National Defense Authorization Act? Is this serious?

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Bullshit. Learn to fucking read.....

"The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Right back at ya Koolaid swallower, you should learn to fucking read and learn the difference between actual law and empty fucking promises from a habitual fucking liar.

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation,” wrote Obama.


However, the statement is meaningless for a number of reasons.


Firstly, even if Obama manages to fulfil one of the rare occasions on which he keeps his word, this does nothing to stop future administrations from exercising the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial.


Secondly, the Obama administration is already carrying out even more egregious measures than those supposedly authorized within the NDAA, by targeting American citizens worldwide for state-sponsored assassination with no legal process whatsoever.


Thirdly, Obama has reversed almost every single promise he made to get elected – his word is no good. Given the right civil emergency, Obama could turn to indefinite detention of citizens without hesitation.


Crucially, Obama’s promise that he will not use the law to detain Americans without trial is completely hollow – because it was his administration that demanded the power to do so in the first place.


As the bill’s co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin said during a speech on the floor last month, it was the Obama administration that demanded the removal of language that would have precluded Americans from being subject to indefinite detention.
Full article can be read here:http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-is-meaningless.html
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
well, if lex jones' prisonplanet.com says it, it must be true and without embellishment whatsoever.

LOL!
You can LOL all you want, it doesn't matter what source is used when the facts are undeniable. The FACT is, Obama CAN detain US citizens if he so chooses. The FACT is he can change his mind. The FACT is the next President can detain US citizens. I know it's fun to run down the source when you don't like the FACTS, but it doesn't change them. I guess some people are fine with the "I promise I won't use the unconstitutional powers we just gave me" garbage we all just got spoon fed, I on the other hand don't care for it.

This thing makes the Patriot Act look like a grease down and a shiatsu. Every single Republican candidate supported it, except Ron Paul. I'm completely on board, these fuckers have lost their fucking minds.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Yes because official documents such as birth certificates, green cards, and social security cards have no bearing on this "burden of proof." The fear mongering continues. The big bad government is going to get us.
The big bad U.S. government has arrested about 850,000 people for Pot every year in recent memory and annually world goveRnments sponsor the death of hundreds of thousands of people (sometimes millions). Government by its very nature relies upon the initiation of force. While you are being facetious...you are correct the big bad government WILL get you if you simply want to live peacefully but do not submit to their edicts.
 

fenderburn84

Well-Known Member
well, if lex jones' prisonplanet.com says it, it must be true and without embellishment whatsoever.

LOL!
The big bad U.S. government has arrested about 850,000 people for Pot every year in recent memory and annually world goveRnments sponsor the death of hundreds of thousands of people (sometimes millions). Government by its very nature relies upon the initiation of force. While you are being facetious...you are correct the big bad government WILL get you if you simply want to live peacefully but do not submit to their edicts.
So what exactly does that have to do with them being able to detain citizens? Why the smoke screen, I don't understand how just throwing out random facts (all be it correct statements) has anything to do with it other than to confuse the issue.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I was responding to Carne's comment on the government. I believe we view the efficacy of government from different points. I tend to find alot wrong with it, as it is essentially diametricalyy opposite my core philosophy...which is not to promote harm to others.
 

jason1976

Well-Known Member
its actually in legal paperwork where george washinton was a proud canibus grower. worte it that every man should be able to grow canibus freely.
 

missnu

Well-Known Member
But it clearly states that it is not applicable to citizens. That's the part that confuses me.
Well that not for citizens part was a proposition that people were hoping would be drafted into the bill...the final bill however plainly states that any US combatant including a US citizen can be held preventatively indefinitely at the discretion of the military...so...yeah I made a post about this not too long ago...Pretty scary stuff if you ask me...Like the patriot act let them look, and now this lets them act on whatever they find...but then again maybe there is a master plan. but I can just imagine all the ways something like this can go terribly wrong..
 

fenderburn84

Well-Known Member
Missnu please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it state that a us citizen can only be held for actions abroad? Not saying that's cool or anything just wondering.
 

VILEPLUME

Well-Known Member
Detain its own citizens, block websites, I forgot is this America we are talking about or China?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Detain its own citizens, block websites, I forgot is this America we are talking about or China?
China ? Isn't that the country the USA borrows money from in order to put troops in Australia...you know to protect itself from erm China ?
 

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
That is delusional thinking, the only difference I ahve found between Obomber and bush is that Obamba is farther to the right concerning personal liberties. He can get away with it being a Democrat. They are all following their Banker-Prison complex, Military industrial complex lobbyists orders.


In answer to the question - is it serious - yes it is very serious. It lends even more power to a single branch of government and draws power from the other branches - we are one more step closer to having a king, The founders didn't much want the executive to have an unbalanced amount of power.

HOWEVER. I think it is funny. Consider this - the right didn't say squat when Bush gave himself the power to detain indefinitely, U.S. citizens and then Bush detained two of them - I will bet that most here didn't know that.

Now, the right is up in arms about this turn when a Dem gets this same power. But here is the kicker. This law cannot pass Constitutional muster but it is dependent on the makeup of the court. The more liberal the judges on SCOTUS the less likely it is that the law will stay on the books. The more conservative, the more likely that the law will forever be instituted. SO - If the right has it's way and elects a right leaning president, they are almost certainly likely to cement the law into fact, something that they CLAIM at least not to want. The best cure for this nasty little law is to keep Obama in office long enough to alter the makeup of the court to the left.
 

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
The Third reich rounded up gays and gassed them to death with laws just like this one and with a false flag operation to set things in motion. Just like 911. Google Reichstag.

The 4th Reigh is emerging it's ugly head and it's here in America. Soon we wont even be able to discuss or inform ourselves via this media once they have their Chinese style internet in place.

Yes because official documents such as birth certificates, green cards, and social security cards have no bearing on this "burden of proof." The fear mongering continues. The big bad government is going to get us.
 

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
When is the last time you ever saw a cop fill out an honest police report? The law is one thing on paper and another thing in real life. They choose to interpret things the way they want.

Missnu please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it state that a us citizen can only be held for actions abroad? Not saying that's cool or anything just wondering.
 

deprave

New Member
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama......... Paul has NO chance to win. NONE. Don't waste your vote when the time comes.

The #1 issue is to get Obama out of the White House. Or we'll be so far down the road there will be no coming back.
How is that possible? You don't even know what your talking about dude, first, the initial election you can't even vote for Obama for GOP nominee...then..Ron Paul against obama is the best chance we have because Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate that will draw democrat and Independent votes...You think democrats are going to vote for a corporate smuck like Mitt Romney that represents everything they despise in the 1% vs the 99%...I don't think so..
 

deprave

New Member
On the original post....Obama, Carl Levin, and other senators...the aclu and others say this means citizens can be detained indefinitely...I was in denial at first also after reading the bill myself but I am no lawyer. I looked up what the ACLU, Lawyers, and others are arguing...They are arguing that it gives the AUTHORITY to detain citizens indefinitely but not the REQUIREMENT..they are REQUIRED to detain specific individuals but not REQUIRED to detain American citizens on American soil, however, they are given the authority all over the bill not just section 1032 and 1031...

Really I have yet to find a valid argument otherwise, even obama agrees. Why some of you are still in denial? I can understand that because I was also and I still kind of question it and would like to hear an argument REFUTING the ACLU's argument but I have yet to hear/read one. You people that just keep highlighting the part in section 1031 and 1032 in bold and red are missing the point.

If it isn't true I think we all deserve formal apologies from Obama, Carl Levin, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, the ACLU, the author of the bill lindsay graham and others..If it is true then I think Obama should be impeached and John Mccain and Lindsay Graham should be fired for ending the great American experiment...




President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
SOURCE: ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

December 31, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “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. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.



Ladies and Gentlemen...without further ado...your feature performer...Foo Fighters

[video=youtube;SBjQ9tuuTJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjQ9tuuTJQ&feature=fvsr[/video]
 
Top