Here is the roll call for Amendment 3018 to the NDAA. The amendment reinforces the rights prescribed to Americans in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, to ensure that American citizens cannot held indefinitely without trial. The amendment passed 67-29.
Thread: Amendment 3018 Passes
11-29-2012, 09:01 PM #1
- Join Date: Aug 2007
- Location: Idaho, United States
- Age: 25
- Posts: 9,448
- Rep Power: 19586
Amendment 3018 Passes***Tinder Crew***
"You will never be defeated by what they say about you. You will be defeated by what you say about you."
11-29-2012, 09:02 PM #2
11-29-2012, 09:26 PM #3
"Hey Jason Stain I heard you played in those old movies transporters, well I can shove my fist up your transporter ass, your candy ass. Bam baby! Nothin but a penis. WOOOO!" - Jason Genova
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Location: Warren, Michigan, United States
- Age: 27
- Posts: 13,188
- Rep Power: 5796
♥♥♥ Would Wife Emilia Clarke Crew ♥♥♥
♥♥♥ Would Wife Lena Headey Crew ♥♥♥
King Stannis Baratheon Crew.
11-29-2012, 09:29 PM #4
11-29-2012, 09:33 PM #5
11-29-2012, 09:36 PM #6
11-29-2012, 09:50 PM #7Everything depends upon execution; having just a vision is no solution.
Performance and performance alone dictates the predator in any food chain.
11-29-2012, 10:02 PM #8
11-29-2012, 10:20 PM #9
Text of amendment
At the end of Subtitle D of title X, add the following:
Sec. 1032. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
"(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.
"(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
"(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.".
I'm 100% sure that people like mcconnell didn't vote against it because they agree with the ACLU so what is their opposition to it?"I'm not like most girls." -most girls
11-29-2012, 10:54 PM #10
11-30-2012, 02:36 AM #11
11-30-2012, 03:50 AM #12
- (1) and (3) appear to be conflicting. Does (3) protect immigrants here on Visas or illegal immigrants? because only Americans are explicitly protected from indefinite detention by this amendment- it's stated both in (1) and in the title of the amendment. Yet (3) says that (1) can't be interpreted to authorize the indefinite detention of anybody who is apprehended in the US.
Am I reading that incorrectly?
11-30-2012, 11:56 AM #13
There was varying opinions on this as to what it protected, if it went far enough, or did more harm than good for non-citizens in the US. I think an article on the ACLU site summed up the negatives the best. Since I can't post links due to post count, google "Don't Be Fooled by New NDAA Detention Amendment"
11-30-2012, 12:03 PM #14
11-30-2012, 12:23 PM #15Reps for life: AFC96
12-03-2012, 07:43 AM #16
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security. -Benjamin Franklin
12-03-2012, 07:50 AM #17
12-03-2012, 08:31 AM #18
12-03-2012, 08:37 AM #19
12-03-2012, 09:07 AM #20
12-03-2012, 11:28 AM #21
12-03-2012, 11:34 AM #22
12-03-2012, 11:56 AM #23
There are three problems with her amendment:
- Join Date: Jun 2005
- Location: Florida, United States
- Posts: 24,199
- Rep Power: 21876
It would NOT make America off-limits to the military being used to imprison civilians without charge or trial. That's because its focus on protections for citizens and green-card holders implies that non-citizens could be militarily detained. The goal should be to prohibit domestic use of the military entirely. That's the protection provided to everyone in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. That principle would be broken if the military can find an opening to operate against civilians here at home, maybe under the guise of going after non-citizens. This is truly an instance where, when some lose their rights, all lose rights -- even those who look like they are being protected.
It is inconsistent with the Constitution, which makes clear that basic due process rights apply to everyone in the United States. No group of immigrants should be denied the most basic due process right of all -- the right to be charged and tried before being imprisoned.
It would set some dangerous precedents for Congress: that the military may have a role in America itself, that indefinite detention without charge or trial can be contemplated in the United States, and that some immigrants can be easily carved out of the most basic due process protections.
The executive director of the Japanese American Citizens League just wrote to Congress:
The [Feinstein] amendment is of particular concern to the Japanese American Citizens League because of our historic concern stemming from the Japanese American incarceration experience during World War II. Nearly half of the internees were not United States citizens, and would not have been protected by this amendment. In consideration of due process and the rule of law within the United States, we urge you to oppose the Feinstein amendment, unless revised to protect all persons in the United States from indefinite detention without charge or trial.★★★EmmaLution Crew★★★ - President
$$$ Sasha Banks Crew $$$
mWo 4 lyfe
12-13-2012, 11:51 AM #24
12-13-2012, 11:58 AM #25
12-13-2012, 12:03 PM #26
12-13-2012, 12:04 PM #27
- Join Date: Aug 2009
- Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
- Age: 31
- Posts: 38,389
- Rep Power: 31333
12-13-2012, 12:10 PM #28
"How about no NDAA at all. That’s my bottom line. The terrorist supporters in congress who let the terrorists who did 9/11 run the place have no business abridging our rights. Rand Paul and his Dad should come out and call 9/11 what it was. State sponsored Israeli and domestic terrorism."
http://c-spanvideo.org/program/FalseF"Today, we do nothing before surveying our publics to know what they know, what they don't know, what their attitudes are, whether they accept authority, reason, persuasion or tradition as a basis of changing their mind."
- Edward Bernays, Public Relations: A Founder's Perspective, January 23, 1989
12-13-2012, 12:12 PM #29
12-13-2012, 12:16 PM #30