[Free]

Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA,
Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land

President signs authorization to indefinitely detain, torture and deny trial to Americans; grants power to all future presidents.

http://www.infowars.com/happy-new-year-obama-signs-ndaa-martial-law-bill/

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Warren,

I think this is an important topic, but it doesn't belong in the Hang Gliding General section. We can move it to either the "Free Speech Zone" or into your own "Mo Hawks" forum.

There is a difference between those choices. Posts in the "Free Speech Zone" are designated to NOT be searched by Google. This is done so that "drive by" posters don't incorrectly associate the US Hawks with whatever they're posting (whether it's Viagra or South African Lottery scams). However, since you are the president of the Mo Hawks, then that subforum is largely under your jurisdiction - and responsibility. You are primarily accountable for its content - and not the US Hawks. So that's an option that might be helpful for you to consider.

Warren, I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns. Many of them are my concerns as well. But this site won't become a hang gliding site if it's full of political discussions having nothing to do with hang gliding ... other than a thinly veiled title.

Thanks in advance,
Bob Kuczewski

P.S.   

Last night while you celebrated New Years Eve, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. The Federal Government now claims the right to permit indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without access to a lawyer or a trial. They are not required to even bring charges. Where is Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS or the print media on this treasonous act that politicians on both sides of the aisle voted for? This law effectively shreds the Bill of Rights.

As I said ... I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns.

[Free]

Ron Paul on NDAA:
Did CNN Cut Him off Because He Was Discussing the Controversial Law?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/277208/20120105/ron-paul-ndaa-cnn-cut-discussing-controversial.htm

Ron Paul spoke briefly on CNN live news about the NDAA for a few moments before the network cut back to a studio anchor.

A live-news segment on CNN Monday morning aired five minutes of a Paul stump speech in Des Moines, Iowa, during which the Texas congressman discussed a range of topics. But the network cut back to the studio shortly after he began to discuss the NDAA, though he was able to get a couple sentences off about the topic before the switch.

"We certainly don't need to be moving on to the next stage, which is happening right now. Last week or two weeks ago it was passed, and then just recently signed by the president, authorizing the military to arrest American citizens, and allowing American citizens--for citizens to be held indefinitely. That is the wrong direction. We need to reverse that direction. But we have to--we have to answer the question properly, what is the proper role? Stay out of..."

That was where his remarks ended during the Monday segment. There are two schools of thought regarding why CNN cut his off at that point.

[terryJm]

Hello 'Free' it is good to see that we are in agreement on these political issues, and; if I could express my concerns without fear of self incrimination (incarceration or detention) then there might be room for debate. As things stand, we subject ourself to the very process we object to, My silence is in self protection, My passion is Hang gliding, my efforts are pragmatic. Lets do what we can do! Togther, we stand, appart we Hang. Forgive the simplicity of my plea, Terry

[Free]

Hello 'Free' it is good to see that we are in agreement on these political issues, and; if I could express my concerns without fear of self incrimination (incarceration or detention) then there might be room for debate. As things stand, we subject ourself to the very process we object to, My silence is in self protection, My passion is Hang gliding, my efforts are pragmatic. Lets do what we can do! Togther, we stand, appart we Hang. Forgive the simplicity of my plea, Terry

The simplicity of your plea is not hard to forgive. The message of your plea is more the problem.
In effect, you are saying, 'shut up' (again) because you fear repercussion from something you wish to deny.
Forgive my confusion if this is wrong.

[Free]

From tonight's Republican debate in South Carolina

Romney Trusts Obama Not To Abuse NDAA Provisions
Mitt Romney said he supported the National Defense Authorization Act and the provision allowing the president to indefinitely detain American citizens in custody.

"Yes, I would have," said Romney when asked whether he would have signed the legislation as President Obama did. Members of the crowd -- most likely supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who believes the bill is unconstitutional -- booed him.

"I do believe it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues, but you don't have a right to join a group that has challenged America and has threatened killing Americans, has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That's treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail."

The crowd loudly applauded this response.

Romney then said that while he disagreed with Obama on most matters, he would give him the benefit of the doubt not to abuse the powers in the NDAA.

"I recognize that in a setting where they are enemy combatants and some of them on our own soil, that could be abused," he said. "There are lots of things I think this president does wrong -- lots of them -- but I don't think he will abuse this power, and if I were president I would not abuse this power."

Other members of the crowd again booed Romney.

-- Amanda Terkel

[Bob Kuczewski]

From tonight's Republican debate in South Carolina

"There are lots of things I think this president does wrong -- lots of them -- but I don't think he will abuse this power, and if I were president I would not abuse this power."

If they're not going to abuse the power, then the law should be written in a way that they are not able to abuse the power. I've never liked the idea of someone asking for a power that they assure you they'll never use.

Thanks for the good article Warren.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Also, I don't think Terry is telling you to "shut up", and I'm sorry that you're reading that intention into his post.

By the way, I don't mind you keeping a political topic alive in the main forum, but you're also welcome to post your political views in the "Mo Hawks" forum rather than the Free Speech Zone. I'm mentioning it because the "Free Speech Zone" is set up to NOT be searched and cataloged. So if you want people to find your posts via search engines, then posting to the "Free Speech Zone" may not be the best way to spread your message.

But your own Mo Hawks forum is cataloged by search engines, and it's pretty much under your control. So you can post what you want there (as long as it's not obscene) without me nagging you about putting non-hang-gliding topics in the main forum. How does that sound to you?

Thanks in advance,
Bob Kuczewski

[Free]

[Free]

Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA indefinite detention clause


http://theopenglobe.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_introduces_bill_to_repeal_NDAA_indefinite_detention_clause

From OpenGlobe
January 21, 2012 — Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA indefinite detention clause


Republican Representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul took a day off from campaigning in the primary voting state of South Carolina to return to Washington and introduce legislation that would repeal portions of a controversial new law that allows indefinite military detention of individuals.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), in addition to delegating funding for US presence in the Middle East, would also give the military broad powers to detain individuals on US soil who are suspected of being connected to terrorists. Additionally, detainees would not be guaranteed a trial, and could be held indefinitely.

The law easily passed both the House and Senate in December, and was signed into law by President Obama on New Year's Eve, who said he approved it despite having "serious reservations".

Sources and legal analysts differ over whether these provisions could apply to US citizens, but general consensus is that the relevant parts of NDAA are phrased vaguely.

From Washington, Paul blasted the provisions. "Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects—including Americans—and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely," said the twelve-term Texas congressman.

"No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court [...] This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas. Is this really the kind of United States we want to create in the name of fighting terrorism?"

He added: "Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has 'substantially supported' certain terrorist groups or 'associated forces'. No one has defined what those two terms mean. What is an 'associated force'?"

Paul's son Rand, who is serving as a Senator from Kentucky, similarly objected to the legislation.

Other lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, differed. Lindsay Graham from South Carolina said in December that the broad measures were necessary for national security. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'"

Paul's bill is numbered H.R. 3785; he was its only sponsor. A related amendment to NDAA, proposed back in mid-December by Rep. Jeffrey Landry to soften the detention provisions, was struck down.