Military will be given right to detain US citizens

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

US Senate passes its version of NDAA bill, which would allow military to detain anyone on US soil
I've never been a particularly politically active person, but this makes me want to have the whole Congress re-elected. Why Congress, and not just Senate? Because "The House will also vote on the bill, and then must reconcile its version with the Senate's, before the legislation could be sent to the President's desk. A roll call was held over the bill in late May in the House, where 322 Representatives supported, 96 opposed, and 13 abstained. "
322 people, who we voted in to represent our interests, either think we're okay with the military detaining us on the accusation of terrorism or have utterly forgotten what their job is.
Note how this is conspicuously absent from most media. Spread this anywhere you can, around your campus, around your homes. I myself am going to spread this around however I can. If you live in America, let Congress know that you will not support this bill.
Read & comment on the whole bill here.

Edit: Before anyone says I'm alarmist, sorry if this seems so. I'm admittedly a novice to political process. Emotions get high when I read stuff like this, so I encourage you to look at the actual bill in question instead of taking my editorializing as objective truth.

[Wynni]

that is a lot of reading involved, and all of it in legal speak. I'm afraid I won't be able to decipher what all is meant until after its over.

[Talaisan]

that is a lot of reading involved, and all of it in legal speak. I'm afraid I won't be able to decipher what all is meant until after its over.

I'll take a crack at it tomorrow. I can do a decent job of translating legalese.

[Insomniac]

*screams "SIXTH AMENDMENT" at the top of his lungs, and leaves*

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

*screams "SIXTH AMENDMENT" at the top of his lungs, and leaves*

Hopefully the courts will do the same.

[Insomniac]

*screams "SIXTH AMENDMENT" at the top of his lungs, and leaves*

Hopefully the courts will do the same.

I hope at the very least the president will veto the [censored] out of this. Isn't part of his oath of office '...to uphold and support the constitution of the united states of america...'?

[Sable Dove]

I've heard that it will be vetoed because it doesn't give them enough power. There are ways to be exempted from this law, and apparently the president('s office) doesn't care for that.

[Insomniac]

I've heard that it will be vetoed because it doesn't give them enough power. There are ways to be exempted from this law, and apparently the president('s office) doesn't care for that.

*twitches like a [censored], screams, and explodes*

[Samdragon07]

So what amendment are they going to destroy next?

[Phantom]

Ouch starting to sound like a military state more and more >.<. In Switzerland the only time the military has total power is in a time of war, but hey that wont happen for a while. This does not look good and it could lead to alot of discrimination between the Military and people. Thought it would be a policemans job to ensure laws are followed, etc in the country. Soldiers are not cops! Want to stop plane getting hijacked? Put an airline cop on each of them armed with a gun, that could help.

[bigro]

Ouch starting to sound like a military state more and more >.<. In Switzerland the only time the military has total power is in a time of war, but hey that wont happen for a while. This does not look good and it could lead to alot of discrimination between the Military and people. Thought it would be a policemans job to ensure laws are followed, etc in the country. Soldiers are not cops! Want to stop plane getting hijacked? Put an airline cop on each of them armed with a gun, that could help.

they do, air marshals or some other thing or whatever...(I can't remember exactly what they're called or how it's spelled but you get the picture)

[Ravenous222]

Oh boy, we were given a brief on this this last weekend, I can already see this going downhill fast. I hope I'm wrong though, and it all passes over quickly. basically, it's a violation of all of your rights, that's all I need to know to disagree with it.

[Windwaker]

that is a lot of reading involved, and all of it in legal speak. I'm afraid I won't be able to decipher what all is meant until after its over.

I'll take a crack at it tomorrow. I can do a decent job of translating legalese.

The relevant sections are 1031 and 1032, you can control-f them.

[TinyVoices]

I have to do this at home essay thing for history class. My options are to a) write to one of my representatives, and propose a bill/change a bill, or b) write to the court about a previously settled case (was given a list of famous ones), and basically tell them why they [censored] up.

Not sure if I should write a) about this, or the internet censor one. Or to write b) on Schenk v. US.
Maybe if I understood politics better... Don‘t worry, I‘ll stay out of it when I‘m older.


Anywho, so this basically violates the sixth (habeas corpus), and possibly eighth (no cruel & unusual punishment) amendment? I think Insomniac, at least, would find it within his interests to agree with the first statement.

As for the second, well that's kinda debatable. I just figured that it would be unusual to rip someone out of their home, because someone deemed the individual a threat. (Why I find Schenk intriguing...)

[Talaisan]

Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, son of presidential candidate Ron Paul, voiced concerns over the bill on the Senate floor on Wednesday. "Under the provisions, wouldn't it be possible, then, that an American citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?"

John McCain, who had helped write out the relevant provision in the bill, responded: "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat."

OH [censored] NO.

McCain deserves to be lynched, just for that.

Aside from that, though, I'm having trouble finding a place where this bill says what everyone's saying it does, even McCain. I am clearly missing something, need to find the passages of whatever that these things modify.