Al right, so apparently Congress and Obama signed this bill on December 31st, 2011called the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA). Now, this bill has been active for 49 years, but now it has changed greatly. The NDAA for Fiscal year 2012 (official name) would allow the US government and the United States Armed Forces to hold any individual suspected of involvement in terrorism or anti-government activity to be detained and tortured for an indefinite amount of time without trial. Sounds crazy doesn't it? It's even more shocking to realize this act will cost over $600 billion and it passed through congress with a 86-13 passing. In the wrong hands (and it probably is in the wrong hands), they could arrest anyone who says something vaguely negative about the government or seems anti-government and detain them indefinitely without trial and proceed to torture them. This has got to be the most unconstitutional bill ever signed. Is America scared of it's own shadow so much that they're willing to compromise the basic human rights of their own citizen's? This is ridiculous and unacceptable. Please respond with your opinion and whatever information you have on this act (and please state your source). Thank you.
Makes no difference,just means it'll be done more openly,the us already flys suspects to guantanamo or pakistan to interogate them,if its not on us soil it dosent violate us laws (as far as theyre concerned anyway)
thenumberone : Yes, but back then they put them on trial (sometimes fairly) and they couldn't do it too often lest they track attention. Now they can indiscriminately put random people in indefinite detention if they say something that seems anti-government . Not to mention now that this is law they can do it on a wider scale and without having to answer to anyone about it.
The US government has had the power to do this for the past ten years. This bill only reaffirms that. And of course it costs a heck of a lot; the NDAA include's the military's annual budget. If Obama had vetoed it, he would be crucified at the polls.
Traduweise : Read my last post, it's not just what they can do, it's that now they can do it in an non-discriminatory fashion at a massive scale. Back then they (mostly) went after people involved in actual terrorist activity, but now they can do this to the common person without anyone being able to speak out at this as a violation of U.S. Law. We're talking any person who does so much as speak out against the U.S. involvement in the middle east. Not to mention that the government passing this bill is symbolic of their blatant disregard of the people's rights.
damnit, i just lost my repl due to server strainnn
basically, we have no idea how many have been 'processed' so far.
thre was uproar in the uk when the public found out the us was using britain as a hub to transport muslim suspects to pakistan to be tortured/interogated, they had no trials.
U4EA : You are mistaken. Instead of relying sketchy websites and, I suggest you read the bill for yourself. Section 1021, page 265. Simply put, nothing has changed.
Take special note section e: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
Traduweise : It means that nothing should be taken out of context as to change existing laws or the laws written here. Each of these laws are meant to be taken literally with absolutely no exceptions. You'd think that they wouldn't even write a new bill if it was going to be the same. Even if what your saying was the case, it probably means that no laws involving HOW people are arrested should be changed, but the laws affecting WHO is arrested will change thanks to this bill. Please message any further claims/arguments you may have, because it took a good eye to spot that and I want to know if there's anything else I should be concerned with.
U4EA : I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but the point of
affirmation in the bills is that all these powers already existed.
Congress is just pointing out that they still exist. As for who is subject to arrests, that doesn't seem to have changed either, as you can clearly read. The point is that these powers have existed for ten years and virtually nobody has spoken out, and now all of a sudden it's headline news? Nothing is changing; if people didn't want this, they should have spoken out ten years ago.
All of us pass bills daily. Just open your wallet and pull out a george and there you have it... you just passed a bill :D What congress does is write out an IOU in exchange for monies that they dont have. Think of them as bank robbers who write "give me all your money" on a paper and hand it over to the clerk while threatening him or her with a fountain pen and legal garbage. The only bills I'm concerned about are the ones in my own wallet.
As far as my understanding goes, I think the bill has a second objective: testing the waters with the people. Basically, I think this bill not only gives the US government a little more power as far as controlling the people in its borders, but it sees how much the people are willing to appease to their government. Basically, in the eyes of a politician, if this bill can get passed and the people don't give us TOO much trouble, what else can we pass?
I don't know what is next, but between the various internet bills, NDAA's passing, and the current debt...we should keep a close eye on what is going on in congress and behind the scenes. We always knew there was corruption in politics and we always knew that the media can not always be trusted (look at those lies the stations told about the Canadian Health care system in 2009). It is really worth keeping an eye on things to see where they go.
I am glad I am not from the USA...I got nothing against the people but the government...to be honest it could be a lot worse but there might be issues soon...