jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (25 posts)

NDAA-descent into totalitarianism

64
SparklingJewelposted 5 years ago
incredible! can't believe this has happened...wake up America, this is no nightmare

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop … itarianism
reply report
1. 74
  Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I'm with you on this one, SJ.
  reply report
60
Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago
I don't see anything about this coming from the MSM, therefore most people don't know anything about this. Just mention terrorism and the people that aren't paying attention are like "Good,Good, Good, My government is protecting me" At this point ,I don't feel our president or our reps are steering this ship anyway.
reply report
77
maxoxam41posted 5 years ago
We should have reacted earlier. The first infringement to our freedom was a sign. Either we protest and fight, either they continue. We did nothing, they are keeping their goals: the destitution of our rights.
reply report
60
Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago
These two links are to bolster the "Who's steering the ship" comment

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/26 … elections/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/26 … n-the-u-s/
reply report
80
Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago
If you search CNN, you can't even find an article discussing Obama signing it.
reply report
1. 91
  habeeposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That's one of the scariest parts of this whole thing to me - hardly anything about it on any major news outlet.
  reply report
  77
  EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  There's nothing in the UK mainstream media about it either, except in the Guardian... on their blog, not the main newspaper.
  
  It's weird.
  reply report
90
Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago
Goebells would be proud!!
reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago
reply report
1. 90
  Reality Bytesposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  
  A strange metal ball dropped out of the sky and slammed into the remote grassland of northern Namibia recently, according to press reports.
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45770560/ns … nce-space/
  reply report
2. 91
  habeeposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Gee, I dunno, Ron. Seems like this should be more important that the FLOTUS' new dress, and the MSM covered that. Or perhaps you're more fashion-conscious than I am. lol
  reply report
  90
  Reality Bytesposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  LOL We also got to go Christmas shopping with the POTUS, watched him eat his pizza and all. Oh what a vast supply of hungry journalists we currently possess.
  reply report
  91
  habeeposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  For real...but they ignore NDAA.
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago
Keep watching the news. You'll have reason to unclench your sphincters and move on to the next monster under your bed.
reply report
1. 77
  EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  If Obama had been a Republican, would you be showing the same lack of concern?
  
  I'm genuinely curious, so I would be grateful for an actual answer to this question, not a brush-off.
  reply report
  60
  mom101posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Empress,
  
  Dem/Rep either way. Either/Or. Either way, the ending is the same.
  
  The answer would probably be more than we could handle. It is a scary thing. The ideal answer to the problem would have been to stand up to it much earlier.
  
  I am unsure of many things about this bill. One, is it a done deal or is it just finding its way thru the channels? Secondly, is this just another election year scheme to hurt the other party? Many questions on this subject.
  
  If in fact it is a done deal, we are going to be seeing the change that was so loudly spouted last election season. I am afraid we aint gonna like it.
  
  We are however, a strong people. We CAN overcome it or at least make it through it.
  
  Life will no doubt be different. And like an earlier post showed, we may as well find a way to laugh about it cause crying is too late.
  
  If my understanding of the bill is correct, we are to have no more than a 7 day supply of food in our home, we can't talk among our friends about our likes or dislikes of the government, we can be detained indefinitely without trial until the war on terrorism is over, and that is just the start of it.
  
  I hope my understanding of this is totally wrong. I really do.
  
  When I ask people if they have heard about it, they look at me like, ok, if I smile, she will go away.
  
  If this is real, we NEED to be talking. Doing. ETC.
  reply report
  77
  EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know much about this NDAA bill but from what I can gather, two of the controversial bits are sections 1031 & 1032, which are on pages 359 - 364 of this humungously long pdf:
  
  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s … 867pcs.pdf
  
  I'm not great at reading legal jargon but it seems to be talking about which groups of people should be put in military (as opposed to civilian) custody if arrested for terrorist activities. It excludes US citizens, but there is also a waiver.
  
  Of course, a lot of this hinges on what you mean by "war" and "hostilities". Handily for your (and my) government, the "war on terror" is an open-ended thing, which can go on indefinitely and can mean anything the government wants it to mean.
  
  Don't know anything about the being arrested for having seven days' food supply or talking about the government - can anyone find a link?
  reply report
  77
  poetvixposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  This flies in the face of the Constitution as it takes away the right to a trial, to even have charges filed, allows for one to be held indefinitely so on and so forth. At the same time, many are saying that speaking out is a form of such. When one considers the fact that it says "for suspicion" not for having been proven that sheds a whole new light on all of this. I heard someone say recently this won't stand if it goes against the Constitution. Perhaps they are right and perhaps not. Do we really want to leave the right to a trial for American citizens in the hands of anyone? These rights were to be undisputed hence why they were put in place at our nation’s inception. Further, according to what I have seen and read it allows for "enhanced interrogation methods", i.e. torture. Reality Bytes gives us a link to a case of a 16 year old child detained. Are we really at a point where we think all of this is appropriate and needed to stop children?!? This child has been locked up for 2 months. Do they really think we will buy that it takes that long to investigate the actions of a teenager? This must be repealed. Now! The potential for abuse here is too high. Protecting our nation should be priority one. The question now becomes who we need protection from!
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Not at all. If Obama was a Republican I would be very concerned.
  reply report
  77
  EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So if a Republican president tinkers about with your freedoms, it's not OK. But if a Democrat president does the same thing, you post Chicken Little cartoons whenever anyone raises their concerns.
  
  OK, ta. At least I know where you're coming from (well, I'd already worked it out long ago, but hey).
  reply report
90
Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago
16 year old American Boy Indefinitely Detained

http://youtu.be/1zO1Rar8kL4

WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE!
reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 5 years ago
NDAA- is the law of thieves.
reply report
66
Cassie Smithposted 5 years ago
Now why is it that we don't hear anything about the controversial part of the NDAA from the nattering nabobs of negativism. They sure squawked loudly when Bush signed the Patriot Act, or do they agree with this because Obama signed on to it.
reply report
80
Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago
If you're against these NDAA type pieces of legislation, then Ron Paul is your man.
reply report