Jump to content

The National Defense Authorization Act


Rod38um

Recommended Posts

The president just signed into law the The National Defense Authorization Act which grants the President the ability to militarily detain and imprison indefinitely foreigners or Americans who they suspect of terrorism.

No trial, no warrants........ Now, who defines terrorism? The president? If someone disagrees with him, can they be suspected of terrorism? This seems like the first power grab of a prospective dictator. This is the kind of legislation Hugo Chavez passed. This is one of the few things that the ACLU and I agree on.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/

The ACLU response: " If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted the following two weeks ago when this was brought up:

Screw the Constitution, just a worthless, meaningless old piece of paper. Who needs a trial? Sixth Amendment? Nah, we tossed the Constitution years ago.

1984 was only 17 years late.

(That would be an allusion to the Patriot Act, for those of you following along at home)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I don't like it, but there is a reason for it. It's just lost in the jabber of the Congress.

Here's your scenario: An ad hoc army of terrorists converge on a military asset and take it. And turn the weapons found there on the public... Who you gonna call? Only military assets can stop them, and they aren't allowed to operate on USA soil.

It could be a Guard or Reserve armory, or it could be an entire air base. Can the FBI or US Marshalls chase and shoot down a stolen F-16 or F-15? No. Can the US military? Nope, not them either, not until this law was passed. Ok, I admit it's a bit of a stretch considering the purpose intended, but it's a start in that direction.

The problem is, Congress jabbered this law, and who knows what it actually says. Or accidentally or purposefully says. It's probably botched and will have to be revised. Yes, it's chopping away at rights. That's the world we live in now. We'll just have to write and get ourselves some modern up to date rights. Somehow.

This change in law also recognizes the existence of domestic terrorism as a fact. Just don't forget what our largest and most damaging domestic terrorist groups actually are.

I reserve all book and movie rights for this scenario...

Edited by ReconRat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we scrambled fighters on 9/11?

Yes. But they had no idea what to do. No one wanted to give an order. Most pilots were left to make their own decisions. They were tasked with finding, not shooting down. Intercepts are simply "escort to nearest airport" for FBI and Marshalls to take over. The one pilot who wanted to ram with his aircraft, had no weapons or ammo on board. All intercept capabilities were for inbound from outside the USA. Nothing was too workable for inside the USA. Probably the primary reason all commercial flights were grounded. So they could see what was going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...