How Does Romney Keep Winning?

/sigh If you do actually read it, this is what you find.

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;

(d) CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the "or" operator. This statement essentially means:

• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


(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.

This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the "or" operator:

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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.

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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.

In other words, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.

I hope this clears up some myths about NDAA. This blog here helped break it down for you to see. Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so

it still doesn't grant any such power...

wasn't the ability to detain american citizens already available...?

not without due process

and wouldn't there be some sort of "due process" stated in the NDAA?

I haven't read the actual bill, I've just read a couple articles about it... some being very pro and some very con, I don't really have an opinion about it right now.

people were claiming otherwise...

-_- put that on my list of things to do then... go read that *** -_-

Thing is bills like these that are relatively severe or extreme on paper or a superficial level tend to be very loosely worded and vague enough to be open to interpretation to whatever figure of authority that is responsible for enforcing it.

The trick is reading between the lines and pointing out how dangerous it is leaving things open without clear cut definition as to the capacity and conditions it falls under.

That's how our judicial system runs... interpretation. At least I thought o.O?

Am I missing something?

I mean yes, if it can be *that* loosely interpreted then a corrupt "figure of authority" could do some bad... but I'd like to have a little more faith in humanity than that. Maybe that's just me ;_;

I dont think we need a thread dedicated to every candidate people...how is this thread any different than the "main" presidential candidate one?

Exactly. Its whoever has the power can write their own definition/interpretation of it. Its written that vague for a reason.