I find Rep. Allen West to be much more believable than Alex Jones or Ron Paul.
Allen West Sets the Record Straight on NDAA & Detention of US Citizens
4 Comments to “Allen West Sets the Record Straight on NDAA & Detention of US Citizens”
-
That says it pretty plainly, Lew. It makes you wonder how so many people could have gotten it “wrong”. Maybe they didn’t read it.
LikeLike
-
I like Allen but he has an axe to grind too. I wouldn’t take anyone’s pronouncements as gospel without independent research. It does seem that the language he cites applies only to Section 1082, not 1081 detentions.
You can read more third-party opinion here:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/ (right)
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained (left)
Whether or not NDAA 2012 expands the previous authority already claimed by both Bush and Obama, citizens are correct to be concerned. Remember the “military exclusion zone” that was used as an excuse to lock up even second and third-generation US citizens merely because they were of Japanese ancestry?
LikeLike
-
Tom, I believe you meant Section 1021 and not 1081.
But, looking at the actual bill, I find in Section 1021, page 656 line 14: “(e) 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.”
http://democrats.rules.house.gov/112/text/112_hr1540conf_txt.pdf
That agrees with what West says under Section 1022.
I do agree with you that we should always be concerned, with every piece of legislation. For too long we have just taken things at face value.
But at the same time, we need to also be concerned that those trying to whip us into a frenzy have their own agendas.
While I believe the detention of Japanese Americans 70 years ago was wrong, it also did not apply to just any and every body Roosevelt felt disagreed with him.
If you recall, the legislation Reagan signed as a means to apologize for that action stated it was done due to “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”
http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00055&search_id=19269&pagenum=1
Our political leadership is definitely questionable, but there is no wholesale hysteria other than what I see from the likes of Alex Jones and Ron Paul.
Any piece of legislation can be misused and we are right to question what legislation is proposed.
But we don’t need to go off the deep end and supply our enemies the very goal they seek.
LikeLike
-
Unfortunately when you have conflicting subsections (which are usually put into legal documents deliberately) you can make the legal argument that one subsection holds more weight than the other. This is done to help the more powerful party, which the subsection favors, argue that they are within their rights to execute the law as they see it, tying up the legal determination process for many years after the questionable action has been executed, thus allowing said party to absolve itself of responsibility and potential liability. It doesn’t always work but often enough to be regularly practiced.
West is a fine man, I’ve met him and looked in his eyes. He’s a man of his convictions. Unfortunately, I believe he may not understand this portion of legalese.
LikeLike
