What's so bad about the NDAA?

Even if the NDAA doesn't allow the government to imprison Americans without a trial, it still enables it to do so with foreigners, which is STILL A PROBLEM.

This is wrong.

Despite the fact that they may be terrorists, or the fact that they may have conspired to harm America or her citizens, it remains true that they are living human beings with rights.

One of the very reasons for revolution was, "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury..." written in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. How ludicrously hypocritical is it for us to demand the right for a fair trial to ourselves, and not for others?

This is a gross violation of human rights. No man or woman should be imprisoned without a fair trial.

Lets look at it from a different perspective. What if other countries passed this law, and started imprisoning Americans with questionable trials, or perhaps even no trials at all, considering them to be a threat to national security?

Case in point, the hikers in Iran.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15000563
These men, innocent or not, strayed their way into Iran and were immediately convicted and sentenced to prison, followed by a huge uproar in the US. Fortunately, these men were released just last year. However, I have to ask you, what if Iran had passed the NDAA? What if Iran decided to keep these two Americans forever, as it considered them to be "spies?"

This is exactly what America plans to do with foreigners. However just because America has more power than Iran doesn't make it justified for them to do it either.

TL;DR
The NDAA is a gross violation of human rights that even the founding fathers would a disagree with. Every man or woman deserves a fair trial.

Countries like Iran and North Korea don't care, they don't even have to pass the NDAA, they just do it.

That's true. However, if the rest of the world did the same, there wouldn't be a single fair trial for any one of the nearly 7 billion people on this planet. The reason we don't act like Iran or North Korea is because we're better than that.

It's absolutely wrong to play eye for an eye. Just because the enemy stoops that low, doesn't mean we should too. Giving up the moral fabric our country was founded upon is tragic. That's what's wrong with the NDAA.

True, our moral fabric is what makes us as a country. We shouldn't give up on our ideals, no matter what pressure or enemy is presented before us. We will triumph through all legal means.

This I can agree with, I find it disturbing that people are actually for the NDAA instead of against it as a whole.

As for the countries, sometimes you have to play hardball, I know it isn't "right" but if the enemy is not being fair, one should not play fair, since the enemy WILL refuse to play fair in the end and just mess around if anything, although I don't suggest anything like the NDAA, but to non-citizens/non-residents of the USA or anyone with a bad background or criminal record.

Well, it only allows for the indefinite detention of foreigners who are terrorists and are trying to kill us, and even then only until the cessation of hostilities, meaning, according to the current timeline, 2014. I mean, what do you expect us to do in a war anyhow?



The declaration of independence is in no way whatsoever legally binding to anyone.

Also, who said they won't get a trial?

According to INTERNATIONAL law, the Writ of Habeus Corpus is still not allowed to be denied to anyone we capture. Yet again, by 2014, everyone we've captured needs to be either let go, or put through trial, there is nothing preventing them from recieving this.

You might know of an individual known as GHALEB NASSAR AL-BIHANI(sorry, I can't spell his friggin name, so I copy pasted it from his court case seen here: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C89FD9E7E1A62C59852578070059E29B/$file/09-5051-1223587.pdf)

So if you read the case you'll see that the supreme Court has held that the government is NOT allowed to deny prisonders Writ of Habeas Corpus, however, they are allowed to DELAY it until the cessation of hostilities.

There is nothing wrong with this. We've had this since the founding of the country.



They can be detained if they're found according to law to be legally detained under war powers granted to the government by Congress. But you're right, they can't be detained forever and thrown into jail without ever receiving a trial, however that's not happenning.



Clearly you're not aware of Bangkok and Taiwan. Tourists in the areas sometimes get tricked into drug trafficking to make some money, generally the countries just shoot drug traffickers, but since these are foreigners, they just throw them in jail and forget about them. That is indeed unjust. That's not what we're doing.



Well, if they passed the NDAA, then it still wouldn't give them that power. As I've explained in my first post, and in my reply to Lelouch, the NDAA grants, and listen closely here, NO NEW POWERS to the government.



No it's not.



The founding fathers were the ones who gave us this power in the first place in the 5th congress. The Alien and Sedition acts allow us to, without trial, detain a foreigner, and send them back to their country, whenever our government sees fit.

TL;DR

You don't know what the NDAA is, and you haven't paid attention to my first post.

I wasn't arguing about legal precedent. I was arguing about the morality of indefinite detentions. Habeas Corpus is not readily available to all who need it. This is exactly why Guantanmo Bay remains open, and why detainees are kept for years at a time.

Sure you can pull out all your blog sites and wikipedia articles to legally justify their detention, but what I'm saying is that it is still morally wrong. Their right to habeas corpus has been "delayed" for years, which is unconscionable. There are prison terms that are shorter than the time they are being "delayed" a trial.

This LA Times article illustrates how difficult it is for detainees to secure a trial, if at all.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/11/nation/la-na-nn-supreme-court-gitmo-20120611

Reality is different. Despite all the rulings and protections you speak of, these men are still being denied their appeals for dubious reasons.

...Blog sites and wikipedia? Way to attempt to denigrate my references, especially when I use official white house papers and legal proceedings to explain what's going on when I need to.

So you're saying, "I don't care if it's legal or not to detain people we're fighting against. and delay trials until the cessation of hostilities, it's still immoral."

Let's go to WWII. We captured german fighters and detained them without trial until the end of the war. You're saying that we should give them a trial. A trial based on what? International law? They're fighting in an official war and doing so legally. In other words, they would be found innocent of doing anything wrong, and we'd have to send them back to Germany...to fight us again.

That's what would happen with every war. Capturing them would only result in us sending them back to keep shooting at us if you said, "Nope, you don't get to delay trials, immediately give them trials because it's the right thing to do." And that was the law of the land.

Shit, if that were law of the land, capturing wouldn't even be an option, since we'd have to immediately let them go to fight us some more...we'd just kill everyone the moment we found them.

So tell me, what's more moral? Mercilessly killing everyone without any detainment whatsoever, or detainment until the war is over, and then a fair trial? Because with you saying we should have the trials immediately, you're advocating for the former.

You did quote blog sites and wikipedia in your first post, so don't act offended.

Also, there's a difference between a prisoner of war, and a detainee. Lastly, don't try putting words in my mouth.

The detainees kept under the NDAA are prisoners of war, persuant to the AUMF.

News flash, the United States' fight against Al Qaeda and the like is a war.

I didn't put words in your mouth, this is what's called a reductio ad absurdum. I took your position to its logical conclusion, and pointed out it leads to something more immoral than what you're aiming for. Don't like it? Don't participate.

Actually, as it regards World War II, we had what's called the Nuremberg Trials.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/warcrimetrials/

It was here, that the basis for the International Court was established. Along with the United Nations in response to Nazi Atrocities after the victory of the Allied Powers. There are those who believe the Nuremberg trials were biased, in that the Allies committed the same crimes as the Axis.

That, and we pretty much covered up Stalin's Soviet Russia...Yeah.

The history behind the Nuremberg trials, is actually more proof of my statement to you that Government A: Isn't the end-all, be-all. And B: Is far from neutral, fair or impartial. Governments, all governments are to quote Washington:



To me, the Founders were Men among babies, Giants among men. This is why I fully support what they tried to accomplish. Not because it was flawless, and not because I propose endearing love towards this system, no, I'd be a hypocrite if I did.

But it is the principles and intelligence of these men. Which is why I find Liberalism arrogant, what in Liberalism's history has suggested that they've come close to these legendary achievements?

Yes, they were flawed. But they acknowledged their own flaws, and those flaws were social flaws that they believed that only society could change. The Founders, were in fact modern populists.

Populism is the only form of government. It's the only form of government acceptable. We haven't had a populist form of government, since perhaps JFK and that was short lived(For obvious reasons).

The AUMF authorizes the use of armed force against the aggressors who enacted the 9/11 attack. It does not declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan, and there has never been war declared on Iraq or Afghanistan.

AUMF Text
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

As such, they are detainees, not prisoners of war. If you're not going to debate with facts then I'm not going to even bother replying.

Don't cite the AUMF to me bro. You're using documents youSve either never read or don't understand. First, yes, we HAVE allowed for the use of military force, or rather, declared war on iraq, persuant to the AUMF of 2002, that's right, there are multiple AUMF's, betcha didn't know that.

Second, the AUMF of 2001 was a declaration of war not against afghanistan, but against al queda, the taliban, and affiliates, which is defined in the geneva convention.

So yes, they're prisoners of war, eat it.