Reflections From a Murky Pond

Predating the explosion of angst against SOPA and PIPA was all the screaming, moaning, and hand-wringing over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 – specifically those sections dealing with detainee matters.

Hordes of people, on the Left and the Right, were screaming about how those sections of the NDAA 2012 would allow the government to indefinitely imprison Americans without charges or trial – a gut shot to the Constitution.

Truth be told, I was close to being one of them. The only reason that I didn’t join in the ranting was that there were two versions of the bill in question, one in the House and one in the Senate, and both were being rewritten and reworded too rapidly for me to keep up with them.

When you have to redo a draft post three times in five days, it’s time to step back and wait till things settle – if one cares at all about posting reasonably accurate information.

By the the time the dust settled the issue was laid to rest, despite Obama’s campaign statement upon signing the NDAA 2012 into law.

My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.

– President Obama, January 1, 2012
NDAA 2012 Signing Statement

The dangerous language that had been in earlier, working versions of both the House and Senate versions of the bill was removed and specific exceptions for American citizens, legal residents, and anyone apprehended within US borders were coded into the final, Enrolled bill which Obama signed into law at the beginning of the year.

Yet the insanity continues, further fueled by Obama’s useless signing statement, as if these very much needed corrections were never made.  Disinformation continues to be spread and the ignorant masses keep lapping it up.

To debunk this idiocy all one has to do is to read the relevant sections (1021 & 1022) of the final version of the 2012 NDAA:

NDAA 2012, Title X, Subtitle D, SEC. 1021

Affirmation of Authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to authorization for use of military force

AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

– NDAA 2012 p. 265

Under NDAA 2012 the US military still doesn’t have the right to indefinitely detain any US citizen or legal resident. It wasn’t even granted the right to indefinitely detain illegal aliens who are captured or arrested within US borders.

NDAA 2012, Title X, Subtitle D, SEC. 1022

Requirement for military custody

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS. — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

– NDAA 2012 p. 266

The NDAA 2012 has not in any way called for the requirement of military custody of American citizens or expanded those requirements for legal residents.

But over three weeks after the NDAA 2012 was signed into law and longer since its final version was enrolled people are still ranting and raving over it – all of them referencing admittedly heinous verbiage that was in earlier versions of the bills.

Yes! Earlier versions of the NDAA 2012 included some of the most dangerous language I’ve seen in proposed legislation and, again yes, that language was made even more chilling in context due to some of the rhetoric by individual legislators who obviously didn’t want to abide by the Constitution and had no qualms about “disappearing” American citizens.

Those dangerous and unconstitutional provisions did not, however, survive the final writing of the law. Let me repeat that – Those dangerous and unconstitutional provisions did not survive the final writing of the law

If one wants to continue complaining about the NDAA 2012 and not look like an idiot while doing so, different arguments will have to be raised.

Possibly Valid Complaints

Depending upon your sensibilities the complaints below would still be valid:

• NDAA 2012 keeps Gitmo open and prevents Obama from moving detainees into the US civilian prison or courts systems
• NDAA 2012 calls for detention of enemy combatants until the end of hostilities, which is an unforeseen and unforeseeable date in the War on Terror
• NDAA 2012 could be interpreted as formally legalizing Extraordinary Rendition

But, for the sake of providing some evidence that the American people aren’t a ignorant as many claim us to be, quit ranting about things – no matter how horrific they were – that never saw the light of day as law.

Related Reading:

There’s a lot of whinging, whining, ranting, and raving over SOPA and PIPA. My guess is that very, very few – perhaps as low as 1% – of the people engaging in these histrionics have bothered to read either bill.

That fundamental, self-imposed ignorance, of course,  never seems to stop these cretins from yammering about things about which they know nothing or next to nothing.

Most hilarious reaction is the SOPA Strike or Blackout protest going on today (January 18, 2012).  Well over 99% of the sites choosing to “go dark” are so inconsequential that their permanent loss would go utterly unnoticed by the internet public at large.

NOTE: This blog would also most definitely fall into that 99%, as would virtually all personal websites. I have some comforting illusions but this blog’s importance isn’t one of them.

On the slim chance that you, my dear reader, wish to be one of the 1% who isn’t bleating in ignorance born rage, links to the full text of both SOPA and PIPA can be found below:

Texts of SOPA & PIPA

• Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) [H. R. 3261]
• Protect IP Act (PIPA) [S. 968]

At least after reading the bills in question one can, if one still has an issue with one or both of them, have complaints and arguments based upon actual verifiable facts as opposed to the drivel certain agendists spoon feed their drones. And it’s not inconceivable that you would still take issue with SOPA and PIPA; like all laws, there’s room for argument over the details – especially over the various amendments and riders that are always added to bills in Congress.

Read the rest of this entry »

Related Reading:

H.R.10 – the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (REINS Act) seems to have really set Obama’s teeth on edge in a big way. Before REINS Act has even gone to the Democrat-controlled Senate he’s threatened to veto the bill, which would provide Congressional oversight of the regulations set forth by the various federal bureaus and agencies under the command of the Executive.

Obama has no plans to allow Congress such oversight of his actions.

The House Republican proposal would require Congress to approve any regulation that is estimated to cost the U.S. economy more than $100 million a year, would result in an increase in prices, or have adverse effect on competition or jobs.

All my readers know that I loath Obama but there is no doubt in my mind that he’d be perfectly correct in vetoing the REINS Act if it ever managed to reach his desk. The Executive is not subordinate to the Legislative and this Act seeks to make it so.

Breath. I know it seems profoundly shocking that I agree with Obama on something, especially a contest between him and the GOP, but it does happen upon the rare occasion.

If the REINS Act were to become law, we might well as go ahead and subsume the whole of the Executive into the Legislative because very few, if any at all, federal regulations don’t cost the U.S. economy more than $100 million a year, result in an increase in prices, have adverse effect on competition or jobs, or some combination of the three.

Related Reading: