Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
+3
#8 - schutzstaffel **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#40 to #8 - blahdudeblah (11/09/2012) [-]
Only the republicans in the house held the budget hostage for Obama to sign that.

Gee, its always wonderful when you get both sides of a story.
#29 to #8 - kraetyz (11/09/2012) [-]
We've had that law in Sweden for years. Have fun becoming Eurotrash in your next four years. :)
User avatar #12 to #8 - Marker, master of the jews (11/09/2012) [-]
To be arrested under the NDAA, you have to have been proven to be a supporter of groups like Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. They can't just arrest anyone based off suspicion. Also, any president would have signed the NDAA, this wasn't an Obama thing. There's been multiple NDAA's passed every year since 2007. And besides, what is so wrong with a proven supporter of terrorism being arrested?
User avatar #55 to #12 - Ruspanic (11/09/2012) [-]
Usually you have to have a trial to prove someone committed a crime. The 2012 NDAA allows for indefinite detention as well as deportation of anyone the government determines to be a terrorist or a "substantial supporter" of terrorism. These people don't get a lawyer or a fair and public trial, both of which are legal rights of all American citizens.

Also, the NDAA is passed every year to determine the Defense department's budget. But this particular one was controversial because it included the provision schutzstaffel described.

Now, the criteria for determining whether someone is a terrorist or substantially supports terrorism is not as broad as described in the original comment, but we all know the government has numerous times in the past conducted covert operations of questionable ethics and legality - especially in the name of national security. The methods used to "convict" someone without trial are not transparent. Should the government be so inclined, it could use the powers of the 2012 NDAA for political reasons, under the cover of counterterrorism. Similar things have happened in many countries, as well as in the US in the 20th Century (McCarthyism, Japanese internment, etc).
Even if there aren't ulterior motives involved, there's always the chance that the people in charge of finding these "terrorists" could be wrong. You need only look to the invasion of Iraq for evidence that the government doesn't always do its due diligence. That is why we need trials.
User avatar #59 to #55 - Marker, master of the jews (11/09/2012) [-]
I am not disagreeing with you on any of that. But too many people, like this guy, are claiming that Obama signed this "behind closed doors." I repeat, any president would have signed this, it was not a plot by Obama to strip Americans of their rights, no matter what the far right claims.
User avatar #44 to #12 - timmywankenobi (11/09/2012) [-]
they don't have to prove they are terrorist to arrest some one there is a documentry about a ameerican guy who was arrested for having a arabic name. the held him in a undeisclosed place for five years until they were convinced he wasn't a terrorist.
User avatar #28 to #12 - durkadurka ONLINE (11/09/2012) [-]
The point is that NDAA can strip rights from American citizens. Even if they're linked to terrorism, permitting a citizen's rights to be denied sets a precedent that could endanger other's rights.
User avatar #33 to #28 - thepyras (11/09/2012) [-]
This guy is right. The controversy with laws like this isn't usually what they are right now, but what they can become.
User avatar #10 to #8 - certifiedidiot ONLINE (11/09/2012) [-]
Old news, old news, you didn't even write the pasta into it
 Friends (0)