I can't comment on the missing fingers etc.. But I'll assume your a Ron Paul fan. Like him or not, he might be the first guy running awhile that actually cares about rights. I can't say I see eye to eye with all of his ideas, but he has some good things to say.
spydercanopus said:
And the NDAA act signed into law very shady like on new years eve lets the president send american citizens to guantamo bay cuba prison without a trial or anything. But that isn't as bad as the fact we have the first president that has assassinated american citizens. Anwar Alalaki (or whatever) may have been bad, but he deserved a trial as a citizens because we're guaranteed them in the bill of rights.
I'm no lawyer and I definitely don't support the suspension of habeas corpus, but just to play devil's advocate...
The NDAA is a bit of a red herring -- the president has had this power since 9/11 thanks to the authorization of use act.
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
That doesn't make it right, but I find it bizarre that people NOW want to complain about this after giving up the argument several years ago. It's also a convenient way to attack the president, deserving or not.
The NDAA itself isn't not solely to detain citizens etc.. It's a national defense bill that is periodically pushed through Congress. It's really nothing new, although I think any bill with such provisions should be vetoed without question.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf
The second thing is, there is a provision in the bill that prevents american citizens from being detained on the president's whim. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but to detain a citizen (ignoring all of the other terrible laws that are on the books that probably DO allow it), it requires Congressional approval. At least that's how I understand it.
That doesn't make it right either, but when people point the finger at the president and don't bother mentioning Congress and so on... the talking points become little more than popular political rhetoric.
(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 this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
It's terrible that anyone at all can be detained indefinitely and for such broad reasons, but I guess that's the world we live in these days, eh?
