While it is a troubling development, I predict that the day-to-day lives of non-terrorists will not be affected in the least.

Justin
.

All,

Speaking of troubling developments, here are three new laws being proposed in New Hampshire:

1) House Bill 334, which would give the Legislature the sole authority to regulate guns on any public land or in publicly owned or financed buildings. As a result, public colleges would no longer be allowed to ban loaded firearms in classrooms and dorms. The bill would also affect publicly financed buildings such as the Verizon Wireless Arena in Manchester, which holds concerts and sporting events.

2) House Bill 536, whick would allow just about anyone to carry a loaded gun without a license, effectively stripping away the permitting process.

3) House Bill 194, which would repeal a law banning loaded weapons in vehicles, which has been in place for 74 years.

There is also a bill being proposed which would provide warning signs on all highways as you are leaving the state. In other words, signs that might say "Warning! You are about to enter Massachusetts"

Live Free or Die, baby.

Justin
.

Why is it "troubling" then? And I'm sure those "non-terrorists" who were "rendered" and tortured might disagree with the second part of your post.

The point I was trying to make - and probably failed completely - was to reject the "sky is falling" assertions by Kevin that the Constitution has been voided. (I will not address the reduntant statements about the Bill of Rights, because I'm sure Kevin remembers it is just a convenient name for part of the Constitution).

A law cannot void the Constitution. If the law voids the Constitution, it is unconstitutional. Kevin made it sound as if the very pillars of society were going to crumble in short order, I was simply suggesting that is probably not the case.



Because I think it is a bad idea to codifying a practice that most people in my country (myself included) think is a bad idea.

Justin
.

Justin,

I am mortified by your response. I am shaking my head in disbelief that you think I am screaming "The Sky is Falling".

I have said this many times. It is important to preserve the rights of criminals, no matter how heinous their crimes, because when a criminal loses their rights and protections it is just a matter of time for the loss of rights to be taken from law abiding citizens. The United States just passed a law that denies US citizens and foreign nations 'Due Process' and subjects them to indefinite detention until the President decides they are no longer a threat. The President of the United States will decide when a person can be detained with out being charge for a crime, be denied access to legal counsel, and may not seek redress for grievance.

Nor was I screaming "the sky is falling" when I said this basically voids the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights (which just happens to be the 1st ten amendments) and grants an American President the supreme power of jurisdiction over all American citizens and foreign nationals anywhere in the world that the King of England enjoyed prior to the Magna Carter. I didn't just pull the Magna Carter out of thin air because it guarantees a person charge with a crime to face their accuser and have their day in court, also known as 'Due Process'. Due Process isn't the only issue the Magna Carter addressed, but also commercial rights regarding hunting and fishing rights that were considered important to the local economy at the time.

When you take the vague language of the NDAA into account as a whole it can be integrated with the usage of other draconian laws to amplify the power of the Executive to basically relegate all of us as slaves owned by United States Incorporated. Take into consideration the law used to execute Osama bin Laden last year. Not even the Department of Justice has access to the legal analysis that allowed the Executive to order the targeted killing of bin Laden. The only people who have access to the legal analysis is the President, a few select members of his Cabinet, and the Director of the CIA. That legal analysis was written by Jay Bybee and John Yoo, two of the most radical and fringe lawyers ever employed in the Department of Justice. These are the same two lawyers who wrote memos justifying torture (what they call 'enhanced interrogation', domestic spying (what they call 'threat anticipation'). Both Bybee and Yoo stated that "enhanced interrogation is not torture as long as the victim doesn't die".

Make no mistake that the vague language of the NDAA will be integrated into bad laws like 'Citizens United', and 'Enemy Combatant' to create a more robust American Empire. Yes, a law was passed that voided the US Constitution. The purpose of passing the NDAA was to just arrest global heroes of our time like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and other like them in the future to avoid having to deal with protecting their rights. The NDAA now allows for the American government to arrest another Bradley Manning and Julian Assange anywhere in the world, without having to honor the sovereignty of other nations and their laws, and detain them indefinitely as criminals without ever be charged for a crime. And given the aggressive nature of how how our democratic republic interprets laws I am sure they have a justification of executing someone like a future Bradley Manning or Julian Assange once they are being indefinitely detained.

It is woefully naive for anyone to think the NDAA will not be exploited to the most perverted extremes to serve the goals of a despot. Just imagine what Newt Gingrich if he were elected president. He already said he would arrest judges who issued holding that do not comport with his myopic vision. All a judge has to do is issue a holding a Gingrich Depart of Justice considers a 'belligerent act' and the judge can be indefinitely detained by the order of the Executive. I have a very good understanding how bad the NDAA is, how it will be applied, and am not yelling the "the sky is falling". I believe anyone who feels there is nothing to worry about the NDAA passage is akin to telling the Emperor he's wearing a magnificent suit of new clothes.

The NDAA effectively voided our Constitution, shows a complete disrespect for honoring human and civil rights, and illuminates to the rest of the world just corrupted we've become.

The more corrupt the state the more numerous the laws.
Tacitus

You miss my point, which was - What does the NDAA do that George Bush did not already do ten years ago? If the NDAA voided the constitution, then the constitution was already voided 10 years ago. IMHO, codifying a practice that is already in place changes nothing.



You make it sound like I disagree with you. I don't. I'm just pointing out that you are about ten years too late to the battle, because if anything happened to the Constitution it happened a decade ago, not in 2011. And IMHO I do not think that this will result in any meaningful change to the practice that is currently in place.

Justin
.

Justin,

I understood your point the first time. What you reiterated were the taking points to sanitize the sell of the NDAA to the American people. The NDAA contains a provision that takes all rights to challenge away from the courts and places the discretion of Congress only to change and modify the law.

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.

(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.


What SEC 1021e is saying is that the if someone is detained by military under the NDAA, that person cannot challenge their detention or claim any rights afforded to them under the Constitution because Congress passed the NDAA to be free of judicial review of all laws and guaranteed Constitutional protections. This is not my interpretation of the law, but has been expressed in legal analysis of the NDAA by the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International. I doubt either of those two organizations would scream "THE SKY IS FALLING" over the NDAA.

The only reason the NDAA was passed is because someone wants to go to war and be able to eliminate the Bradley Mannings and Julian Assanges without having to worry about their rights. The NDAA will conveniently serve the lawless caitiffs.

Kevin,

You make me laugh .... Justin, the mouthpiece for conservatives

And by the way, Bradley Manning was a common military criminal, and he is being dealt with like any other common military criminal who steals zillions of classified documents and gives them to people he is not supposed to. Who needs the NDAA for people have clearly broken the law and can be dealt with under a run-of-the mill court-martial? You don't need to declare war to deal with a traitor, you just walk up to their desk and arrest them. He's lucky that he isn't facing the death penalty, which I believe was an option they have chosen not to pursue.

Justin
.

Justin,

I did not say you were the "mouthpiece for conservatives", I said you reiterated the taking points created by Congress' Public Relations Team to message the NDAA as a law that "only codified existing law", which is not true at all. SEC 1021e does not codify any preexisting laws at all. SEC 1021e denies a detainee all access to civilian and military courts to challenge their indefinite detention. That alone should send a chill up every living persons spine.

Bradley Manning is not a criminal; he is a whistle blower and should be afforded all the legal protections for exposing the crime of murder. He does not deserve to be court martialed at all. All he did was expose US diplomatic corps for doing their job well, illustrating they act like petulant 5 year olds when talking about their counterparts, and showed video footage of US military personal actively engaged in the murder of innocent civilians under the false defense of combat aggression. The helicopter crew, air control crew, and all officers in their chain of command should have been charged with various crimes related to premeditated murder.

As for the 'Death Penalty' it is an antiquated punishment employed by only the most barbaric and morally corrupt countries on this planet. It is a flagrant disregard for human life and a violation of all human and civil rights. The chances of Manning receiving the Death Penalty would have been slim to none because the Pentagon didn't have a strong enough case to win a conviction.

Again, you missed my point. I said it codified a "practice that already exists", I never suggested that it "codified existing law". My point was very, very, narrow ... my response was limited only to disagreeing with your suggestion that this new "law" will change things. IMHO it will not, because that ship already sailed ten years ago. But you seem to be trying to expand my narrow point to suggest that I somehow approve of the current practice or that I think it or the new law is valid or good. I do not. I just do not think it will change things very much.



This sort of "ends justifies the means" argument is exactly the sort of argument radical right wingers used to justify the need for the NDAA. It is the same argument radical right wingers used to elevate Oliver North from criminal to "hero". Bradley Manning was not a Daniel Ellsberg, who discovered a single document and leaked it in order to blow the whistle on the administration. Bradley Manning perpetrated a massive disclosure of hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he had never even read - the electronic equivalent of using weapons of mass destruction in order to maximize the body count.

By the way, that was your belated Christmas present. You had mentioned Bradley Manning in three consecutive posts, so I know you were just dying for someone to give you a chance to convince us all that he is the radical left's very own Oliver North

Justin

Justin,

The talking points created by congressional PR claim it codifies existing law, practices, and clarifies what has been in practice for the last ten years. However, your believing that things will change very little gives tacit consent to the passage of this law. The passage of the NDAA has changed everything. It puts all of us in danger of being detained indefinitely because the law will be expanded in scope over the nextr few years now that the door has been opened. It is just a matter of time before local police departments can detain people indifinitely without access to the courts or legal counsel. I'm sure the NYPD would have loved to have this law at their disposal when Occupy Wall Street occupied Zucotti Park. The pepper spray incident of the three women by Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna would be nothing. He could just haul off three women he didn't like and detain them indefinitely.

The new law, SEC 1021e, specifically states a person indefinitely detained by the order of the president WILL NOT have any Constitutional rights.

(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.

This is the first time a law has been passed saying that a person indefinitely detained will be denied all legal protections granted by any preexisting laws of the United States. It creates a zombie defendant class where people can be swept up by the US military and detained for the rest of their lives. Just the sort of thing Oliver North was a participant in back in the 80s. His actions armed the Contras who were murdering innocent civilians and bombing schools, hostpitals in Nicaragua. The Contras were cold blooded murderers who were the tool of a despot who wanted to enslave civilians and enrich wealthy land owners and American businesses who stood to gain financially from keeping the Nicaraguan people oppressed. The first thing a despot does when they come to power is to eliminate civil liberties, eliminate labor unions and free speach and political dissent, dumb down schools, and arrest teachers and health care workers. And Oliver North was a part of this crime against humanity along with his thug B grade actor of a boss.

Bradley Manning on the other hand exposed American military war crimes. None of the military who murdered civilians were ever prosecuted or repremanded, but Manning was for speaking out. Manning's crime involved the releasing of a military video to the public of civilians being murdered with premeditation by the military. Manning was charge with a crime of releasing state secrets and is now on trial. The people who committed the murders have not been detained, charged with any war crimes, and are free to live their lives without fear of prosecution. What is it that I do not understand?

If you want to take my suggestion that you are being overly dramatic and twist it to mean that I am giving my tacit approval to a practice that I have clearly stated I disagree with, so be it. I cannot control how you choose to misinterpret or mischaracterize my statements.



.. along with a couple HUNDRED THOUSAND classified documents, including diplomatic cables discussing sensitive issues. Funny how the "ends justify the means (but only when it suits my agenda)" crowd always leave that part out



That just because you think military personnel have not been properly brought to justice for their actions in one incident should not give Bradley Manning a pass for treason in his incident.

Justin
.

Justin,

I believe it is important that people should not think 'little will change' because SEC 1021e is now law. A lot has changed and no one should remain silent about their anger over the passage of this law. The people who wrote and passed this draconian law interpret peoples silence as consent to this law.

Manning released a hundred thousand emails that didn't pose a security threat to an ant hill. At best they exposed the immaturity factor of diplomats and their comments about their foreign diplomatic peers. He did however release a combat video showing US military engaged in a war crime. Taken as a whole, Manning's crime did not rise heinous actions of the helicopter crew, their ground support, or officers they reported too. Nor is Manning guilty of treason. In order for a member of the military to be charged, tried, and convicted of treason, the US must be legally at war and, 1 there must be a breach of allegiance to the US, 2 an overt act of betrayal, 3 and possess the intent to betray. Manning cannot be charged with treason because the US not legally at war with any country anywhere in the world right now. Congress must pass a Declaration of War, which they never passed after 9-11, and therefor Manning cannot be charged with the crime of treason.

However, Manning can be charged and tried for the crime of sedition which is 1 the US may not be at war with another country , 2 discontent with the lawful authority of the US, and 3 the subversion of the Constitution. Manning could be charged and tried for sedition because the US was never at war even when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (no Declaration of War was ever passed by Congress), he had discontent with the lawful authority of the US, but the military would fail in proving he subverted the Constitution by reporting a war crime committed by the military.

As for the "ends justifies the means', that is called the Substantive Determative Outcome Means test. This is where an analysis of breaking one law to expose the breaking of another law is weighted. If the breaking of the law (Manning releasing classified information) is weighted against the war crime of murder, and there was no damage caused to the US, the Manning is innocent of the crime of releasing classified information to the public.

The crime of sedition and treason varies from country to country with its application and elements to meet the crime.

And I have never said you couldn't. But IMHO to accuse me of supporting the law because I disagree with your assessment is absurd. It's same flawed, intolerant logic that the extreme right wingers on this board used a decade ago when they told me I could not support the troops because I did not support the war in Iraq.

Justin
.

Justin,



I found this to be one of the more disturbing comments made. You made it quite clear you do not agree with the NDAA, but SEC 1021e as I have been saying does change everything for all of us now that it has been passed. Its passage legalized what was previously illegal and in practice since the Bush Administration.

But the bigger concern that remains is that the NDAA now has jurisdiction over CR and supersedes the Council Withholding Tax among other things on the other side of the pond.