Latest Breaking News

Rwolf

(5 posts)

21. The proposed NDAA for 2013 doesn’t clarify what constitutes a (belligerent)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:17 AM

Dec 2012

The proposed NDAA for 2013 doesn’t clarify what constitutes a (belligerent).
Under the vague provisions of NDAA 2012 and 2013 the President could accuse anyone of being a (belligerent) e.g. (directly aligned with militants or supporting hostilities against the United Stated or one of its allies (by mere political or other association); any activity, statement, writing or communication to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention. Hitler used similar laws to intimidate and shut down the press when it opposed the Nazis. Is that where Obama is going?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back [View all] naaman fletcher Dec 2012 OP

How about a source NOT from RT? n/t a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #1

Would you accept, say, the NY Times? naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #2

much better! a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #3

I don't get it... why would Carl Levin put this back on the table? lib2DaBone Dec 2012 #4

The proposed NDAA for 2013 doesn’t clarify what constitutes a (belligerent) Rwolf Dec 2012 #21

"he awarded himself"? CitizenPatriot Dec 2012 #5

Bullcrap. If he signs is he buys it. nm rhett o rick Dec 2012 #10

Sure are a lot of RT bashers just1voice Dec 2012 #19

us media is utterly worthless green for victory Dec 2012 #22

The government does not have the right to detain citizens indefinitely without habeas & due process. Vattel Dec 2012 #6

LOL. Are you being sarcastic? The government has detained citizens indefinitely w/o habeas corpus. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #11

You need to distinguish doing something and having a right to do it. Vattel Dec 2012 #23

My point is that if we citizens dont care that the government is walking on our rights rhett o rick Dec 2012 #25

The American people have looked the other way while our government violates the Constitution green for victory Dec 2012 #26

Not sure why you think that you need to tell me that. I was of course rhett o rick Dec 2012 #27

Sorry, I missed your point. I guess we agree. Vattel Dec 2012 #28

Sometimes my points are a little hard to follow. At least for myself. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #29

George Takei is one of many Japanese US citizens who spent years in US prison camps during WWII. Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #14

Obama did not have to sign this monstrosity. He also didn't have to send lawyers to reinstate it Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #7

Those of us that thought that when we got a Democrat in the presidency, what Bush screwed up would rhett o rick Dec 2012 #12

Did he sign it this year democrattotheend Dec 2012 #20

No, the 2012 NDAA has not been signed. tammywammy Dec 2012 #24

Obama WANTS Indefinite Detention in the bill. blkmusclmachine Dec 2012 #8

Would you expect a president to give away power? nm rhett o rick Dec 2012 #30

well election season is indeed over it seems azurnoir Dec 2012 #9

You don't know about NDAA section 1021, HR347, the Patriot Act extension, etc.? Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #15

no I was simply being circumspect in my reply n/t azurnoir Dec 2012 #16

What we really need need is scotus to rule it cstanleytech Dec 2012 #13

not a frickin chance with this scotus. and since 9/11 the courts have usually been pretty wimpy on struggle4progress Dec 2012 #18

I think they have had two chances to rule on it and have blundered both times. nm rhett o rick Dec 2012 #31

You came for Their Is That All There Is Dec 2012 #17

No one "opened the Document for interpretation," The Constitution has been open for rhett o rick Dec 2012 #32