The Instigator
kabylewolf
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
alexia
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Defense Authorization Act is Unconstitutional and Anti-American

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 902 times Debate No: 19923
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

kabylewolf

Pro

I find that the newly approved Defense Authorization Act is Unconstitutional and Anti-American seeing as it strips our rights of due process and also neglects jurisdiction of other Government Services (CIA, NSA, ect).

I am pro that this Act is Illegal, Unconstitutional, and Anti-American.

Cons will need to agree with the entirety of the bill, and give supportive evidence as to why it is not illegal and unconstitutional.
alexia

Con

As a rocky at the group,I suppose that first round is only accepting,is that right?
I would love to get involve in this debate and I'm waiting for your arguments and any other rules you may want to set!
Debate Round No. 1
kabylewolf

Pro

Rules are simple, if this act infringes on any rights the bill of rights and constitution entitle us, then it is deemed unconstitutional. It's definition is interpreted by the supreme court, which has made it's interpretations very clear in the past.

I find that this NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) infringes are rights of the american people, and has potential to be abused by the US government.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is stated clearly that anyone that "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces" I find the segment "or associated forces" and "committing a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces" especially troublesome since neither are clearly defined and are open to interpretation.

Since this Act grants policing forces to imprison a US citizen deemed an enemy, and not state reason or for how long. How is one to challenge what is an associated forces? Would liking a facebook page that has links with the Taliban be considered as such? Would purchasing meat from a deli that is owned by a member of the Taliban who funnels his money directly to his organization count as "directly supporting such hostilities". These are major points this bill does not clarify. Since Policing forces do not have to use Miranda rights, or give due process which is entitled to us in the 5th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

This Act blatantly strips Americans of their entitled rights and is highly open to interpretation at the whim of the policing forces. This Act has the potential to be catastrophic to how our nation deals with domestic forces using their rights of free speech to challenge the government.

As was a related incident in 2009 the DoD released a training pamphlet that defined low level terrorism to be a protest. This specific area was redefined as far as the public knows. (http://www.aclu.org...) This should show the clear intentions of how the DoD views public threats such as protests, as being against America.
alexia

Con

alexia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
kabylewolf

Pro

My Opponent has refuse to rebuttal. My last statement still stands and further await her response.
alexia

Con

alexia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by kabylewolf 5 years ago
kabylewolf
Severely sorry, it is an act not an amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
I see no amendment to the constitution authorizing defense. I understand English is not your first language, so perhaps you are challenging the authority of congress to distribute funds?
Posted by kabylewolf 5 years ago
kabylewolf
My reading of the constitution is simply in the language it is written defined clearly in the dictionary. The Constitution in my opinion has only one method of being perceived since the entire thing is very clearly written. If that description fits how the law understands the constitution then so be it.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
Is US law the determiner or your reading of the Constitution?
Posted by kabylewolf 5 years ago
kabylewolf
It has been repaired, thank you very much. English is not my primary language and I still make novice mistakes. Thank you for your time in aiding my fault.
Posted by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
You argument looks like it is Pro, but you are listed as Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.