FA+
Shop
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
14 years ago
Journal with ppl I've commissioned: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/864269/ Oh shizbit, Sugie just got political:
Some of you may be aware of the news stories going around in regards to the NDAA which was recently passed. This certainly is a heated topic, but before everyone grabs their pitchforks and torches..
Do keep in mind that the recent bit of text to be inserted by the NDAA is only an elaboration and limitation of the already existing authorizations as set forth in Public Law 107-40. The original language in 107-40 was a very broad and unlimited use of the armed Forces in the battle against Terrorism.
The fact is that the regulations in the NDAA only limits the things that the Armed Forces can do on behalf of the President in fighting the "War on Terror". In truth the limits are not very strict and the lack of timeline for forced release -IS- very concerning...
*However*, this particular portion of the NDAA (being pages 359 - 364 of the 682 Page Bill) does nothing more to limit our rights, as they were already forfeited in the name of fighting terror in 2001. This recent uproar is simple sensationalistic journalism at work.
Link to an article the NDAA: http://newsvoice.se/2011/12/02/us-s.....-battleground/
For original text on the NDAA and Public Law 107-40 see http://www.gpo.gov
BTW I likely will not respond to posts made about this subject.
Some of you may be aware of the news stories going around in regards to the NDAA which was recently passed. This certainly is a heated topic, but before everyone grabs their pitchforks and torches..
Do keep in mind that the recent bit of text to be inserted by the NDAA is only an elaboration and limitation of the already existing authorizations as set forth in Public Law 107-40. The original language in 107-40 was a very broad and unlimited use of the armed Forces in the battle against Terrorism.
The fact is that the regulations in the NDAA only limits the things that the Armed Forces can do on behalf of the President in fighting the "War on Terror". In truth the limits are not very strict and the lack of timeline for forced release -IS- very concerning...
*However*, this particular portion of the NDAA (being pages 359 - 364 of the 682 Page Bill) does nothing more to limit our rights, as they were already forfeited in the name of fighting terror in 2001. This recent uproar is simple sensationalistic journalism at work.
Link to an article the NDAA: http://newsvoice.se/2011/12/02/us-s.....-battleground/
For original text on the NDAA and Public Law 107-40 see http://www.gpo.gov
BTW I likely will not respond to posts made about this subject.
You have no idea how relieved I am to see somone who doesn't immediately trumpet hellfire and injustice through their journal five minutes after hearing a news story.