Stop Government from Ending Due Process!

Oppose NDAA sections 1031/2 Defense Authorization Bill

sponsored by aGREATER.US • co-sponsors: (1)Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Liberties (Civil)
secondary topics: Legal System

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
83%
BIPARTISAN RATING

By rating this idea/bill 5 stars you are drawing a line in the sand that imprisoning American citizens without due process of the law is a deal breaker. And you will vote against any elected official who supports this legislation. This is madness.

[From the ACLU website]

I strongly urge the Senate to oppose sections 1031 and 1032 in S.1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).

If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

These provisions in the NDAA are inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution. I urge the Senate reject the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions.

Op-eds

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here