Obama Signs Bill To Jail Americans Indefinitely Without Charge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

I just laugh at this shit because no one rips Barry a new one for supporting this. Barry is suppose to not be Bush yet he supports shit like this and is okay with it. What a fuckin' hypocrite and tool. And his supporters are delusional.

---

um, this thread, moron. I can link others if you like . . .

I want someone in the national media to call Obama out on this shit.

a google search might satisfy that curiosity, but I doubt you're up to it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

I want someone in the national media to call Obama out on this shit.

---

They did.

I shouldn't have to do that. Everyone should have to have their fair share of doing a google search for me. Oh snap.

http://pubsecrets.files.wordpress.co...thugocracy.jpg

It's all about National Security.

this law...only applies to teh common ppl, not the filthy rich...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

I want someone in the national media to call Obama out on this shit.

---

Quote:

---

“He’s gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”

---

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz27atfxqmU

^^^ Much credit to Nader for speaking the truth. Honestly though this all really goes ignored. The way the media grills candidates on very unimportant things day and night, they hardly spend time on issues such as this. It gets swept under the rug as a whole and this is purposely done.

If they spent the same amount of time in the news about NDAA and murdered civilians on drone strikes as they do on Romney's airplane window comment and all the other nonsense they cover, the stupid public would probably actually speak up. I think murdering US Citizens without trial, and drone strikes without congressional approval (and the civilians killed in them) is way more important for the National media, tv and print to cover than a lot of the petty shit they cover. Especially when this President ran on the exact opposite 4 years ago.

I think Romney is an idiot, for his airplane remark, for his stupid tan, for not knowing shit about anything other than rich people, his avoiding of showing his taxes, the list goes on. Yes that's important to show he is a moron. But how does that take priority over our Constitutional rights, over murdering Americans and people abroad? All of which Romney would do as well. It's ridiculous. It should be all over the place more than all the other shit they cover.

They talk on MSNBC and all these stations about "Oh here is Romney again, flip flopping". Well yea, he does, he's an idiot. But yet they don't grill Obama on his promises he didn't keep, on all his contradictions. A few mentions here and there don't really count. We are talking about murder.

Turn to any station and see the crap they are covering. It isn't NDAA, or the truth about how Obama is a war monger. It's all about petty shit and soundbites and talking points that keep the public dumb and uninformed of the real facts until we vote and elect the frauds into office, all the while innocent kids are being bombed at no fault of their own.

And the stupid public is ok with this, because after all, they have football to watch this weekend. Mission accomplished.

New Reality Check: Actions Speak Louder Than Words With President

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA210

New Reality Check: Actions Speak Louder Than Words With President

---

I guess some people have a different interpretation of 'this does not extend to U.S. citizens"....some people just don't get it...

Quote:

---

All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the option to have U.S. citizens detained by the armed forces but this requirement does not extend to them, as with foreign persons. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."[28][29]

During debate on the senate floor, Levin stated that "Administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the Administration request that the provision apply only to detainees captured overseas and there's a good reason for that. Even here, the difference is modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes lawful residents of U.S., except to extent permitted by the constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or on a tourists/short-term basis. Contrary to some press statements, the detainee provisions in our bill do not include new authority for the permanent detention of suspected terrorists. Rather, the bill uses language provided by the Administration to codify existing authority that has been upheld in federal courts."[30]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...scal_Year_2012

Quote:

---

The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[12] arguing in an executive statement on 17 November 2011 that while "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."

The statement furthermore objected to the mandate for "military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects," which it called inconsistent with "the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."[12] The White House may now waive the requirement for military custody for some detainees following a review by appointed officials including the Attorney General, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.[31]

During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment interpreted by the ACLU[16] and some news sources[32] as an effort to limit military detention of American citizens indefinitely and without trial. The amendment proposed to strike the section "Detainee Matters" from the bill, and replace section 1021 (then titled 1031) with a provision requiring the Administration to clarify the Executive's authority to detain suspects on the basis of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.[33] The amendment was rejected by a vote of 60-38 (with 2 abstaining).[34] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of Congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible." [32]

The Senate later adopted by a 98 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States.[35] After a Senate-House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, but also removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[36]

In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: “"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." [37]

---

yeah, Just like Bush :rolleyes

Quote:

---

On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it addressing "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects". In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF". The statement also maintains that the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law". Referring to the applicability of civilian versus military detention, the statement argued that "the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost."[48]

---

What else does Obama have to do? And what about all the Senators and Congressmen who voted for NDAA....I wonder how many of them are being held accountable...Let's face it...this is a wing-nut witch hunt to hurt Obama...

Wing nut witch hunt? Which wing? Left or right? I'm confused because didn't both Democrats and Republicans vote for the NDAA? Aren't Libertarians and true liberals the only ones that ever mention anything about the NDAA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

...Let's face it...this is a wing-nut witch hunt to hurt Obama...

---

tell it to the ACLU

btw Dan, are signing statements binding on anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ork-judge.html

---

injunction stayed on appeal:

http://images.politico.com/global/20...scourtstay.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

injunction stayed on appeal:

http://images.politico.com/global/20...scourtstay.pdf

---

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-co..._act_meme4.jpg


:pctoss

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...63225298_n.jpg

The D of I isn't law, although many people assume it is, esp dumbfuck bubbas.