Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Morrigi]

The NDAA 2014 fight is well underway and has the first good amendments already on the table.

I'm glad SOMEONE'S trying.

[Mr. Palau]

IIRC ear marks are by no means banned, it is just that the Tea Party was very against ear marks, because they were "wasteful spending" and just refused to pass bills if they had too much ear marks in 'em.

Which is a shame, because ear marks are a good way to get just enough votes to get something to pass by a small margin. You known, there is some senator out there who was very fearful of the gun control lobby, but maybe if he got a the local bridge repaired and a new federal prison in one of his rural hunting towns he might have voted for it, knowing that he could just concentrate on having brought back the bacon during his re-election campaign.

[10ebbor10]

Legalized bribing with state money?

[palsch]

And the 2014 NDAA passes the House.

So the amendments there that stand out to me;

Walorski Amendment #19: to prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any funds authorized to the department for the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen. 236-188 (225 Republicans in favor, 183 Democrats against).

That's a White House veto threat even over the standing veto threat. Currently there is a moratorium on sending detainees to Yemen, but it's purely an executive one. It's one area where Obama could genuinely work to remove prisoners from GTMO and the most likely action he could take to prove he is serious about closing it. Now the House want to block that option.

Radel Amendment #151: to require the Department of Defense to submit to the Congress a report every year containing: (1) the names of any U.S. citizens subject to military detention, (2) the legal justification for their continued detention, and (3) the steps the Executive Branch is taking to either provide them some judicial process, or release them. Requires that an unclassified version of the report be made available, and in addition, that the report must be made available to all members of Congress. Agreed to by voice vote.

Goodlatte amendment #150: to require the government, in habeas proceedings for United States citizens apprehended in the United States pursuant to the AUMF, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the citizen is an unprivileged enemy combatant and there is not presumption that the government’s evidence is accurate and authentic. 214-211 (211 Republicans in favor, 190 Democrats against).

These sound good, but I don't believe there has ever been a piece of legislation that accepts US citizens can be held as enemy combatants. These amendments could potentially be used as a legal argument that Congress wants the military to be able to detain citizens. And while the first one of those two sounds like good precautions, I'd assume that the latter is the basic due process standard you would expect for any detention of any person under current court rulings. Again, limiting this to citizens could be used as an argument for denying non-citizens such access.

Broun Amendment #136: Prohibits the Department of Defense from using a drone to kill a citizen of the United States unless they are actively engaged in combat against the United States. Agreed en bloc by voice vote.

I'm betting the administration hold this standard would cover the citizens known to have been killed by drones in the past, given their current legal definitions, but would certainly open up challenges to such actions.

Also does limiting this to drones suggest that assassinations of American citizens by other means are somehow legal? Or that drone strikes were legal before this law in some manner that other killings weren't? Seems confused to me.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The house definitely likes to pick at the lowest hanging, lowest quality fruit whenever they do such things.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Broun Amendment #136: Prohibits the Department of Defense from using a drone to kill a citizen of the United States unless they are actively engaged in combat against the United States. Agreed en bloc by voice vote.

I'm betting the administration hold this standard would cover the citizens known to have been killed by drones in the past, given their current legal definitions, but would certainly open up challenges to such actions.

Also does limiting this to drones suggest that assassinations of American citizens by other means are somehow legal? Or that drone strikes were legal before this law in some manner that other killings weren't? Seems confused to me.

Technically, if you join an armed force that is openly hostile to the United States your citizenship is automatically revoked, meaning you have no citizenship in any nation and thus the government can kill you with impunity.

The thing is, doing this with people who join al-Qaeda splinters means explicitly recognizing al-Qaeda as a legitimate armed force and not just an armed rabble, which the government does not want to do. As such, the drone strike thing is away to get around the problem.

[DWC]

Broun Amendment #136: Prohibits the Department of Defense from using a drone to kill a citizen of the United States unless they are actively engaged in combat against the United States. Agreed en bloc by voice vote.

What is it with people and these fucking drones? Why does it matter if it's a drone? So if they want to kill some random US citizen they have to use a plane with a pilot sitting in it? What if the drone plane accidently runs over a baggage handler on take off, would that be in violation of the Broun Amendment?

[Moghjubar]

Alan Grayson speaking about the whole NSA spying hooplah:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffSD2zRX-kQ

[nwob]

Broun Amendment #136: Prohibits the Department of Defense from using a drone to kill a citizen of the United States unless they are actively engaged in combat against the United States. Agreed en bloc by voice vote.

What is it with people and these fucking drones? Why does it matter if it's a drone? So if they want to kill some random US citizen they have to use a plane with a pilot sitting in it? What if the drone plane accidently runs over a baggage handler on take off, would that be in violation of the Broun Amendment?

I think there are two things - the coldness of it, and also the ease.

While *I believe* it is the case that drone strikes cause less collateral damage than conventional attacks, I assume they are much easier to secure (or avoid securing) congressional approval for.  If a US air attack hits a village then people will almost certainly hear about it.  A little drone, on the other hand? It seems a lot more underhand.

[Scoops Novel]

I'll see if this warrant's it's own thread, but as your nearest has anyone heard about the Brazil Riots? Apparently they're spreading. A source i was informed of: http://therewillbemorelove.tumblr.com/post/53061467360/to-anyone-whos-reading-this-im-a-brazilian (NSFW sidebar)

[Dutchling]

Ah, I read about the angry reactions of many when the government started spending a lot of money on the Olympics while there was still plenty of shit happening in the country. Didn't expect any protests though. Any idea when this started?

Not sure why you post it in this thread though

[Scelly9]

Might wanna NSFW that.

[Scoops Novel]

Ah, I read about the angry reactions of many when the government started spending a lot of money on the Olympics while there was still plenty of shit happening in the country. Didn't expect any protests though. Any idea when this started?

Not sure why you post it in this thread though

Can you give me some sources? I couldn't see anywhere better. It will quite possibly get it's own thread, though.

[Dutchling]

It was mostly spam in imgur and youtube comments so I can't give you any real scources :x

[SalmonGod]

My parents have a friend on Brazil who has been saying for a while that this was coming.  Organized crime is so rampant there that they openly wage war on the police, to the point of launching organized attacks on police stations.  The people are terrorized and fed up.  Don't know much about what other problems they have.