The Instigator
TheUnderdog
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xenofreedomx
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

The National Defense Authorization Act? Right or Wrong?

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 1 vote the winner is...
xenofreedomx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,490 times Debate No: 26674
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

TheUnderdog

Con

Resolution: The NDAA is an unconstitutuional law signed in by Barack Obama that limits the average American's rights.

When I learned of the NDAA I was beyond upset, so before election time I would like to bring up the subject. President Obama has always portrayed himself as the "for the people" candidate, but with the passing of the NDAA it makes it look as if he isn't. Now I would like to debate the subject. I woud ask the "pro" to prove that this not only should be a law, but it should be the highlight of Obama administration as well as tell the voters how it is right to keep this law.

Rules:
1. No semantics, trolling, etc.
2. Follow the round guidelines.
3. Keep to the topic.
4. Use sources.

Rounds:
1. Acceptance
2. Opening Argument
3. Rebuttal
4. Closing statements

I am looking forward to having this debate. Please leave comments if want more details or have any questions. Thank you.
xenofreedomx

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TheUnderdog

Con

Resolution: The NDAA is wrong and limits the average American's rights.

Indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency without a trial. It is a controversial practice on the part of any government or agency that is in violation of many national and international laws, including human rights laws. [1] The Indefinte Detention Act (NDAA is the correct term, but for the sake of the debate. Addressing this Act.), signed under President Obama and the 112th Congress, limits the rights of the first and fifth amendment. As well as suspending habeas corpus (No cruel or unjust punishment.). The debate is not about wheter it had been repealed or not, but if it is right or wrong. In my opinion, the Indefinite Detention Act is an unconstitutional piece of legislation that limits our rights. The ACLU claimed that this was unconstitutional and infringed on people's rights on freedom of expression and habeas corpus. [2] The fact that Obama signed this under his watch is astounding. Look I don't need to tell you that our freedom has been dwindling over the past 10-12 years. After all we are the ninth freest place on earth at the moment [3], because acts like the Indefinite Detention Clause are passed and the Patriot Act. I mean do you want the government intruding on your life? We have a right to privacy in this country don't we. Now this may sound like my opinion, but we have natural rights. Natural rights in the Declaration and are defended with the Constitution. The presidents in this country now adays stomp on the very document that gives them power. Though this debate is about the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act (Indefinite Detention Act)], I do believe that our freedom is in danger. The bill's name is Senate Bill 1867. Please read the legislation it says it clearly in the law: [4] Start on page 359.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.aclu.org...
[3] http://www.heritage.org...
[4] http://www.gpo.gov...
xenofreedomx

Pro

First I would like to thank TheUnderdog , for what I hope to be a very stimulating debate.

I would like to address the issue of your resolutions. In round one (acceptance) you state a very clear debate topic. In round two (Opening Arguments) you state a completely separate resolution that poisons the well. No one would like to hear their rights are being limited. I concede that the natural rights of United States citizens have been dwindling but that is not the purpose of this debate. In round one the resolution of "The NDAA is an unconstitutional law signed in by Barack Obama that limits the average American's rights."; is what I will debate.

Constitutionality (1D) : the quality or state of being constitutional; especially :accordance with the provisions of a constitution.

For the purpose of the debate, I would like to discuss "American rights" from the resolution. American rights is a very vague term as to what rights are being referred too. For the purpose of the debate and the previous part of the resolution, I will infer legal rights. The merit for such is an assumption is as such.Legal rights may be constitutional, statutory, regulatory, contractual, common-law, or conferred by international human rights law.(1S). For the purpose of avoiding semantics in the guidelines set above, I shall limit this down to constitutionally granted rights.

Your point one, is a source for the United Kingdom. This can"t be used to debate the unconstitutionality of the NDAA. If your original argument were an ethics or morals argument, then it may have had some merit in this debate. United Kingdom legislative and judicial rulings have no legal merit in the United States Legislative and Judicial processes. In doing this you fail to show that United States granted civil rights have been violated. Again on a moral and ethics level we agree. On a constitutionality argument I must wholeheartedly disagree.

For the next following points, I will directly quote the Constitution of the United States of America and the NDAA. As to maintain the integrity of the NDAA document, I will paste the actual text to remove chances for transcription errors in my citations and direct as needed.

Case one, First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The NDAA addresses detainment for, {see NDAA Cover Persons} (Source, Con"s round 2 source 4). Nowhere do these two languages meet. The closest one could argue would be the ability to assemble. The constitution has clear wording though. "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". The NDAA also has clear wording. The short version to support aggressors against the United States of America. I fail to see the first amendment violation. Does it put fear into the minds of those paranoid about the government, sure. Does it violate the constitution and rights therein, no.

Case two, Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.The issue that would arise with the NDAA is one specific line" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" . In reference to the NDAA {see in general}(S3). One can now narrow down the issue further to this line, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" . The NDAA addresses this issue with a few lines {see Detention under the law](S4). The NDAA doesn"t actually do anything other than clarify provisions in the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The exception being clear in the constitution.

Case three, Fifth Amendment continued. Counter to the ACLU argument, of people can expect to lose the ability to gain a trail because of a war clause lacking a geographic limit is false. One can reasonably expect a Grand Jury indictment over indefinite detention. case law of previous encounters with this issue prove such. Due to a word limit, I reference you to source(D2). This sets a reasonable geographic limit as to where this can be enacted.

Closing argument for round two. It is clear that the Con has yet to prove that the constitution is being violated and that civil liberties are being violated. The Con has shown zero evidence of legal standards where this would be a violation of ones constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. With that there is no constitutional reason it should not be enacted into law. Is it true that this might instill a sense of fear upon those untrusting of the government or the Obama administration, yes. Much as the Patriot Act under George W Bush did the same. In this regard find this to be an amazing policy for the Obama Administration. It isn"t unconstitutional and it doesn"t violate my rights, but it is political suicide for Mr. Obama. For this reason and this reason alone it should be his flagship he pushes on to the people, and tells them it is right and just. It will show the people, there is no difference in Democrats and Republicans and maybe the mechanism to remove obsolete parties will function once more. Although scary, I find the chance to cripple the two major parties too great to pass up. This is why although I disagree with the president on this issue, I approve of him pushing this forward.

(
-Citations:
(1D): http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2D): http://law.onecle.com...
-NDAA:
(1S): http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2S): COVERED PERSONS."A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows:
17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
18 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
20 sible for those attacks.
21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(S3):IN GENERAL."Congress affirms that the author-
9 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
11 Force (Public Law 107"40) includes the authority for the
12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-
13 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
14 under the law of war.
(S4): Detention under the law of war without
7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111"
12 84)).
( Due to a greater word limit than expected the NDAA direct quote must be limited as well) I direct you to the con's location of the NDAA text and page number.
Debate Round No. 2
TheUnderdog

Con

I would like to apologize for the mix up in resolutions and now will be rebutting my opponents claims on the resolution I stated in the first round.


1. "Your point one, is a source for the United Kingdom." Now I would like you to please reread my first citation and go to the heading "United States," where clearly the heading is so. So your first point on this claim is false because you didn't analyze my evidence correctly.


2. "I fail to see the first amendment violation.... Does it violate the constitution and rights therein, no." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1] My argument was that the NDAA infringes on the American citizen's first amendment right to free speech. No American deserves theri rights to be taken away. This act limits your right to free speech. Please read the document. [2]


3. Fifth Amendment. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [1] I am referring to the line in the Constitution:"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Under the NDAA this doesn't give due process, but instead, infringes on life and liberty. Please read the "in general" part of the law for further information.


4. ACLU argument. Never did my points of this source contain a geographic limit, nor did I state such a thing. This argument strays from the topic of the Contstitutionality of the law.


5. Constitutionality. My partner claims that this law is constitutional. After all that is the argument he presented, then why did the court strike the motion as unconstitutional? If the highest court in the United States prove this law as unconstitutional then it must be! [3]



My argument for this round is that the NDAA was in fact unconstitutional based on source 3 and through reanalyzing of the Bill of Rights Amendments 1 and 5 it has been proven that this law is unconstitutional.

[1] http://www.archives.gov...;
[2] http://www.gpo.gov...
[3] http://www.addictinginfo.org...
xenofreedomx

Pro

First, I did address your article correctly. In determining the constitutionality of the NDAA, you pulled a wikipedia argument. The part you quoted had a citation. The definitions source, cited on your wikipedia argument talks about how the United Kingdom views human rights. I will digress from that point though.

We could have address the merit of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" and " LAW OF WAR" as it were to apply to the constitution. You keep stating read the bill. I can only respond with read the bill. "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." "SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (4) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR" " WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY."The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. " APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS." (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS."The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS."The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States." Nothing in the NDAA is giving government any more power than already authorized by other legislation. It can"t be implemented on U.S. citizens unless for some reason they are violating the the Law of War or find themselves in a place where the Authorization for the Use of Military Force is applicable. It actually creates a bureaucratic nightmare to even attempt to detain someone outside of a military hot zone.

Your argument "2". You can only respond with free speech and read the bill again. I can again only respond with read the bill. Nowhere does it say free speech no longer applies. You can again look up the Law of War and Authorization for Use of Military Force and find where freedom of speech is in violation of that, but the NDAA doesn't expand these powers, but more or less clarify them. Does the law leave people who are paranoid of the state a little more in fear, sure. I will pose the question again though, does it violate the constitution? I say no, and you have yet to prove otherwise.

Your argument "3". "IN GENERAL."Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107"40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war" . Again you respond with no extra evidence other than read the article. You have yet to refute any evidence I've brought up. I just stated the "In General". Where in the "In General" does it state your rights are restricted other than where it expounds upon the Authorization for Use of Military Force and The Law if War? we could debate those two topics until the cows come home but they are not the subject of this debate. The subject of this debate is if the NDAA itself is violating the constitution.

Your point "4". In your ACLU argument, your article addressed " "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." where I came back with, "One can reasonably expect a Grand Jury indictment over indefinite detention" of which I gave evidence for. As for your Habeas Corpus argument. " Latin for "you [shall] have the body," is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."[1]. "Unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.". The Authorization for Use of Military Force and The Law if War would be the only way to violate this right, the NDAA never states a new means in which to violate it. The only way the NDAA could be deemed unconstitutional over this, is if those were deemed as such. It grants no new power, therefore doesn't in of itself violate the constitution.

In regards to constitutionality. To state given the Supreme Court rendered it unconstitutional therefore it must be, takes away from the value of debate. If the merit of the debate was based on this, there would be no debate, to be had. I would counter with this argument though. You stated in round one "The debate is not about wheter it had been repealed or not, but if it is right or wrong. In my opinion, the Indefinite Detention Act is an unconstitutional piece of legislation that limits our rights." If this is the case, you have invalidated the justification of it being unconstitutional. I would also point out one more point. Your article is from the 12SEP12 and I would present where the Supreme Court overturned its decision on 02OCT12 [2]. By all counts of your own logic, it must be constitutional by either invalidating your argument or newer evidence invalidating it.

I conclude with the following. By my opponent's own logic, it must be constitutional so we are both in agreement as to the constitutionality of the NDAA. By my opponents lack of discrediting my arguments, they must hold weight. By my opponents lack of new arguments nor justifying exactly how the constitution is violated, along with the justifications that it is in fact constitutional. Although I disagree with the NDAA on moral and ethical level. The NDAA is not in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America nor does it violate ones civil liberties beyond what they already are. With that, the bill is lawful. I still stand resolved as to why Mr. Obama should support the NDAA.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://images.politico.com...
Debate Round No. 3
TheUnderdog

Con

Through my arguments, the NDAA is an unconstitutional act (see round 3, citation 3), that infringes on our most basic of rights. My partner is justifying that the NDAA is right by letting it stomp on the constitution, but I guess anything is constitutional now-a-days right? Please keep in mind to interpret the NDAA in the view of constitutionality. For this closing argument I reaffirm that the NDAA is a bad piece of legislature and it infringes on the the average citizen's rights of liberty.
xenofreedomx

Pro

If, you choose to vote on constitutionality, I would direct you to my round three argument. I showed where the NDAA was over turned. My opponent hasn't refuted to many points , which means my arguments must hold. The only argument to be had, was read the bill. I read the bill, I re-posted the bill, and I showed it in conjunction with the Constitution of the United States of America. The con never did such a thing. The con only made blanket statements that it is wrong. Anytime evidence was brought up, I would counter it with newer evidence, or a legal precedent. The Con in round one stated "The debate is not about wheter it had been repealed or not, but if it is right or wrong. In my opinion, the Indefinite Detention Act is an unconstitutional piece of legislation that limits our rights.". The con has yet to define how the rights are violated, yet I showed where they are not. The con has yet to refute my arguments as such. The con violated his own term by showing where the Supreme Court overturned NDAA therefore poisoning the debate. I humored it, and refuted with where the Supreme Court ruling was over turned. With his own argument, that makes the NDAA constitutional. With his own rules even if he hadn't used that argument, I still satisfied all the criteria for constitutionality. In the last round the con stated " My partner is justifying that the NDAA is right by letting it stomp on the constitution, but I guess anything is constitutional now-a-days right? ". No where have I made these statements.
I stand resolved that on legal grounds, the NDAA is constitutional and therefore lawful.
I still stand resolved as to why Mr. Obama should push the NDAA harder. Although lawful, it is unpopular. I think that it is the best type of political suicide one could ask for.

-NDAA, lawful and should be pushed by Mr.Obama still stands
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
In WWII, the US indefinitely detained about 500,000 Axis soldiers in the US. The Patriot Act litigation ultimately hammered out a system by legislation whereby a military tribunal system could classify terrorists as enemy combatants, with one level of appeal of the classification to the civilian court system.

It seems that's what's going on here, but I cannot really tell for sure. Con instigated the debate backwards, actually affirming a resolution that the Act was unconstitutional. The burden of proof then falls upon Con who is really acting as Pro. So: initiate as Pro, make the contentions clear, and don't relegate arguments to reading assignments.
Posted by TheUnderdog 4 years ago
TheUnderdog
The president was able to veto it, but didn't, then went up to the supreme court was ruled constitutional.
Posted by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
Is the Authorization "Veto" proof? If it is the case, President Obama may have no choice but to sign the bill...
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Yeah, Underdog's right when he says it's not only a budget act. But the question is also over whether the NDAA should be a law.
Posted by TheUnderdog 4 years ago
TheUnderdog
It's NOT only a budget act! Read the fine print it limits your rights.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
It's a budget act, how can it limit rights? Looking forward to what you have to say, but I'll pass.
Posted by TheUnderdog 4 years ago
TheUnderdog
Would you like to take this debate?
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Whoever takes this should realize the NDAA 2012 is also a budget bill.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
TheUnderdogxenofreedomxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The debaters did a good job in tackling a serious topic. Con should have initiated the debate as Pro with the resolution that the Act was unconstitutional. I think Con has the burden of proof and cannot change the resolution R2. Con cannot defer argument t a reading assignment