Monday, August 13, 2012
Another Serious Civl Liberties issue ignored by the NYT and most media.
The National Defense Authorization Act has been challenged by many journalists for its detention and other provisions. However, even though journalists may be among the most affected, they, and the New York Times, have been very quiet. This is not surprising as re-electing Obama is priority #1, taking precedence over civil liberties. Thanks to Mike Perry and Bennett Jones for this link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The NDAA's detention section named particular terrorist groups and/or their supporters and is only applicable during time of conflict. American terror suspects could just as well be handled by the civilian department of justice.
ReplyDelete44: Can you direct me to the text of the act you are referring to? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThe FY-2012 NDAA fuss is basically cutting hairs over a statement that allows the president elbow room for unforeseen detention needs during hostilities. But such allowance only reaffirms the president’s constitutional role to use reasonable means to defend the country. IMHO, all the ballyhoo is nothing more than black-op conspiracy concerns. If the president was going exceed any power limitations, they’d do it regardless of any NDAA provision. To make my point, elected federal officials have already grossly overstepped their limited powers under the tenth amendment. Which I personally hold, along with the remaining Bill of Rights, to be the supreme law of the land.
ReplyDeleteSee HR 1540, Title 10, subtitle D, Counterterrorism, Section 1021 (d). Also view Section 1022(b).
See PDF authorization bill at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf
For the authorization bill link, go to page HR 1540-265, this matches the PDF's page numbers.
ReplyDeleteI mistakenly entered my comment on House sues Holder. The reason for the deletion.
44: Thanks for the links. Don't have time to research this right now, but hope to get to it after I get back from vacation. Where in the statute, or elsewhere is the "elbow room" you discussed. You may be right.
ReplyDeleteSection 1021 (d) "CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
ReplyDeleteThis statement must be understood in its entirety with the other statues, like section 1022.
44: I appreciate your researching this issue. Hope to get back on this topic in a couple weeks. Thanks again.
Delete