President Obama signs Defense Authorization Bill

[superflyinchopstickninja]

Originally Posted by o fenomeno

niketalk's awareness of two huge issues when it comes to SOPA and the NDAA is really telling of how the rest of the country feels about these bills. people just don't really know it's going on. the mainstream media isn't touching it and people aren't realizing the impact it will have. they won't know until its too late, aka when they're being detained without reason on suspicion of terrorism, or when they cant access porn cause its blocked. 
obama lost my vote with his signing of the bill. all 3 branches of government are an absolute joke. particularly congress. its a damn shame. 

Word we just need to shut down the EPA

But really, no one even knows what's going on.  I was talking to my mom about it and she doesn't even believe that such a bill is even in existence.  My mom isn't a fool, graduated college, stays pretty p to date with things, and makes a hefty living... But I think it's very indicative of the fact that the American population is so uninformed about issues like this.  I can't blame them though. Like you said, "mainstream media isn't touching it."

 

[lukewarm skywalker]

Originally Posted by MrBrown

This was today and no real discuss
I am dissapoint

Are you surprised though.
Like someone pointed out on the last page, "they" waited to get this passed yesterday for a reason.

Yesterday, folks were in way too much of a festive mood to concern themselves with ishh like this, and today, folks are either nursing hangovers or still celebrating to still give a damn about this. 

And as for the media covering this--forget about it. Their job is to administer the pill that leaves the masses in perpetual obliviousness. Why make a big deal about this bill when doing so will be tantamount to biting the hand that feeds them.

...

 

[return of the mac]

Searched a buncha major news netowrks NOTHING has popped up....but this is from the white house page

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by breezylocks

real life...

so what is this bill about?

It gives the government the right to go after terrorists by any means neccessary 
It wont even affect 99.93% of the population

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by Return Of The Mac


Searched a buncha major news netowrks NOTHING has popped up....but this is from the white house page

It popped up on CNN Breaking News yesterday. Plus they been having people debate it on MSNBC for the last 2 weeks

 

[zapatohead408]

cartune, I hope you're being sarcastic. A couple weeks ago protesting was classified as low level terrorism by the government. So yes, if you're protesting something, anything, you're now a terrorist and as of january 1st 2012 the military can now detain you or even assasinate you on american soil with no right to a trial.

yea, now you're worried aren't you. Well guess what, the NDAA already passed.

the topic of the National Defense Authorization has been brought up on every major news chain, but the actual passing of the bill has not.

 

[chickhien]

Have anyone of yall read the bill? Help me out because this was the only section i could find in that 500 page bill that is close to what people are talking about. Sections 1021 to 1034 all deal with "covered persons", which i pasted below. From reading it, if the government has determined you are al qaeda, you will be held with no trial. Is this the section people are applying to protesting? I dont see the correlation

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI- TARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub- section (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organiza- tions, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

 

[feedtheego1982]

(Cartune) That's a really really broad interpretation of the bill.  While there are legitimate concerns about the reach of this bill, misinformation is what keeps people afraid.  People are still going to protest without being called a terrorist..  The net loves to get all wrapped up in non news and fail to hold on to the real issues at hand. 

I remember when Swine Flu first hit, everyone on here was talking about forced vaccinations, internment camps for those who didn't get vaccinated, about how the vaccine would be used to implant tiny chips into everyone's skin to track their every move...  All based on NOTHING.  2 years later and it is all forgotten.  Hell, I was even shook reading all of these threads about American Holocaust knocking at our doors. 

That's why I choose to live life the best way I can.  My main goal for this year is not to get caught up in media scare tactics.  Stories like these are meant to scare people into a state of paralysis, giving you the, "It'll all be over soon, why bother trying.." sort of additude.  I'm glad everyone is up on the issues, but I really believe this one wont effect ANYONE on here.  If one of my NT brothers gets offed for protesting, I'll help with the funeral

  Doubt that is happening.

You should be pissed off about how everyone can magically agree on this issue, but not on issues that would help our economy and people who are truly in need.  We should be pissed at how around the corner from the freakin White House, bums are living on the street. 

Habeas Corpus has been suspended a few different times in our history.  This probably wont be the last time it is suspended either. 

That's exactly what I was saying chickhien.

 

[chickhien]

Okay, i just read the think progress link. Good to know i didnt waste my time looking at the bill first. A couple of things i'd like to comment on
1) im glad folks are upset about being detained without a trial. Direct violation of the 6th amendment. According to what Pres Obama said, if youre a US citizen, it wont apply to you. This actually is a load of crap from my personal experience. Long story short, I had to break into a friend's house and spent 2 hours looking for her passport while an ICE agent held her at the city jail. He wouldnt release her until she proved she was a citizen. Why was she in jail? Her business partner actually beat her up and they arrested her for assault. So not only do you have to prove youre a citizen (how many of yall walk around with a passport or birth certificate?) you also better hope youre not deemed a covered person, aka al qaeda.
2) 99% of the bill deals with military admin stuff
3) we gotta stop letting the media dictate what is important or not. Thanks to those who linked the actual bill. I recommend reading it through first before reading any commentary from liberal or conservative websites. This will give us niketalkers a chance for discussion before we have any debates because honestly, im still learning the issues/facts before i pick a side and recite talking points from a media outlet.
4) in my opinion, this is why we have such a jacked up system. We stopped discussing and listening. Instead we go full on debate/attack mode and i have yet to see any results from this form of engagement. Look at Congress

 

[gambit215]

Bill doesnt apply to US citizens.................

 

[sillyputty]

Apparently Obama's hands were tied...its damned if you do, damned if yo don't... apparently there was a bunch of stuff tied into the bill they didnt like but a lot of stuff they did...



This is what happens when they vote on more than one issue.




Here is the best explanation I can find of what it is:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Say you're at school, and there's a group of mean kids who spray paint nasty words on the walls in all the hallways whenever no one's looking. This costs the school time and money to clean it up, so they pass a rule saying that anyone caught with spray paint will get detention and/or kicked out of school. Great. Problem is, there's some kids who still find ways to get spray paint into the school and do it anyway. So, the school passes new rules saying that anyone who is suspected of spray painting can get detention, even if there's no proof they actually did it. That way, if a student is accused of spraypainting, the school can lock him up in the detention room and search his locker to see if he's got any spray paint. If they don't find any, okay, they let him go. Otherwise, he's in big trouble.

Problem is, now there's an easy way to get kids you don't like in trouble - just go to the teacher and say you saw Johnny So-and-so spraypainting a nasty word in the hallway. Even if Johnny So-and-so didn't do that, he's got detention. And to make things worse, there are still some kids spraypainting nasty words in the hallways when no one is looking. So, the school passes another new rule that anyone who is caught even talking about spraypainting can get detention, even if they've never done it or had any intention of doing it. So now, all students are scared that they might get detention, even if they've done nothing wrong.

Now, not only do you have to worry about being falsely accused, and also worry about being careful what you say all day every day, but in addition, mean teachers now have a way to punish students they don't like, even if they haven't done anything wrong. Mean old Mister Cruelheart can just say that Susy Whats-her-face was talking about spraypainting (even if she wasn't), and now Susy is in detention for the rest of the week.

By this point, it doesn't matter if you're innocent or not - if another student or a mean teacher has any reason to not like you, they can just accuse you of being a spraypainter, and here comes the school guards to take you to detention. Everyone is scared. No one is safe. And there's still spray paint in the hallways.

And here is an explanation of what Obama is facing...:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

TL;DR The President's opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don't seem to realize they've been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.

He signed it because if he didn't, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I'll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President's wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.

You'll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn't coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President's stated mandate - they are effectively a giant '!!@$ you' to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President's support with his own base.

Observe:
Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.
Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political ****storm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.

Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)

Here's where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party's base and the opposition's. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to 'Keep America safe' and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent's liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that's what they care about most. You've designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don't even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.

Pass the 'parent' legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military's operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent's base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won't matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.

Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It's a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.

This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don't know or don't care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this 'corporate shill', congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don't seem to see that. You don't have to like your country's two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it's being used like this.

EDIT: typos

EDIT2: There are some other great observations made by other posters downthread. This makes me happy. Of particular interest is the discussion about potential SCOTUS challenges to parts of the bill - specifically parts of the bill that Obama highlighted in his signing statement. Court challenges are a messy, but effective way of limiting the power of any branch of government, and in this case, such a challenge should be demanded.

EDIT3: Off to make Baklava before my wife becomes disappointed in me I'll try to be on again later to answer any questions or comments that I feel are worth my time responding to. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for such a stimulating discussion! I don't care who you vote for (although I have my preferences), but please, take this passion and use it to get involved in your nation's politics. The single most important obligation that any person has to their society is to be educated about its mechanisms and to be active in them. Don't let your anger dissuade you from becoming involved. Political change is incremental and measured in electoral cycles. Be passionate, but PLEASE be patient.

FINAL EDIT: Well, the comments have turned into insults and whining as I more or less expected them to. To all of you who assert (without knowledge) that I'm an 'apologist', a shill, or in the pocket of 'the establishment', I'll let you in on a couple of secrets. I'm not an American. I don't live in America. I don't care who you elect to lead you - although I have my own preferences. I agree that your political system is in need of an overhaul. I think a third party or even a fourth would be awesome. I think it's hilarious the way some of you condemn support for Obama whilst placing your own candidate of choice on a pedestal, as though he or she is any different. I'm not making normative claims here; I'm not telling you how things ought to be. I'm simply explaining what I see. If you don't agree, fine, I'm glad you have an opinion on the matter. Dissenting views are great. What is not great however is the way in which some of you try to intimidate others for holding different views - or use your downvotes to censor views that you don't wish others to see. Some of you rage about Orwellian doublespeak or doublethink or how 'those in power' want to impose a police state where free speech and civil liberties are censored. I don't know why you bother condemning it, since you're essentially doing the same thing yourselves.
Have a happy New Years everyone. Go out and register, then go out and vote.

And here is a video that might help...

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by chickhien

Have anyone of yall read the bill? Help me out because this was the only section i could find in that 500 page bill that is close to what people are talking about. Sections 1021 to 1034 all deal with "covered persons", which i pasted below. From reading it, if the government has determined you are al qaeda, you will be held with no trial. Is this the section people are applying to protesting? I dont see the correlation

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI- TARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub- section (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organiza- tions, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Good thing my wife is is a Defense attorney and does Constitutional law.

The PATRIOT ACT already allows the detainment of American citizens. So this section says NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT LAW OR AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE DETENTION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS...

What does that mean? There is a law that already exists to detain US citizens...which would not be affected.

The guy has already authorized the killing of an US citizen without due process, what makes you people think he wouldn't be able to detain citizens indefinitely?

 

[sillyputty]

SOPA for Dummies                                                                                            

 

[impalaballa187]

They took out the detainment provision for American citizens.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by impalaballa187

They took out the detainment provision for American citizens.

The authority already exists.




 I posted this article a few months back.

[h1][/h1]

[h1]Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'[/h1]
(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

http://www.reuters.com/ar...st-idUSTRE79475C20111005

 

[soulrebel]

I love watching people scramble to defend Obama ... dude Essential one of the funniest dudes on NT ...

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by gambit215

Bill doesnt apply to US citizens.................

http://www.salon.com/2011...etention_bill/singleton/

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons

 

[snaggykicks]

Originally Posted by gambit215

Bill doesnt apply to US citizens.................

 

[mo matik]

http://jonathanturley.org...aw-as-final-act-of-2011/

[h3][/h3]

[h3]Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011[/h3]

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops

 

[Senoj]

So you guys trust the same SCOTUS to declare this bill unconstitutional just like they did the Patriot Act right?

Oh, i see your obama meme and raise you scumbag obama meme

 

[kiendienn]

the ignorance and closed-mindedness of NT is blinding.  I don't understand how 98% of you can't properly read an article, and I'd be expecting nothing less than a miracle to hope that you'd do more research aside from what is presented by mainstream news media.

and you wonder why Method Man and all the mods barely ever post on NT anymore because they're on reddit 

 

[mo matik]

Ignorance? Close-mindedness? There is NO justification for signing this bill. He should've vetoed it on principle. He could've fought it simply over the fact that it includes the detainment of citizens without trial. Who could argue against him on this point? Without completely ignoring history.

He'll be remembered as the US President that codified these authoritarian powers without a fight.

 

[Senoj]

Originally Posted by kiendienn

the ignorance and closed-mindedness of NT is blinding.  I don't understand how 98% of you can't properly read an article, and I'd be expecting nothing less than a miracle to hope that you'd do more research aside from what is presented by mainstream news media.

and you wonder why Method Man and all the mods barely ever post on NT anymore because they're on reddit 

Here's an idea. Why didn't he get together with the DoD and the authors of the bill and discuss the matter of attaching these certain provisions to a $660 BILLION DEFENSE SPENDING BILL. I thought we were having automatic cuts now that the super committee failed. 

Yeah right.




 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by kiendienn

the ignorance and closed-mindedness of NT is blinding.  I don't understand how 98% of you can't properly read an article, and I'd be expecting nothing less than a miracle to hope that you'd do more research aside from what is presented by mainstream news media.

and you wonder why Method Man and all the mods barely ever post on NT anymore because they're on reddit 

My post spoke about this as well.
This is why we need them to vote on SINGLE ISSUES at a time...not legislation loaded with a bunch of pork and hidden clauses.

Obama has been dealt a really crappy hand...I almost feel sorry for the dude. 

Most of the stuff he's dealt with wasn't even his fault OR was anything he could outright change... 

 

 

 

[rashi]

I'm all for not funding terrorism  Defense and the veterans and their families if the veterans are going to protect my "freedom". Sure glad my money is going towards saving lives.