the NDAA you can be "disappeared" legally. This Executive Order is bad for Iran, bad for the world, and bad for each and every American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: artbrooks Date: 08 Feb 12 - 08:39 PM I just wonder how many years - or is it decades - that Cuban government property and funds have been frozen by Presidential order...I expect that it happened rather before this particular law happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 08 Feb 12 - 09:33 PM Okay, so we already had a history of freezing assets. So why does the NDAA need to be invoked to do that? It doesn't. But what NEW power is in the NDAA that wasn't in the other seizure laws? The power to disappear artbrooks as a terrorist. Obama has his supporters goosestepping to the death camps. Haliburton and the Department of Defense announced not long ago that they're hiring IR people (Internment and Relocation). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 08 Feb 12 - 10:14 PM This new law will go into effect on March 3, 2012. About the same time that the attack on Iran is to be attacked (from what I've been hearing) ... Hmmmmm. Off topic somewhat, but maybe not, but has anyone heard of Bold Alligator 2012 that has been going on in the mid-east? Anyway, I'm still amazed how this NDAA law has been pretty well ignored by the U.S. populace and mainstream media. Now, I'm wondering if it would have been greeted by much more criticism and alarm if Bush had enacted this draconian law? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 09 Feb 12 - 12:29 AM Yes, March is shaping up as a bad month for the U.S. and the world. On March 1 we'll get the first independent look at Obama's credentials. The federal justice system has blocked all attempts to look at his records so far, but a sheriff in Arizona will release his findings on March 1: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND today his office has scheduled a news conference in Phoenix for March 1 to release findings of the Cold Case Posse that has been investigating Barack Obama's birth certificate and eligibility to be president. http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/d-day-set-for-sheriff-joe-on-obama-eligibility/print/ This is the real deal, but Obama's followers will try to poo poo it. As will the mainstream media, which put Obama in power. But the findings could be so damaging that Obama would need a diversion, and WW3 would do nicely. The U.S.S. Enterprise will be in the Strait of Hormuz in March, and it's about to be retired, so a Battleship Maine/Gulf of Tonkin job could be used to rally Americans around the commander in chief. They won't, of course, because he's proven to be such a fraud, but now he can just designate any dissenters as threats to the U.S., and they'll be disappeared. Of course, a new war will mean the government needs more money, so there go your pensions, and if you object, well, they've hired lots of Internment & Relocation Specialists to deal with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Feb 12 - 12:46 AM "Now, I'm wondering if it would have been greeted by much more criticism and alarm if Bush had enacted this draconian law?" Yes, of course it would have. That's exactly how the partisan game works in the USA. Both parties run the same imperial game for the same basic backing interests...which means illegal foreign wars of aggression, reduction of civil liberties at home, impoverishment of the middle class, and bailouts to bankers, but each party has a specific outer role to play in that game...and they play the public like a good cop and a bad cop playing an arrested man at the station. The Democrats, if in office, can quietly enact draconian things that their supporters would raise bloody hell over if it was the Republicans who were doing it! Likewise, the Republicans, if in office, can get away with "liberal" things the Democrats wouldn't get away with...like Nixon's famous rapprochment with Communist China in the early 70s. Nixon could do it, because no one would BELIEVE that a Republican president, specially Richard Nixon, would EVER go "soft on Communism"...! So people figured, "Oh, it must be okay to deal with Red China now if Nixon is doing it..." They'd not have given a Democratic president any such leeway to deal with China at that time. Likewise, the progressives will let Obama do what they'd never let Bush do! Because they figure, "Oh, well, if Obama's doing it, it must be okay...he's so nice...and he's Black...and he's our guy...and we trust him...so it's gotta be okay." That is how the game works. Good Cop, Bad Cop. Bush was the Bad Cop from a progressive's point of view. Obama's the "Good Cop". Both cops work for the same precinct, folks. Appearances are deceiving. Both cops serve the same masters and seek the same objectives. Neither is to be trusted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: artbrooks Date: 09 Feb 12 - 12:54 AM Bold Alligator 2012 is the semi-annual Marine invasion of Virginia Beach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 09 Feb 12 - 08:14 AM Obama's reversal on signing the NDAA reminds me of Pat Paulsen's remark in the 1960s when asked about his candidacy for the presidency: If I'm nominated I will not run, and if I'm elected I will not serve. I think there will be only a sham election in 2012. In response to a Google search of who controls homeland security I found the following site: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/ It may be the most important thing you read this year. And it may be the last thing you read as a free citizen of the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Feb 12 - 10:55 AM The past several American elections have all been sham elections, as far as I'm concerned...orchestrated from the elite, by the elite, for the elite. Not that the pubic didn't elect Mr Obama. They did. But it was set up to happen that way by judicious use of massive funding and media coverage for Obama, and the moneyed elite are the people who arranged that. And the public was given an almost completely false impression of what would happen after they elected Mr Obama. That's why it was a sham election. Bush's elections were both sham elections too, and I think they both involved voting fraud on a very large scale in certain key states such as Ohio and Florida. Voting fraud wasn't necessary, however, to get Obama elected in 2008. The public enthusiastically responded to his offer of "change". Nice marketing job! He has not delivered, probably never intended to, and that's where the sham part comes in. Or if he did intend to...well, he's found out exactly how entrenched power works in Washington...it gets its way, regardless of what a candidate promises the public before he gets elected. In my opinion, Obama's either a willing sellout, a fraud...or a helpless prisoner of the gigantic system that is set up all around him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 09 Feb 12 - 02:01 PM artbrooks .... yes, Bold Alligator is the annual marine excercise ... but Bold Alligator 2012 is the largest and boldest amphibious landing test run by the marines in over 10 years, and expensive at that I'd say .... why is it the largest .... Osama bin Laden has been snuffed out, diminishing (somewhat) any threats by those bad guys, so we have been told, .... The U.S has considerably scaled down it's troops in Irag, and now saying they are pulling out of the Afghani .... so why such a massive Bold Alligator now, what's the big threat? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: artbrooks Date: 09 Feb 12 - 04:44 PM Sorry - I thought you said has anyone heard of Bold Alligator 2012 that has been going on in the mid-east? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: number 6 Date: 09 Feb 12 - 05:45 PM My apologies Art .... has anyone heard of Bold Alligator 2012 is which is for all intents and purposes preparing for the mid-east .... there that's more like it .... whew .... :-) anyway ... that should probably belong in the "Will Israel attack Iran?" thread, or even better "will the U.S. attack Iran" if someone is crazy enough to start one. now .... back let's get back to the NDAA and all that stuff. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 28 May 12 - 07:02 PM It seems fitting to resurrect this thread on Memorial Day, when we remember the people who've died serving America. What an abomination the NDAA is. And if it was rushed into existence, then you can be sure it's being put to use. Andrew Breitbart and a couple of people associated with his final story are my candidates for Obama's "disappearing" act. Can you imagine what the dead veterans would say about America turning into a banana republic where the president claims the legal right to kill, disappear and torture people? Obama killed people this week with drone aircraft attacks (Pakistan and Yemen were in the news, probably others), and people who pose a political threat to him are dying and disappearing in America. Happy Memorial Day. http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/now-a-witness-to-breitbarts-death-disappears/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,999 Date: 29 May 12 - 10:35 AM Well, the Bilderberg group meets in a few days. Makes ya wonder what terrorist crisis will result from their efforts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 May 12 - 10:44 AM BRAVO!!! Posts by people who have a clue!!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Stringsinger Date: 30 May 12 - 10:46 AM This may be one of the nails in the coffin of Obama's reelection. The "Killer-in-Chief" with his drone strikes may be the other. I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to sit this election out. I don't trust Obama to even select decent Supreme Court Justices now. Romney would be a total disaster but it might mobilize grass roots efforts to change the System. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 30 May 12 - 12:29 PM Either one of them would be a total disaster, because the governmental and societal system they are at the head of is a total disaster. And that's what you're gonna get, come election time. You will get either Obama or Romney...as a meaningless "happy face" pasted on top of the corrupt, murderous imperial/bankster/corporate system they represent. A total disaster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: ollaimh Date: 30 May 12 - 01:08 PM for thise who don't know the american government has routinely tried to enforce its laws in canada. with the cooperation of the present governmant. the liberal resisted that. they have tried to impose their copwrite laws, their security regulation, their criminal code against canadians resident in canda who are not breaking any canadain law but were breaking american laws . the latter have been ectradided on occasion. and the worst case was the extradition of leonard peltier for the deaths of a couple of fbi agents. the american government used perjered affidavits to get him over the norder. when later the perjury was proven, well too bad, we got want we wanted. but then america tries to impose it's laws all over the world. an major source of the widespread hatred for america. which apparantly most american don't know about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 30 May 12 - 01:24 PM Sort of like imperial Rome, eh? They figured their laws applied to everyone else too. That wasn't the fault of ordinary Romans at the time. Like ordinary Americans, they were mostly just helpless victims of their own imperial system, because they weren't the ones in charge of it...they just lived under it...and they served it in the ways it required them to, as dictated by a small and wealthy elite. That's how an imperial system works. If culturally necessary, it will put on sham elections of some kind at scheduled intervals to give the people the false impression (and hope) that they have a voice...but those who are pre-selected (by the elite) and then elected will serve the ruling system itself, not the will of the general population. The general population, whether they know it or not, are little more than serfs, little different than slaves, disposable worker bees, disposable soldiers in time of war. Such an imperial situation generally endures until that ruling system meets its demise in some fashion...either a military or a financial demise, usually. That can take a very long time in some cases. It certainly took a long time where Rome was concerned. When it falls, anything can happen. If you happen to be there when it does...good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 May 12 - 04:53 PM ollaimh: "for thise who don't know the american government has routinely tried to enforce its laws in canada. with the cooperation of the present governmant. the liberal resisted that." That's because, then President Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement on behalf of the banksters, who wanted domination of the whole of the continent. He was nominated, supported, and promoted by the Rockefellers and crowd of their ilk, and passed the bill during the Christmas recess, when the rest of Congress was away from Washington. Bush continued and supported the policy, as does Obama. This is because they are all puppet front-men, for the governing body, who really is runnig the show, and making all the decisions...while the two parties debate and haggle, not knowing what is really going on...but consumed with their lofty opinions of what is going on!! You see it manifested in Mudcat, all the time!!..That's how bad it is!!! GfS P.S. Correct me, if I'm wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Little Hawk Date: 30 May 12 - 05:08 PM You are correct. NAFTA was the start of it. It was given the misnomer "Free Trade" in Canada, in order to get people thinking it was some kind of good idea. It's not a question of the Democrats or Republicans. It's a question of who owns both of them. Clinton was complicit, and so too have Bush and Obama been. No matter which one gets elected, the banks and major corporations rule. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 12:37 AM Little Hawk: "...It's not a question of the Democrats or Republicans. It's a question of who owns both of them." You posted a similar thought a while back, as to questioning 'depending on who the guys running it'. I intended to post you you, after I read that(but I was busy with a funeral, and researching the Obamneycare control bill.....so, in a belated response(being as you bought it up again) is AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY!!! Good independent thinking!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 28 Nov 12 - 08:36 PM Will Texas Nullify Both NDAA and TSA? This could be the spark that leads to the Civil War Obama wants. If he can't disappear people in Texas and order his minions to play with their testicles, then the war might be on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 18 Jul 13 - 12:41 AM Ex parte Quirin, or Why Obama Can Legally Kill by Secret Military Tribunal July 18, 2013 The only thing standing between the United States and a full-blown, codified dictatorship is: the Supreme Court. An Appellate Court has today just handed down its decision, and it seems that the powers given to the President to indefinitely detain without trial are double-plus good. The mainstream media is not reporting widely on the court's decision; after all, they didn't report on the passing of the NDAA 2012, the act that gave the President the power to lock anyone up and throw away the key. If the Supreme Court does not hear an appeal, the President will retain the right to detain anyone without trial until the end of hostilities against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. There is also the possibility that the Supreme Court will rule that suspected terrorists don't have the right to trial by a civilian court. That fear stems from the Court's decision during WWII. One little aspect of this whole debacle that has gone largely unmentioned is the precedent of Ex Parte Quirin. During WWII, the Nazis shipped over a team of saboteurs to wreak havoc on the US. Among those saboteurs was Herbert Hans Haupt, a US citizen.... http://www.abreureport.com/2013/07/ex-parte-quirin-or-why-obama-can.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 01 Jan 14 - 07:54 PM Bigger, Badder NDAA 2014 Quietly Passed the House and Senate -- and It Is On the Way to Obama's Desk While everyone is distracted with the holiday festivities, Congress has been hard at work, screwing us over in the name of national security. Yesterday the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act was fast-tracked through the Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments. And you know, its Christmastime, so they just passed it so that they could recess for the holidays. The new version of the NDAA has already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives. It authorizes massive spending, including $527 billion in base defense spending for the current fiscal year, funding for the war in Afghanistan, and funding for nuclear weapons programs. The indefinite detention allowed by the original NDAA is still here, and it's actually worse now, because there are provisions that will make it easier for the government to target those who disagree. Section 1071 outlines the creation of the "Conflict Records Research Center", where the unconstitutionally obtained information that the NSA has collected is compiled and shared with the Department of Defense. The information, called in the wording "captured records," can be anything from your phone records, emails, browsing history or posts on social media sites.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 14 - 08:11 PM Everybody knows this and no one gives a shit. What's new? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: National Defense Authorization Act From: Songwronger Date: 08 Jan 14 - 05:58 PM NDAA 2014 Militarizes Local Police With New Armored Vehicles 40-second video. |
