All about South Korea > Current Events

You guys can kiss your civil liberties good-bye.....

(1/33) > >>

unknownx:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/congress-passes-662-billion-defense-bill-aka-ndaa

"One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise."


^Congress just passed the National Defense Authorization Act.....There goes the constitution. Emigration sounds like a good idea right now.

confusedsafferinkorea:
 :o

Luckily I am not a US citizen.

gtrain83:
I read about this last week I think. While I am not for it at all, and I am an American, I think it is funny how outraged ppl are now that it includes American citizens. When it was "terrorists" that Bush put in Gitmo with no due process or anything like that it was ok. Now it's an outrage? What if that American citizen was know to be working for some terrorist cell is it ok then? I am just wondering how it's ok in some cases but not in others. Just some food for thought.

giselle:
I'm an American, but thank goodness my husband is a New Zealand citizen.  We will NOT be moving back to the US & will certainly NOT be raising our family there!!  I'm so disgusted, almost ashamed, and about ready to burn my damn passport.  Shame on you, America!

summerthyme:
A few things:

1.  This is a friendly moderator preemptive reminder to keep comments civil and respectful of others and their cultures/government/political beliefs.  Not that I need to remind all of you upstanding forum posters about that, but still... ;)

2.  @gtrain83, many Americans (including myself) didn't think it was OK at any point to detain people in Guantanamo without trial.

3.  The thought that this could include any Americans for basically any finger-pointing whatsoever (and I could easily see this getting extended to include people in the various Occupy and Occupy-inspired protests) is, frankly, terrifying, and I cannot express my deepest disappointment in my country's politicians. 

As an American, I'm appalled.

Full text of the actual bill is here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/html/BILLS-112s1867es.htm

Relevant detainment details are covered in sections 1031, 1032, and 1034.


--- Quote ---(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.
--- End quote ---

The bolded part is what troubles me.  What can (or will) be defined as an "associated force"  "engaged in hostilities"?

And there's this little gem from section 1032:


--- Quote ---(4) Waiver for national security.--The Secretary of Defense
        may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
        Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of
        paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a
        certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national
        security interests of the United States.
--- End quote ---

So, from what I understand, that makes it possible for *anyone* to be detained as long as the Secretary of Defense deems it in the best "national security interests" of the US?

Is there anyone out there with plenty of deskwarming time and a better knowledge of politics who could explain this to us?

Edit:  Here's a better link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112pmdVdi:e548990:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version