We are both in the Military. We are fighting terrorists. NDAA is passed to suppress terrorism. I can't believe that a Veteran would fight NDAA instead of fight terrorists -- UNLESS of course he himself is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer!

I am a US Army veteran. I took an oath to protect and uphold the constitution. The NDAA is one of the most destructive things to your liberties set out in the constitution. I cannot believe what this country has come to. Everything I love about it is being stripped away. I will do everything in my power to end the NDAA, and fight against our domestic enemies in DC.

The truth probably is that the NDAA was NOT passed with the idea of rounding up citizens and placing them into concentration camps. But there are 2 very important considerations regarding this area of thought:

1. There might be a time in the future, when the provisions of the NDAA will be used by unscrupulous Government officials, or the military, to do just that... round up citizens and place them into concentration camps. The language is there. We as citizens have enough Government language that is against us, or potentially against us, without adding language that attempts to weaken the 4th and 5th Amendments, even if that language is not presently intended to be used in an Amendment weakening way. The intended protections could have been written in ways that didn't attempt to weaken Amendments. Why weren't they?

2. Often, more and more, the judiciary seems to be judging the Constitutionality of laws in a freedom limiting fashion. How can they do this? They are a club - the American BAR Associaciation - the American "British Accredited Registry" Association. As such, they hold a monopoly over the way their members adjudicate the legality of the laws. This is totally unConstitutional. Yet, there is nobody who has the authority to change this from without. The point is, the erosion of rights is continuing to increase because the Jdiciary is trapped in following their BAR rules ahead of making honest judgements... even when they wanted to. So, when the time comes that the Constitutionallity of NDAA is adjudicated in detail, what is the outcome likely to be?
 

Looking at the arguments at a good viewing distance, I can clearly see where the defects lie. Here are the "commenters", and their problems:

Shondean Coochise: The problem is citing those long winded citations of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, and still could not make a point. After reading some kind of a Charles Dickens novel, the reader asks – what is your point?

The point of the discussions that Suka originally brought into this forum was the protest of Ron Paul followers against NDAA that "…allows for the detention of U.S. Citizens without due process or charges."

Let me summarize Suka’s arguments. Suka argued: "That’s a damn lie… a retarded anti-Government propaganda lie! NDAA does NOT detain ‘U.S. Citizens’ who are not terrorists or terrorist suspects. NDAA detains TERRORISTS and TERRORIST SUSPECTS -- U.S. citizens or not -- without due process or charges for as long as, security-wise, it is necessary, for the protection of the public.

Suka added that like any other national security laws, Congress passed NDAA into law purposely "to deprive terrorists of their ‘liberty’ to kill, and their ‘freedom’ to destroy us."

Now read Coochise’s long comment and see if you can find any connection to this topic of discussions. Coochise has no capacity to understand what the issue is, much more discuss about it. So this "commenter" took the easiest way out – attack the opponents as "…cowards who can't use their real names. **Sniff** **Sniff** I smell trolls." This is only what Coochise is capable of doing.

To Asher Wilkinson: Obviously, you are begging me to educate you. I have no time to waste to make you understand what a "terrorist suspect" is. I don’t care how in hell you understand it. I don’t give a damn … I can still sleep well. You see, if you are still in the process of learning what a "terrorist suspect" is, then you are not yet in the position to discuss it with me. It is like when I am already acting on stage for many years, and you are still learning how to act, and you want me to go back from where you are now … from where I started. That’s how foolish when you asked me to define for you what a "terrorist suspect" is. I am sorry, but you are not yet capable of discussing this matter with me.

Here’s throwing a coin by the pavement where you are. I hope this time it lands in your empty can: The point I was trying to stress in my public service feature commentary below, which did not enter your head: Once you are a "terrorist" or a "terrorist suspect", NDAA will detain you … clear? That’s fundamental in understanding – not misunderstanding – NDAA. You don’t have this, that’s why you are confused.

How do you become a "terrorist" or a "terrorist suspect", that’s explained in the law. And that’s long and tedious to read, I must warn those who are impatient, rush and reckless.

Bottom line: It is by your dangerous INTENTION and violent ACTION either by word of mouth or deeds [threats and association included] that you make yourself a candidate for detention under NDAA

The intelligence community – not only the FBI – identifies who are those "potential terrorists" [I am using your terms to make it easier for you]. Your problem starts when you start interpreting "potential terrorists"[PT] and "terrorist suspects" [TS] are the same. They are not. In nomenclature, PT is prospective, TS is active or has acted, for arrest and detention.

PTs are in the list. No matter who you are, including veterans who hate the Government like any other terrorists do.

You said without a bone sticking out of your mouth that NDAA is an "unconstitutional legislation". Only the court of law can declare a law unconstitutional. When did you consider yourself the court of law, to declare NDAA unconstitutional? You are the proof of the New Hampshire newspaper’s announcement that Ron Paul and supporters are characters from the "lunatic fringe".

Funny how the first three comments are posted by cowards who can't use their real names. **Sniff** **Sniff** I smell trolls

Living document vs. original intent?

My argument is an argument that was brought up during the Constitution Convention when the Anti-federalist argued that the writ of habeas corpus could be dispelled by the federal government given its new centralized powers. Hamilton answered “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains.” They understood that government regardless of its original intentions always decline into tyranny. The safety measures put in place to protect the people from the abuse of government by restricting it is outlined in the enumerated powers (Article I section 8). As far as citizens committing acts of terrorism, we already have laws that address the very issue listed below. Now if the argument is that the Constitution is not relevant now because of the new threat of “terrorism” (which is an act not a group or people) then what makes that different from liberals who believe that the Constitution is a living document? (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050801a.aspx) Then it comes down to the age of argument of (living document vs. original intent). 

Citizens caught committing treason:

Article 3 Section 3, of the same article -- "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. “No person” (it does not specify citizen) shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." And clause 3, of the same section -- "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted."- U.S Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

Excerpt from federalist papers # 84 (para. 4): Alexander Hamilton, 

“It may well be a question, whether these are not, upon the whole, of equal importance with any which are to be found in the constitution of this State. The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men (not citizens) to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone,1 in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man (not citizen) of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person (not citizen), by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution."2

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm

 Another thing to consider is that the Constitution does not apply US Citizens, Non-citizens, or even Humans for that matter. The U.S. Constitution applies to the Federal Government not the people. The first sentence in the Bill of Rights is “Congress shall make no law”, therefore it is a set a restrictions against the Federal government to enact said laws outside of the Enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government by the People. The question “Should Non-citizen be protected by the Bill of Rights?” is not the question that should be asked.  How do we know if a person is a non-citizen, “terrorist” or “affiliated with terrorism” without due process?

Packaging these sections within the NDAA with the words "Patriot Act" certainly evokes a passionate belief within the community that this is for our protection, or for the good of the nation. What the majority of people fail to do is actually read and study the laws of our nation in order to know their rights. If you did, you would understand why the loss of habeas corpus is actually a HUGE deal, and should never be tolerated! It is easy to go about your day arguing the terms within sections 1021 and 1022, however you are really turning a blind eye to the facts, and frankly not reading correctly. Speaking of psychological warfare, if you are familiar with human psyche you would know that when replacement words such as "terrorist" or "suspected terrorists" are used, this evokes fear in the mass majority. When a person is fearful, they are far more likely to follow the command of a leader. When these words are used in the NDAA, they are meant to make the average, ignorant American believe that they are exempt from this law, when in fact, they are not. Every American citizen, or immigrant on Visa is subject to this and can be detained indefinitely. Here is where things get interesting; you say activist groups who want to protect the rights that were earned through bloodshed are insane? My question is this: If over the course of many years, people are lead to believe that giving up their personal liberties to the powers that be is in their best interest, and that in order to feel safe and protected we need to give complete control to the government, (which actually sounds an awful lot like tyranny don't you think?) then who is the insane one.... those that want to fight for their rights, or those that truly believe it is in their best interest to give them up? ..... You decide.  

@Suka - Please define "terrorist suspect." Obviously we have a different understanding of the term. Suspect means you aren't proven guilty. Have you even seen the FBI list for potential terrorists? People who grow their own food go on that list. American Garden owners are liable to be detained indefinitely, according to the NDAA. VETERANS are on this list! It is American citizens who are subject to this unconstitutional legislation. "Terrorist" is just the spin they put on it like they did during the Red Scare when they were looking for Communists. It's a play on words designed to give those in power more power.

AMEN [!] to what you just said so well, Brag. I thank you nice guys in the Military. Special thanks to you Brag. You are one of those with a positive vibe – with that "particular kind of feeling or ambience". Let’s be on the side of the public that those with a mental problem [NIH] are so impatient to deceive and destroy.

Substituting the phrase "U.S. Citizens" to "terrorists" and "terrorist suspects" as the target for detention is a clever propaganda lie that "sovereign citizens" fighting the Government are currently spreading around. In psychological warfare, our military intelligence specialists play that game too to neutralize the design of the enemy to win the public to their side.

They can’t fool the public – only the less sophisticated with an ax to grind and those on the edge of insanity will fall for it.

Together with Ron Paul and his "rabid" supporters, the New Hampshire newspaper described them as some kind of delusional or disturbed characters from the "lunatic fringe" Their intense hatred of Government is a form of "mental illness", according to the National Institute of Health.

These followers are protesting because they want the public to believe that NDAA "…allows for the detention of U.S. Citizens without due process or charges."

That’s a damn lie… a retarded anti-Government propaganda lie! NDAA does NOT detain "U.S. Citizens". NDAA detains TERRORISTS and TERRORIST SUSPECTS -- U.S. citizens or not -- without due process or charges for as long as, security-wise, it is necessary, for the protection of the public.

Like any other national security laws, Congress passed NDAA into law purposely "to deprive terrorists of their ‘liberty’ to kill, and their ‘freedom’ to destroy us."

Ron Paul is a member of Congress. He knows very well why it was of extreme necessity to have NDAA in the wake of the rapidly increasing threat to national security. If he is a true patriot, he should be the first person in the whole of United States to tell his supporters the truth about NDAA … explain to them why the American people, speaking through Congress, needed the NDAA.

Instead, what is he telling them? NDAA is against liberty and freedom – based on his distorted view of liberty to violate the law, and the freedom destroy.

Was he honest about what NDAA really means? Only one of the two answers to this question is possible: either he is a dishonest politician who does not want to lose his publicity stunt by telling the truth to his followers about the true purpose of NDAA, or his 77-year-old brain is already too conked out to understand what the National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA] means. Either way, anti-Establishment politician of that kind is a loser.