Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

­ asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 8 years ago

Why haven't we protested against the Patriot Act and NDAA?

Let's see...

Patriot Act: Section 215:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than

Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for

an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including

books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investiga-

tion to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intel-

ligence activities

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So.... The FBI may seize anything for an investigation against "terrorism?"

Hold on a second...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th Amendment

Read that. Isn't that clear as day? You need a warrant for seizing property. You can't just take it.

There goes the 4th.

National Defense Authorization Act: Section 1021:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the

President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to

the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;

50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces

of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub-

section (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section

is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported

al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged

in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces.

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a

person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may

include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until

the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for

Use of Military Force.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hold ON a second! Let's look at that again...

"the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to ... detain ... any person who has committed a belligerent act ... Detention under the law of war without trial"

So, they can basically throw ANYONE in prison who has committed a "belligerent act"? Let's take a look at something...

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" - Sixth Amendment

I mean, it's not rocket science people. You can't imprison people without a trial.

Update:

@Heavy

I DID look at "covered persons." Read it yourself.

"A person who was a part of or substantially supported

al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged

in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces."

Let's shorten that down for ya.

" ... al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged

in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

-->including<-- any person who has committed a belligerent act -->OR<--

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces."

Key words, my friend. "any person who has committed a belligerent act" is standing all out on its lonesome.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    We have.

    In the first instance the "order" referred to is a court order -- a warrant.

    Let's look at that second one again. You missed a few important words. The entire population of the world is not covered under the AUMF and you totally skipped over the definition of a "covered person".

    To fix your statement:

    "So, they can basically throw ANYONE in prison who has committed a "belligerent act"?"

    It is more accurately: "So, they can basically throw ANYONE in prison who is a "person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. "

    So yeah, if you tried to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, you might get locked up for a very long time.

    Nope, not rocket science at all.

  • 8 years ago

    Mainly because people who think the way you do seem to be totally ignorant of how Congress voted on it. They voted for it in veto-proof majorities. It didn't matter how Obama felt about it. Now, you can ask your Congressperson how they voted and why, but since he likely has done it before and still been reelected, chances are you won't get very far.

    Now, as far as getting the law changed or struck down, you will have to wait for an occasion where the law is used unConstitutionally and then file suit with the government, slowly working your way up the ladder to the Supreme Court. It's possible they might rule for you, but they ruled in FDR's favor when he interned the Japanese during WWII, so I think your chances are slim.

  • 4 years ago

    We basically choose loose well-being care, extra desirable desirable public training, public housing, hire administration, agricultural reserves, feminist regulation, homo regulation, ethnic group regulation, extra desirable hard work regulation, extra desirable nutrition stamps, extra desirable minimum earnings, extra desirable taxes on the wealthy, extra desirable unemployment relief tests, pay limits for CEOs and each and each component else that has to do with filthy corrupt commie workplace work. we don't care approximately what's happening in a foreign places u . s . as long as we've much less artwork to do and loose stuff. Comrade Obama promises all that to us.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    The media keeps dirty little secrets for Obomba, to make him appear he's so different then Dubya, trust me the town drunk from Conn pretending to be Texan likes the Tiger Woods guy as President because they are on the same team. I'd say tell the troops, even foreign ones every nut case conspiracy that's online since the signing of HR 347 even small militaries from African villages, Russian troops, Chinese troops etc... with care packages with food, movies like the Hunger games or 1984, with entertainment like INWO RPG cards from Steve Jackson games, conspiracy literature like "Behold a Pale Horse" or "Cures they don't want you to know about" with recorded copies of YouTube vids on DVD's and even VHS. They want to spy on us, we will just expose conspiracy theories regardless if they are right or wrong to get them back, there is some truth hidden in them at least something like magic buillets don't exist. They want to spy, we will expose their dirty secrets even if bs.

  • ?
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    Because all of the liberals want that Obama stated that he wanted to expand on the patriot act and he signed the ndaa and since 99% of the media is biased and in favor of liberals no one make a fuss

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I'll look it up

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.