Informative short speech Re: NDAA 2012 - Speech 148 - Vincennes University |
March 22, 2012, 4:04AM |
|
 |
by: Jareth topic: Essays bookmark this article view bookmarked articles go to archives |
|
| Editor: If you feel it proper or necessary, the Abstract in its entirety can be removed. I would appreciate it if this could make it's way to front publication. Thank you.
Informative Brief Concerning The NDAA Of 2012 Nicholas A. Corona Vincennes University Abstract In this paper, I will attempt to illustrate the ongoing issues of our Judicial, Legislative, and Administrative branches of government in relation to our Rights and our Freedoms. Focus will be brought to certain legislative measures taken during the 2011-2012 calendar year that effect American Freedoms and Rights, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. I addressed what subject matter was covered in this bill, its relation to other bills recently passed and existing legislation. I explored these items primarily by, since they dealt with our rights and liberties, the ACLU references, Library Of Congress data, and a few other informational resources as annotated in the References enclosure. My results were derived from my study of the laws, regulations, and methods of Justice enforcement that have been available to me as a layperson with access to higher education resources. My conclusions should illustrate the vast importance of understanding what our laws are and how they can easily be affected without our knowledge or will to the detriment of our freedom. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to attempt to present you with an educational tidbit or two of information in the next few minutes. I'd like to share with you with my observations and analysis of an item that is very important to me, and I hope to you as well. This item is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, or NDAA 2012; also known as HR 1540. (1) This document is one of a series of such documents that deals directly with monetary appropriation and disbursal for all aspects of the Armed Services as a whole, from procurement of parts and materials to the pay and compensation of all who are employed by the DOD. That, however, was the original intent of this document. Over the years with each new revision, as with just about every bill that's introduced, there are additions and subtractions made that ultimately have nothing to do with the main purpose OF the documentation. This is my own observation from studying the laws and those who've written them. These modifications are made by various senators and congressmen in an attempt to get passed into law their own pet projects with little to no opposition by either their constituents or their peers. Most of the time these efforts succeed. What we have with THIS years version of the NDAA, is a slightly more restrained version of it's originally drafted form from last year. However it could still be interpreted by the courts unfavorably for the American people. (1), (2), (3) Specifically, there are 2 sections in the NDAA 2012 that directly deal with with the powers of the President and of the Military to be able to detain people, and what qualifies them as subject to detainment: Section 1021 - p.265 Section 1022 - p.266 – pp(a)-(b) These sections are quite vague in a legal sense as to WHO qualifies, and paragraph (b) of section 1022 only removes the REQUIREMENT and does nothing to PROHIBIT these actions on citizens or legal residents. Further, paragraph ( c ), sub-paragraph (1) of section 1021 specifies detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities. Referenced in paragraph (a) of section 1021 is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (4), also known as Public Law 107-40, listed as a qualifying law for this section. This law was put in place as a direct result of the terrorist acts on 9/11, and specifically authorizes the President to use any and all necessary steps to prevent future acts of terrorism, and to take said steps against “...nations, organizations, or persons he determines” had any relation or knowledge to or of these acts. While there was language in the NDAA 2012, as is stipulated by an absent section 1867 (2) that originally that DID specify indefinite detention of American citizens and legal residents, this has since been removed. However, the items that are remaining are still highly questionable. The Supreme Court COULD possibly rule in favor of detention of a citizen or legal resident, thereby setting a precedent. Here's a quote from the ACLU article by Chris Anders (3) on November 23, 2011 illustrating what is going on without much, if any, advertisement to the American People through popular means: “In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”” President Obama had threatened originally to veto this bill (6) on account of the broad sweeping power that was implied by the language of the draft prior to the vote in December of 2011. As of February 2012, the matter of indefinite detention of Americans was brought to the Senate Judiciary committee for review and repeal. (5) However, as the references provided will show, this is a stubborn problem that has been with us as a country and as a global presence for some years now, and shows no indication of fading anytime soon. List Of References Bohm, Allie. “Angry About the National Defense Authorization Act?” American Civil Liberties Union. February 22, 2012. Web. March 19, 2012 http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/angry-about-national-defense-authorization-act (3) Anders, Chris. “Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window” American Civil Liberties Union. November 23, 2011. Web. March 19, 2012. http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being “Toolkit: State and Local Resolutions Opposing the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)” American Civil Liberties Union. 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/toolkit-state-and-local-resolutions-opposing-2012-national-defense-authorization Kain, Erik. “President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?”Forbes. January 2, 2012. Web. March 19, 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/ (6) “Obama Seeks to Prevent Defense Bill's Indefinite Detention of US Citizens” ProCon. http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005047, December 9, 2011. Web. March 19, 2012 (5) Senate Judiciary committee. “The Due Process Guarantee Act: Banning Indefinite Detention of Americans” February 22, 2012. Dirksen Senate Office Building. http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=8b30fa475a5089d793576cd9470701bd (1) Library Of Congress. National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Washington DC. 2011. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf (4) Library Of Congress. Authorization For Use Of Military Force. Washington DC. 2001. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf Library Of Congress. H.J. Resolution 55. Washington DC. 2011 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hjres55ih/pdf/BILLS-112hjres55ih.pdf (2) Levin, Carl. STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY S. 1867 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012. Washington DC. 2011. Web. March 19, 2012 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf |
||
 cic24 |
Im sick of fighting every piece of legislature. Especially this new internet shit (Cispa)... We need to just get someone like Ron Paul in office to prevent ALL FORMS of this crap. Otherwise itll keep coming and coming and coming. April 24, 2012, 2:12AM |
| pages: 1 |