FREE SPEECH ZONE | The NDAA and the Ron Paul Revolution: Dumb and dumber

I stopped taking this article seriously when you said section 1021-1022. That is when I realized that this is PRAVDA. It is section 1031-1032. Get your facts straight or don't be taken seriously.

Just because you've read some ignorant comments on YouTube, you think that all Ron Paul supporters are dumb?  Guess what, I was just talking to an Obama supporter that is going to vote for him "because he's the brother man, not the other man".  And there are plenty of morons supporting the other GOP candidates.  It sounds like you've done about as much research on Ron Paul supporters as you claimed they've done on the NDAA.

why tolerate even the slightest encrouchments on liberty? If they hate us for our freedoms then why sacrifice any of them? No, martial law hasn't been declared. It's the fact that laws like these are actually justified because we'd rather live on our knees  than stand up for the very thing this country was founded on.

I think I will take the left leaning opinion of the ACLU and CCR over the opinion of a screen writer. They have you know trained lawyers and scholars on such things.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefin...

I believe this piece is highly misleading and amounts to simple partisanship.

MIAC Report: Ron Paul Supporters Labeled Domestic Terrorists http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/ron-paul-supporters-terrorists

 and the subsequent ones that included returning combat vets.

Journalists need to do good research to be considered good journalists...

 

The NDAA is un-american. You Cannot legalize tyranny. Forget it!

By even discussing this (with yourself) or giving it ANY kind of credence proves what side of you are on. It is just wrong and what has been warned for years and years, but no one would listen.

There is no debte or discussion. These are NOT powers delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution. END OF STORY!

Don't take Paul's word for it, take Obama's.  His I know I have the power to do whatever I want, but I wont'?  Tell me, slick, what WILL it take to scare the crap out of you?  This does.

Yes, section 1021 reads as you have stated.  The problem is that you give the state the benefit of the doubt concerning the word "substantial,"  Who determines what is substantial evidence?  Is this the same sort of "evidence" and "investigation" that was used before the order was given by Obama to assassinate an American citizen name Anwar al Awlaki?

I don't need to argue for Mr. Awlaki's defense.  However, whatever happened to due process, Mr. Free Speech Zone? He was not evading capture at the time. He was traveling with his family when he was bombed by a US drone. His 16 year old son was also indescriminately killed. What crime was he guilty of? Were either charged? Did they have a chance to defend themselves by a jury of their peers? No, the powers that be just said that they had "evidence" that al Awlaki was involved in the conspiracy to perpetrate the 9/11 attacks, and we are just supposed to accept that. Oh foolish child, giving so much of your freedom to the government.

It's ironic that this is known as the Free Speech Zone. I will defend your right to say your peace about Ron Paul, or myself.  Do you think that the federal government will care about your right to "free speech" in five years, after they pass SOPA and who knows what in order to contain those they disagree with?

Perhaps soon, the government will find something incriminating within the writing of the author. Something so subtle that they launch an "investigation" into your associations.  Maybe I could just start it off for them by accusing you publicly of being a secret sympathizer to Al Qaeda.  Maybe I even have "evidence," that neither you, your family or friends will ever be shown, but this evidence will used in a case against you, that you will never be able to defend, because you will never be charged with anything concrete. Perhaps they will break into your home and take you away in the night.  Your neighbors will never know what happened, since you, the author from the "Free Speech Zone" was immediately whisked away to Guantanamo Bay.  far fetched? Conspiracy theorist perhaps?  Agents from the DHS merely tell your friends that you are now a "terror suspect," and they need to stay far away from this case, lest they be drug into it as well.

Think I'm crazy and wrong? Actually, I really hope that I am wrong and you are right.

By the way, Ron Paul is not the only one saying this. The citizens of Montana have already launched a recals of their US Senators for voting for the NDAA. But that's just some state way over there. They're probably all crazy......

And yet he still follows the constitution which the author seems to disregard.

Nice try author but the more you talk about supporting unconstitutional rhetoric the more we support Ron Paul.

He speaks the truth and so does his voting record.

RON PAUL 2012

Well I guessed you missed the part where this bills says that anyone who commits a "BELLIGERENT ACT" is subject to detention under this bill-----U.S. citizen or not. The "Al Qaeda" reference is just a smoke screen so eager beavers like you will help spread misinformation.

This legislation is pure evil, and tyranny. Might want to brush up on your legalese and read it again. 

Because of people like Sam Gelfand America is indeed slipping into tyrany.

Morons like him don't question why the US needed this NDAA in the first place written in such a very controversial language.

This is how history is going to remember you. A shameless mouth piece set to keep people enslaved by your masters. Shame on you, this is how history is going to remember you.

Nope, you are wrong.  Here it is, from Senator Casey's office to me:

"Senator Feinstein also offered an amendment to explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens.  I voted in favor of this amendment out of concern that authorizing the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens was at odds with fundamental American values. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 55 to 45. "

I am insulted at being called "Dumber" by an ill-informed journalist who doesn't like Ron Paul and uses tripe such as this to bolster it.  Go ahead and trust your military industrial corporatocracy complex that harbors torture camps outside it's borders and forces it's democracy in warfare style on soverign nations against their will, and is now maneuvering to entreat it's own citizenry as it does all the enemies it has forcibly created.  Go read Chalmers Johnson and William Engdahl, raise yourself from your blind idiocy, and stop calling those of greater understanding and wit than you "Dumber". 

I direct you to your own quote:

substantially supported by the Taliban, Al Queda or associated groups

You tell me - does this sound like legalese to you - the kind used to specifically identify a small subgroup or does it sound deliberately vague and ephemeral?

I also direct you to do further research it if you dare and post the results on this website: Is the President required to notify anyone that these detentions have taken place?

Also this quote,

despite the final bill’s clear language stating that nothing in section 10despite the final bill’s clear language stating that nothing in section 1021 shall be construed to affect existing law or the detention of American citizens, “lawful resident aliens of the United States,” or any person arrested on American soil. 

directly contradicts this quote:

These detainees may then be held by the military without trial, until the end of hostilities as defined by the notorious Authorization for Use of Military Force act of 2002

which is based on this timeline:

acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (AUMF2002)

which basically means forever - until the War On Terror is deemed over. Now either Americans CAN be held or they can't. Saying the law applies to a tiny fraction of people is completely without substance - the law can be construed to apply to any person it is desired to apply to due to its vagueness. Since the neither the President nor the military is required to disclose who they have detained, ANYONE can be disappeared.

Now THAT'S rich.

Emotions ....?

When MN liberals start defending fascism we know we are in deep trouble!

Although I am a Ron Paul supporter, I do agree with a lot of this article. The NDAA could be used against American citizens...or maybe not. We should definitly discuss it rather than use hyperbole. If it is rationally discussed and found that it could be used easily against American citizens, that would lend a whole lot of credibility towards the accusations, rather than what's going on right now.

Sorry, Gelfand, you didn't prove anything at all. Let me brake down you "overblown statements". First you said, "Some have argued that since 1022 merely prohibits the “requirement” to detain US citizens, future administrations could interpret this to mean that US citizens can indeed be indefinitely held." So the key to this is that future administrations may very well avoid Obama's signing statment. But you say, "The text of the bill seems to dispute this interpretation- if these authorizations are not to be construed to affect existing law, then they will not and cannot be used to circumvent our constitutional rights." Wait. How does the text of the bill dispute that interpertation exactly? If authorizations are not to be construed to affect existing law? So what you're saying is it's come to the point where authorizations are to be construed so they don't affect "existing law". Such a clear use of language, "existing law", isn't it? Let me put this into perspective for you. Bush issued a signing statement banning tortue. And then later everybody "construed" that waterboarding was not torture. Do our constitutional liberties need to be "construed"? And you're convinced by this as witnessed by your following statment, "And when section 1022 states that it is in regard to individuals as outlined by section 1021, that includes the disclaimer that lawful US residents are exempt from the legislation’s authorizations." But this sentence makes no sense because section 1021 does not explicitly forbid the detention of US Citizens. And the Senate never clarified that the law cannot be in conflict with the Bill of Rights. Look at the language of the bill, "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." Law is always construed! When was law ever not interperted? How did you ever come up with such an atrocious argument, Gelfand?

Your argument was just destroyed.

Paultard here. Um... I'm not dumb. Gross generalizations against Paultards is dumb. If you talk to us, we've got reasons to fear gov't power-grabs. Will there be mass detentions? No. COULD there be? It's possible.

The gov't you trust so much did lie us into an undeclared war in Iraq.

We want our constitution, that's dumb to you?

In a country where the the interstate commerce clause has been used ban guns in distance to schools, they will interpret it in any way they want. Regardless of what is correct the interpretation or the orignal intention of the law, the courts will use is whatever will allow the government to do the most -- which means detaining American citizens indefinetly.

The Enemy Expatriation Act calls for the citizenship of any "hostile" individual to be stripped. It has been intoduced in the house.

This act is completely unconstitutional because it gives the government the ability to take our citizenship, which is a “natural right.”

With HR-3166, all the government needs to do is strip someone of their citizenship and then they will never be seen again due to NDAA.

Google it and ask yourself why the people never hear about these acts until it's too late.

Hi Sam, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter but I do have concerns related to the indefinite detention language in NDAA.

If the language in the bill is as “clear” as you suggest, I have a few questions for you. Most of them revolve around the basic theme – If such a small amount of language in the bill was raising so much concern, then why didn’t they just replace it with a clear statement? They were given many opportunities to do so. But they didn’t. Why?

1) Shortly after NDAA 2012 passed the Senate, Senator Feinstein put up for vote a one sentence amendment (S.1867 No.1126) that, in clear language, stated “The authority […] for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” Amendment here: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FeinsteinAmendment2USCitizenBan.pdf

It was voted down 45-55.

So, if there was no question as to whether or not NDAA allows for the circumvention of due process then,
~Why would Senator Feinstein feel the need to clarify the language in the bill with an amendment?
~Why would 44 other Senators feel the need to vote in favor and why would 55 feel the need to vote against?

2) Why would Obama feel the need to attach a signing statement to NDAA specifically addressing the indefinite detention provisions in the bill? He formally expressed “serious reservations” and also indicated his administration wouldn’t detain US citizens.

3) Why would the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and many others feel the need to formally speak out against the bill? I mean, they all have legal teams, right? Surely they’d be able to make the same determination as to the bill's clarity as you did.

4) Why would Rep. Jeff Landry feel the need to respond to NDAA by writing the bill “H.R.3676 - To amend the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.” This is another very short, plain language bill that once again attempts to clarify the language in NDAA.

5) Why would Senator Feinstein and Rep. Garamendi feel the need to respond to NDAA by writing the S.3002 / H.R.3702 – Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011?

That sure is some pretty strange behavior in reaction to a bill with such “clear” language. Or did Ron Paul make them do it?

Many raised concerns about the indefinite detention language in the NDAA bill. The offending language was brief and could have easily been corrected. The corrections were offered. They had ample opportunity to correct the language but they chose not to (even going so far as to vote against it).

Why Sam? Why?

Trying to justify or soften the blow will not change the things to come. Clearly you are just another puppet of the MSM lie machine. WHEN he wins, you will see how wrong you were.

 The biggest problem with the NDAA and this article is it doesn't say who determines whether one is a terrorist. If it not the judicial branch and it is left up to the executive branch then it has gven to much power to the president undermining the check and balances that are an important part of American governance. Also the fact that U.S. citizens were not explicitly exempted is troubling and due to the ambiguity of this bill it does undermine the rights of all citizens.

You know the reason Paul supporters treat his word as gospel you moron???  Because he's fighting daily to give himself LESS Power...The scumbags in office now & all these bills are designed to give themselves MORE Power.  Wake the hell up Sammy.

Yes, many of Ron Paul's supporters are concerned about the long reaching implications that the passage of this bill will have on constitutional protections.  Although his supporters who speak are often the most vocal and very tenacious,  remember that Ron Paul supporters are not the lone voice speaking out publicly (ACLU, Occupy, etc.)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"  Ben Franklin

“ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

Those who support Ron Paul may be overreacting, but at least they are acting.  If we truly believe there couldn't be a future possible where Americans might lose their firewall of safety, and the security and prosperity the constitution provided, then we don't need to stay astute and on the defensive about issues like the NDAA- in that case it truly would be dumb and dumber. 

Sam, your entire article about the NDAA's ability or inability to indefinitely detain US citizens is a MOOT POINT....

Now the Enemy Expatriation Act is on the horizon which enables the  government to first STRIP YOU OF YOUR US CITIZENSHIP DUE TO "SUSPECTED" TERROR ACTIVITIES...and then once you are no longer a citizen, proceed to prosecute you under the NDAA...

Get it?

Scared yet?

Obama needs to return the Nobel Peace prize. 

As the writer of this editorial, I would just ask you to read what I have written -- in its entirety -- before you comment.  I am not in support of the NDAA.  I explicitly say that I am against the NDAA (2012) in this article.

If you read some of my past articles here and elsewhere, much of my writing is in regard to those who lie for personal gain, and those who sensationalize for personal gain.  If you take only one thing from my article, take the point I make near the end: we can only engage in honest debate when we all agree on the facts.  And neither Ron Paul nor many of those writing about the NDAA are talking about the facts, they are ranting about "the end of democracy" and other garbage -- I don't care how much you hate the NDAA and what it says, it is not a "descent into fascism."

I could write an article solely about the NDAA, but anything I could write is already be out there and written by people with actual credentials (obviously, I'm not talking about David Seaman, I mean people with actual credentials).  Regarding the enormous web of phonies and liars on the internet, not to mention those who engage in inflammatory rhetoric for their own benefit, that is something that I can talk about and expose -- something that other people aren't talking about and something that I am certainly qualified to talk about, as I've probably wasted more time than almost anybody else reading what's out there on the internet regarding the NDAA and associated matters.

Like I said, I'm against the NDAA, but nobody is going to win an argument if they are ignorant and misinformed about the issue at hand.

In Obama's signing statement he says it does himself, oh but he wont use it (yeah right, you just signed it into law). This from a guy that thinks nothing of killing US citizens without a trial as he has done already.  To this article, get a clue!  The dumb and dumber are both you.  Oh one more thing.... RON PAUL 2012!

AmericA should not detain people without due process.

First I am not told why I am arrested. I was just talking to a Muslim about Jesus. They give me 15 minutes to take what I need and slap a detention band on my arm as I head to the train station. Later on the boat to Gitmo....(GHETTO) they shave my hair off like I was a sailor. Gitmo gets crowded as the military folks love to torture people and arrest them without cause, I am sent to a forced labor camp, to pacify those who still resent the abolition of slavery in the civil war. We should I just sit detained indefinitely eating up good food. Later they tire of feeding me and become too weak for forced labor , so I am sent to a concentration camp. The detainees are getting numberious now so they build more camps which we secretly call death camp or extermination camp.....If I survive all this maybe I get a Gas truck or I stare at a pit with the USA Einsatzgruppen pissing on me with a gun at my head.

Well Sam see here, the number of responses defending your editorial seem to be stacked way against you. I think it was Lincoln who said something about not being able to fool all the people, all the time. The fact so many of us see this legislation as a slippery slope into tyranny is perhaps due to our placing trust in the educations we had- our civics classes, our citizenship classes, our reasons for emigrating away from dictatorships, et al. We have been led to believe the Constitution is non-negatiable, and that it means just what it says it does. This law is an end run around it.

Whatever you think about Mr. Paul, you have shown your own ignorance of the common man's wisdom. So much legislation gets written in language deliberately obscuring and obfuscating the intent - and the evidence is everwhere that the People of this country have been sold a bill of goods in respect to whom is defending us, who is upholding our laws, and why. That so many newspapers, magazines, and political thinkers are showing up on the People's side of this issue puts you in a clear minority and shows you up for what you are- a tool of those who would destroy Liberty in its name. You can't fool all the people all the time- and the current administration has seemingly fooled no one, either. Except maybe, you.

You missed an important question when you were implying the Ron Paul people were the only ones seeing something that "wasn't there". 

 President Obama made a signing statement on this bill when he signed it to law stating quote: "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

 Apparently Ron Paul supporters aren't the only ones to have misgivings about the bill constitutionality. The President himself signed it into law with those very misgivings violating his Oath of Office. 

I'm a senior. I've paid attention to the actions of my Gov't over the course of my life. And I don't like NDAA 2012.

Not for some kneejerk reaction to an article in a newspaper or some bloggers take on things. Not because a poltician came out against it or an irrational fear of some indeterminate threat to the Constitution.

I don't like it because it is another step down a road I don't like seeing this country take. I don't like the Patriot Act, which WAS/IS, a real threat to the Constitution. I don't like the NDAA for exactly the same reason. It IS a threat to the Constitution

It is also a tool that a future Presidents COULD use against the citizens of this country. I've been around long enough to know that what one politician will NOT do is NO barrier to what another politician WILL. It's nice that Obama said he will not use this 'legislation' against US. The problem is that that is NOT binding against the future leaders of this country.

As we continue to weaken the Constitution we set the stage for the the demise of Democracy. When we make laws like NDAA we make our own country a little more like the people that we seek protection from. Is that what we want? To become that which we strive against in the name of safety?

That's NOT the AMERICA I grew up in, fought for & hope to pass on to future generations.

19 Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
20 SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
21 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
22 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU23
THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
24 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author

25 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
1 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
2 Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes
3 the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States
4 to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b))
5 pending disposition under the law of war.
6 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
7 this section is any person as follows:
8 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com
9 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
10 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon
11 sible for those attacks.
12 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
13 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
14 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
15 States or its coalition partners, including any person
16 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
17 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
18 forces.
19 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis
20 position of a person under the law of war as described
21 in subsection (a) may include the following:
22 (1) Detention under the law of war without
23 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
24 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

So according to the NDAA all you have to do is commit a "beligerent act" to be held indefinitely without charge or trial.

To get an idea of what a beligerent act might be consider the christmas travelers who were not allowed to travel with their cake.  So the litmus test is.... cake.  What is especially worrying about this is that the person held does not even have to be charged with a crime.  And this person who has not been charged of any crime can be held for the rest of their life. Oh, and Obama made sure to sign the NDAA on New Years Eve  when everyone was on vacation and made sure it wasn't anywhere to be found in the newspapers that day or the following days.

He voted against awarding Rosa Parks medal of honor because it wasn't authorized by the Constitution and didn't want to spend taxpayer money on it, however he did offer to put $100 of his own money into buying her a medal and asked each member of Congress to do the same which no one else did.

Most of the other commenters here have covered the various and sundry holes in your banter- but the Ron Paul slams are simple news spin, and nothing else.

In particular, you state how Ron Paul "opposes" the seperation of church and state.  Well, his vocalized problem with the seperation of church and state has to do with the federal ban on prayer in public schools.  That is, the the federal gov. has passed a law which is blatently against "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".  It has nothing to do with puritanical beliefs, just a "conservative" interpretation of the constitution.  

Oh, and as a side note-  perhaps you should refrain from posting links to this article on Seaman's page which include criticism of his petition to appear on Faux News. Accusing someone of self-indulgent activism and in the same breath stating why YOUR self-indulgent activism is somehow greater really doesn't set well with people who can in fact think past what they read.

I'll just briefly address a couple points made:

"Tell me, slick, what WILL it take to scare the crap out of you? "

I was deathly afraid of the ukulele player Tiny Tim when I was younger.  But closer to the issue at hand, I think Citizens United is a far greater thread than anything in the NDAA, because at the heart of our country is the freedom to elect our own leaders.  Corporations choosing candidates for us is, in my opinion, infinitely more dangerous than what we're doing at Guantanamo (which is admittedly also horrible).

"In Obama's signing statement he says it does [allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens] himself."

False.  From Obama's signing statement: Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people

Most of the other comments and questions are either ad hominem attacks, comments insisting that I'm wrong about the bill's provisions without evidence to back up that claim, and a lot of anti-Obama sentiment.

It's not just Obama who's to blame for the NDAA.  I think it's fair to blame the President, especially when he says ahead of time that he will veto it.  But just a question for you all: did your congressmen vote for or against the bill?  I helped elect one Senator, Al Franken, and he voted against the NDAA, he's strongly against SOPA, and he spoke out very strongly against Citizens United.  You can elect leaders who do the right thing.  It's not the end of democracy, or the world.  So stop saying the sky is falling.

Really, that's what this is about.  If you don't know what you're talking about, you can't win an argument.  And despite the flood of comments saying you know what you're talking about and I don't, there's a ton of Ron Paul supporters running around who have no idea what this bill actually says.  Yes, there are other politicians who have moronic followers.  They all do.  But the Ron Paul "Revolution" is pumping out an incredible quantity of garbage right now.  If you look at NBC's social networking sites, people are spamming every article with comments saying "cover the NDAA and SOPA," even after they've done just that!  What's your goal?  To flood every corner of the internet with your propaganda?

You might know what the bill says.  That doesn't mean you should go around telling people an exaggerated version of what's in the bill to frighten them into taking your side.  Because in the end, that all makes us a little dumber.