• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

National Defense Authorization Act

wooly

I am the woolrus
Just wondering what people on GF, particularly U.S. members, make of the National Defense Authorization Act 2012 that was signed by Obama on December 31st?

Personally i can't believe that this act has been put into effect, as it allows for the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens by armed forces, without trial. I think this should be very worrying to any American citizen, not because they're likely to be arrested or anything, but the fact that their civil liberties can be so quickly and quietly taken away from them.

Originally, in Obama's press release about the bill, he said that "even though he has strong reservations of some of its elements—such as indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law--he signed it because he needed the funding for the military." (Source: Guardian UK)

1. I think Obama comes across as a ridiculously weak president in this statement

2. According to Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and co-sponsor of the NDAA, it was allegedly Obama who actually demanded that indefinite detention of American citizens be added to the bill, as can be seen in the following video:

(D) Carl Levin on NDAA 'Obama Admin insisted on the contents' - YouTube
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
One of the most disappointing things for me is the lack of outrage this has generated. The left appointed themselves as the defenders of liberty for 8 years under the Bush administration. We heard constantly that one day Americans would be snatched off the street and imprisoned just like the CIA was snatching foreigners off the streets and sending them to black sites.
Now we are living under a new administration and when this administration killed an American citizen in another nation without due process nothing was said. Now this administration has signed into law the very thing YOU WARNED ABOUT and again nothing is said.
To GF members Sim and ExpectedlyIronic and others that were always on this, I must say YOU WERE RIGHT. This was a very dangerous road to go down and it has led us exactly where you said it would. If these 2 members were still posting here, I believe they would be appalled by the Defense Act.
To other GF members that were always on this and are now silent, I must say YOU WERE RIGHT. The Obama election really was about racist politics and apparently as long as you have a black Democrat in office, you could care less what he does to destroy the civil liberties of Americans. Yes the Senate voted for this and yes they all need to be replaced that voted Yeah. But its Obama that promised to be a firewall against this and its Obama that actually pushed for the detainment clause and its the liberals that were supposed to be so against it that went along with it.
 

wooly

I am the woolrus
One of the most disappointing things for me is the lack of outrage this has generated.
Same. I'm shocked at the complete lack of anger or opposition in the U.S. over the introduction of this act. I mean, an act denying Americans their one of their natural human rights has just been passed and nobody seems to care!

Also, the more i read about it the scarier it gets. The definitions are so vague in the bill that almost anybody can be arrested for anything the American government feels like arresting them for. There's hardly any guidelines whatsoever. Any "associated forces" to terrorism or people committing "belligerent acts" can now be arrested by the military without charge or trial. neither of these terms are defined. To be an "associated force" you can simply visit a website, go to a meeting, or attend a mosque with a suspected link to terrorism and you can be arrested indefinitely. And i have no idea what constitutes a "belligerent act". Without proper definition of these terms it can literally be for ANYTHING. It's completely up to the government's discretion, as they don't even need a reason anymore.

Also, the cost of this bill is $662 billion, and that is helping to maintain America's 900 military bases in 130 countries! This sort of continued warmongering is not going to improve the economy, and only bring more hatred and retaliation to America and it's troops.
 

Scott75

Registered Member
Same. I'm shocked at the complete lack of anger or opposition in the U.S. over the introduction of this act. I mean, an act denying Americans their one of their natural human rights has just been passed and nobody seems to care!
People will care more when the orders to use this act are executed... let's just hope an order like this is never passes...

ORDER 66 and the death of the jedi knights - YouTube

I wouldn't be surprised if George Lucas has a fairly good idea of what's going down.. and is trying his best to prepare us for it.
 
Last edited:

shelgarr

Registered Member
He wants to free suspected terrorists at Guantanamo, and detain American citizens instead. In both cases there needs to be just cause. "Just cause" can be different interpretations however and that's where these matters get sticky. Unfortunately anytime a policy like this is put in place, it can become contentious when the few innocent people are unjustly held, and the guilty ones get overlooked. As with anything, there are always flaws in the system.
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
All it takes for them to deem you a terrorist and hold you indefinitely is to be belligerent. People should of had a problem with the Patriot Act because of that now the police can search your home without you even being there. I don't think they need a warrant or probably cause for much these days. Our law makers didn't even bother to read the Patriot Act before signing it either. Obama may of signed the NDAA but most of those in Washington was for it except for Ron Paul and a couple of others. I wish Obama would grow a pair and told congress the military can go home before we take anymore of US citizens rights away. That's the type of President I want.

That's a big reason I am going to vote for Ron Paul. I think he is the only candidate that sees something wrong with this and might do something about it. I say "might" because it seems like once they get up there they seem to forget about what they said when running for office.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
All it takes for them to deem you a terrorist and hold you indefinitely is to be belligerent. People should of had a problem with the Patriot Act because of that now the police can search your home without you even being there. I don't think they need a warrant or probably cause for much these days. Our law makers didn't even bother to read the Patriot Act before signing it either. Obama may of signed the NDAA but most of those in Washington was for it except for Ron Paul and a couple of others. I wish Obama would grow a pair and told congress the military can go home before we take anymore of US citizens rights away. That's the type of President I want.

That's a big reason I am going to vote for Ron Paul. I think he is the only candidate that sees something wrong with this and might do something about it. I say "might" because it seems like once they get up there they seem to forget about what they said when running for office.
Actually no, they can't just search your home without a warrant. It's not like the Patriot Act completely invalidated the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It may go too far in some instances and may make it easier to obtain a warrant, or forego a warrant in certain situations, but they can't randomly select your house and decide to search it without a warrant.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ CO: Well now they can, all they have to do is call you a terrorist first, right?
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Under the Patriot Act, no, under the NDAA I don't know. It appears they can but in all honesty I haven't read it completely. I also haven't heard anything about how it has been playing out and how court's are treating it. My guess is most courts are not going to uphold it and render it unconstitutional, but that may be wishful thinking on my part.
 

wooly

I am the woolrus
Actually no, they can't just search your home without a warrant. It's not like the Patriot Act completely invalidated the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It may go too far in some instances and may make it easier to obtain a warrant, or forego a warrant in certain situations, but they can't randomly select your house and decide to search it without a warrant.
Well they're not selecting the houses at random, but if they do have a desire to search a house they can pretty much do it without any proper justification. The guidelines are so vague and warrants easy to get, they can pretty much search your house for no reason whatsoever. That definitely does invalidate the 4th amendment to a large degree, but the thing is whether it doesn't "completely" invalidate the 4th amendment or not doens't matter. If it goes against it at all it should be a reason for concern.

I mean the Patriot act violates the 4th Amendment, the NDAA violates Posse Comitatus, what next? I think that americans need to make their voices heard on this because who knows what natural right protecting the citizen will be taken away next. It seems like the constitution doesn't mean much to the administration anymore.
------
Under the Patriot Act, no, under the NDAA I don't know. It appears they can but in all honesty I haven't read it completely. I also haven't heard anything about how it has been playing out and how court's are treating it. My guess is most courts are not going to uphold it and render it unconstitutional, but that may be wishful thinking on my part.
it completely bypasses the courts. That's the problem. The people who will be arrested because of this act won't get a trial. They don't even need a charge to be arrested.
 
Last edited:
Top