NDAA 2012: Signed into law. Now What?

General General Discussion
1

The National Defense Authorization Act has been signed into law.:frowning:

There are two provisions of this law that makes me fear for the future of this republic. Below is the text that appears to be of most concern. As found here:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:7:./temp/~c112y0b3Gx:e838662:

SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.

(a) Briefings Required- Beginning not later than March 1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving special operations forces.
(b) Elements- Each briefing under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:

(1) A global update on activity within each geographic combatant command.

(2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including limitations.

(3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.

(4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.

SEC. 1032. NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE TO DENY SAFE HAVENS TO AL-QAEDA AND ITS VIOLENT EXTREMIST AFFILIATES.

 (a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve interagency strategic planning and execution to more effectively integrate efforts to deny safe havens and strengthen at-risk states to further the goals of the National Security Strategy related to the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
 (b) National Security Planning Guidance-

(1) GUIDANCE REQUIRED- The President shall issue classified or unclassified national security planning guidance in support of objectives stated in the national security strategy report submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a) to deny safe havens to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates and to strengthen at-risk states. Such guidance shall serve as the strategic plan that governs United States and coordinated international efforts to enhance the capacity of governmental and nongovernmental entities to work toward the goal of eliminating the ability of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to establish or maintain safe havens.

(2) CONTENTS OF GUIDANCE- The guidance required under paragraph (1) shall include each of the following:
(A) A prioritized list of specified geographic areas that the President determines are necessary to address and an explicit discussion and list of the criteria or rationale used to prioritize the areas on the list, including a discussion of the conditions that would hamper the ability of the United States to strengthen at-risk states or other entities in such areas.
(B) For each specified geographic area, a description, analysis, and discussion of the core problems and contributing issues that allow or could allow al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to use the area as a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support, including any ongoing or potential radicalization of the population, or to use the area as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support.
(C) A list of short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals for each specified geographic area, prioritized by importance.
(D) A description of the role and mission of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury, and State and the Agency for International Development.
(E) A description of gaps in United States capabilities to meet the goals listed pursuant to subparagraph (C), and the extent to which those gaps can be met through coordination with nongovernmental, international, or private sector organizations, entities, or companies.

(3) REVIEW AND UPDATE OF GUIDANCE- The President shall review and update the guidance required under paragraph (1) as necessary. Any such review shall address each of the following:
(A) The overall progress made toward achieving the goals listed pursuant to paragraph (2)(C), including an overall assessment of the progress in denying a safe haven to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(B) The performance of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance.
(C) The performance of the unified country team and appropriate combatant command, or in the case of a cross-border effort, country teams in the area and the appropriate combatant command.
(D) Any addition to, deletion from, or change in the order of the prioritized list maintained pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).

(4) SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `specified geographic area’ means any country, subnational territory, or region–
(A) that serves or may potentially serve as a safe haven for al-Qaeda or a violent extremist affiliate of al-Qaeda–
(i) from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support; or
(ii) for use as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support; and
(B) over which one or more governments or entities exert insufficient governmental or security control to deny al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates the ability to establish a large scale presence.

I ask what exactly does this mean to US Citizens and how we can best get these provisions reppealed etc.
Please keep the discussion on topic of the ramifications of this bill and how we can fix this SNAFU.

Any personal attacks and trolling will not be tollerated, do not get this thread locked.

2

These sections may also be relevent. Infact I think these are the most relevent sections. Due to the severe lack of meaningful information, the media seems to be citing the wrong sections of the bill.

Either way the rule of law appears to severly at risk.

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 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 subsection (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 organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined–
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

Unfortunately it also appears that the final signed text of this bill isn’t yet available on .gov websites.

3

Im not a legal eagle but it does appear the law does not apply to resident aliens nor citizens. But Ill defer that to lawyers and grads.

I just find it hilarious the libs got this douche elected on all these false premises, and here this idiot goes ignoring his promise to close Gitmo and then signs a law saying he can detain people (at least non citizens or non resident aliens) forever. Its like a great shot across the bow all the libs have stood for against Bush for over a decade! I don’t follow the MSM on this type of stuff but just keep some people I expect to post about this type of stuff on the list, and see what they say. More than a few libs are already throwing in the towel or are about to on their great savior.

This is another “America loses the government wins” law much like the Patriot Act, creation of TSA and DHS, and other such BS. They are gifting themselves powers not following Constitutional law or procedure. Its like writing up a letter, and handing it over to your bank saying you really have 25 million in your account not the 25k is presently shows.

4

Relevant article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/16/1046030/-I-Must-Conclude-That-The-NDAA-2012-Bill-Is-Not-The-Constitution-Destroying-Measure-Claimed-By-Many

and here is a snippet of the article.

Section 1031 of the NDAA authorizes the US military to detain members of al-queda, the Taliban, and associated forces, and persons who supported aggressive acts against the US. Persons who are detain may be held indefinitely without a trial. This section makes no mention of where the US military can take such actions, so presumably, actions by the US military within the US are authorized. This measure is highly controversial because it appears to undermine the US Constitution Article III guarantees to a trial by jury, habeus corpus protections, and Amendments V, VI, and VIII. However, this section includes paragraph (e), which says:

“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.”
This language indicates that Section 1031 of the NDAA can not be used to weaken or remove constitutional protections for US citizens against indefinite detention, or the right to habeus corpus, or a trial by jury.

Again this also seems to highlight the confusion regarding the language currently viewable from the library of congress.

5

Way wrong. That wording simply says that US citizens are not REQUIRED to be held in MILITARY custody. That’s all. So they can be held in non-military custody, unlike non-citizens. It’s a neat little word game that has fooled 90% of the “Fuck you tinfoilers” types.

6

I believe the above concerns are well placed…but more of a macro level question:

Why, when we are seemingly directing this at religious zealots, martyrs, fanatics, terrorists, etc, would we think that indefinite detainment would be some form of threat/deterrent? The completion of their mission and the afterlife is their only consideration, correct?

7

As far as I can reason, you seem to be correct in your assumption. I don’t know if it is possible to win against the zealots, without either converting them or doing something that any reasonable human being would consider exceedingly beyond attrocious.

And considering that a snowball has a better chance in hell, than of mankind converting them, proceeding with the other option still means we lose even if we succeed.

The point being this legislation does nothing to win the war on terrorism, if anything it furthers the terrorists goals by taking away our freedom.

The less freedom one thinks they have, the more likely they would be to believe in hairbrained extreme ideas. You can read between the lines.:sad:

8

I thought so and that was my take-away. Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something.

Sec 1031/32 of the NDAA are very confusing IMO. The almost seem to contradict one another…

9

Yeah damn near all of the articles I have read seem to paint it in one light, but I’m having trouble finding official transcripts of the law that fully jive with what is reported. Seeing that none of the articles link directly to the law, it just frustrates the search for truth.

At this point I really am not sure what to think. Given the difficulty making heads or tails of what I have read I wonder if our legislators really have any clue either.

10

I guess some people in Montana think it’s a shitty deal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate

11

“and associated forces” whatever the heck that means

Three myths about the detention bill
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

President’s Detention Plan Tests American Legal Tradition
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23detain.html

12

Plain and simple, it’s called tyranny.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

13

Let us also not forget that he ran for president on the platform of doing away with the Patriot Act when it sunsetted. This was another bill that served only to strip Americans of their rights and allow the gubment to treat average citizens as dangerous criminals as long as they saw fit to do so. Seems to me he’s going back on just about everything he ran on but a politician wouldn’t do that, would they?

14

I want to know where these so called “conservative” fucktard Republicans got the idea that it was OK to surgically remove civil rights? Were exactly is that enumerated in the GOP Principles? My favorite home state Republican Senator, “Dr. No”, Tom Coburn voted against it. But the rest of the delegation approved this POS!!!

I’ll be actively working to send their asses home as they come up for reelection, starting with the POS RINO John Sullivan! :mad:

15

I would urge anyone in the either other states that allow for the same type of federal official recall to take advantage of this:

“The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin.”

16

Very interesting 7pg. PDF titled [i]Recalling U.S. Senators and Congressmen.[/i]

17

Watch this video. http://youtu.be/NW-e7z7S6VI

18

Excellent video. I’m disgusted when I find myself agreeing with Al Franken over my own “Republican” Congressman. :frowning:

19

Sorry Mr. “O”, but there was more thought put into the constitution, than your pea brain can comprehend, UNLESS, your goal is to strip the US Citizens of all rights and make them slaves. Thus you totally understand it, AND it is standing in your way of POWER OVER THE PEOPLE, to destroy them from within. Mr. “O” needs to be recalled on his statements alone, then on to other things about him.

20

My late BIL, was convinced that, Barry, the Kenyen national (who just happens to live in the white house) Would somehow make a power grab of some sort, to keep himself president, permanently, I used to laugh at his theory…But after reading this, I’m now wondering if these laws aren’t stepping stones to do just that…