Before you guys get your panties in a bunch, look at this. What the NDAA is and isn't

snowbirds:

Let me quote for you guys some important things if you don’t want to read the whole article, which is actually really interesting.

The provisions, if actually put into use, are unconstitutional. Period. They deny basic rights guaranteed under the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. Even the Roberts Court could not pass on these provisions. The provisions are useless, a political exercise designed to “prove” to the sheep that our President aspires to dictatorship.

If our President is as politically savvy as everyone says he is, he will find some way to challenge these provisions in court and have them removed. That would be the smart way to diffuse this political bomb before it does any real damage.

(now, much later on in the article)

The NDAA includes provisions for legal counsel for sexual assault victims and the right to request a base transfer. U. S. Representative Mike Turner (R-Ohio) explained his crusade to get these provisions. “In civilian life, you have complete control of your movements, and if you’re in an unsafe situation, you can remove yourself. In military life, the victim needs permission to take even basic self-preservation actions.” The Defense Department is taking a lot of criticism lately over sexual abuse cases, the failure to investigate and prosecute rape cases, the inability of military personnel to get abortions after rapes, and the every increasing incidents on military bases and in our academies. These provisions in the NDAA are a first step to providing the needed protection and care for our personnel.

Obama did not decide on the unconstitutional parts being in there and I believe that everyone knows that if those provisions are used, they will be immediately shot down by the Supreme Court. 

Get a little educated before you come to hasty conclusions. Do your research. I’ve been looking at articles of this all day, and this seems to be the one that explains it the best.  

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS COMPLETELY, HOWEVER I FEEL WHAT MOST PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT ARE THE PARTS WHERE THEY THINK THEY’LL GET ARRESTED FOR POSTING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

Wow… wow… this is just not true. Period. 

Obama INSISTED on the indefinite detention provisions see that here, and here. 

He ASKED for this to be included, that was the only reason he was threatening the veto!

You’re parroting the spin coming form the White House and those that continue to apologize for Obama. You need to read Glenn Greenwalds piece here.

The idea that the Supreme Court will stop unconstitutional parts of this is ridiculous. First the Supreme Court has routinely interpreted the Constitution in wide ranging ways that are at odds with what the founders intended.

Secondly, how exactly would one challenge this law?!? If you are indefinitely detained with no requirement to be given a trial and can even be held after you’ve been found innocent how would you challenge it?

Do you not get that the unconstitutional parts would take you OUT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM?? There would be no way for you to begin an appeal process and take it to the Supreme Court, you’d be stuck in Guantanamo Bay with none of your rights.

There is absolutely no defense of this, Obama claims he won’t use these provisions but he’s already doing this stuff. He’s assassinating American citizens AGAINST what the Constitution says, including killing a teenage boy because he father was allegedly a terrorist. 

If you want to post this sort of stuff do some research, have a clue what you’re talking about, seriously. This is not a joke or something to be swept under the rug because your Politics require you to defend a party figurehead no matter what they’ve done. 

This is more important than that, this is about the very future of what makes our country so unique, Liberty. 

If you want to respond I implore you to read the links and watch the videos, have an informed opinion, don’t just come back with some emotional response.