The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. The NDAA is a huge federal law that among other things specifies the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. Policies that are defined under the authorization act include salary and benefit guidelines for all service members, including health care, plus foreign policy items like the economic sanctions against Iran, embassy security and "options for establishing a no-fly zone over civil war-plagued Syria."

The NDAA is a wide-ranging bill that has many controversial sections. For example one section of the act allows governors to request assistance of military reservists to act as first-responders in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, flood, terrorist attack or other disasters. On the service this doesn't appear too controversial, until you think about the subjective definition of "terrorist attack." The NDAA is also an example of where budget needs to be temporarily divorced from policy. No executive worth his MBA would suggest such an action (there is some red meat for you) but there are a number of policy issues contained in the NDAA that need further debate and discussion without impacting the DOD budget and the subsequent appropriations bill.

Given the urgent need to marry national security with responsible fiscal policy, we need to slow down this process so we can fully vet the most controversial elements of the far-reaching bill.

The top 3 are:
1. The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama's foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights. The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." This year's bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, "the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US.

So, you don't care about anyone else.

I posted in this group. So I must have intended it for this group. You are a part of this group. If the people you love are in this group, then fine. But, I also posted in other sites, and on Facebook. So, I am trying to reach as many people as I can. The point is I care about this Country and the people in it.

you want me to repeat myself? as you brought up the constitution i assumed you had a point to make regarding the document. you are free to do that in a general sense or cite as specific article or clause. but of course you can never make a point to me by repeatedly asking the same question especially having already received my answer.

ah, communication is not always easy. my country is not my government but i see nothing that suggests that my country's government is in any way in violation of the constitution. but obviously such a discussion will necessitate getting into specifics. ready when you are but keep in mind that your continuing questions don't go far in making a point. i learned that when i was a four year old.

another question? okay. make your case that the ndaa and the patriot act violate the constitution. keep in mind that the fourth amendment forbids unreasonable search and seizure. so your case must be built around these laws being unreasonable. no lawyer in the country has been able to make such a case.

Of course this is not the America anyone wants.

That's why there are elections very two and four years.

Stop trolling DH

are we talking about what i think is okay or what is constitutional? but yes, as the patriot act has not been found to be unconstitutional, holding anyone who is an imminent threat to the nation is okay by me as it is okay by obama and was okay by bush.

nothing is unconstitutional until a court rules it so. but i'll bite. go ahead, make a case that the patriot act is unconstitutional using the 4th amendment. but be specific. which wording in the act might be found to be in violation of the 4th amendment or any section of the constitution. i do enjoy a spirited dialogue on the subject of constitutionality.