US Federal Government Takes Final Step to Suspend Constitution
THE US GOVERNMENT FEELS IT CAN DETAIN PEOPLE AS LONG AS THEY FEEL FOR ANY REASON OUTSIDE THE US, NOW THEY SIGNED A BILL THAT THEY CAN DO IT LEGALLY IN THE US. MAYBE THE US PEOPLE WILL START TO SEE HOW WRONG IT IS AND NOT EVERYONE IS A TERRORIST AND THE GOV DOESNT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETAIN PEOPLE LIKE THEY DO http://RTR.org | In what can only be considered a tragic irony, the U.S. Senate passed out of the final conference committee the controversial National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, coinciding with the 220th Anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act otherwise known as the NDAA, provides broad authority for the federal government to use the military in domestic operations in order to detain Americans indefinitely and without trial. Such a move not only whitewashes the natural rights of Americans, whereby even publicly criticizing the federal government can now rise to the purposefully vague definition of a "belligerent act", it also sits in direct violation of "Posse Comitatus" an 1878 law forbidding use of the military at home and against Americans. Here are Congressman Paul's remarks on the bill: [ROLL PAUL CLIP]
This is ****ing incredible. First they censor the internet and now this? Things are going too far. There is only so many times that this government could underestimate our anger. May God forgive them. I certainly won't and America certainly won't.
I don't think much can be done.. and I think it is created so that the U.S would become insular to a few wasp repuke cons or perhaps those blacks that are under the delusions that they're wasps and they can live well... the mass sheep of the people are expendable and don't have enough savvy to understand that such things aren't for their 'safety and security' as they'll have them believe .. The occupy movement hasn't done much and I doubt anything will be accomplished. They're not united on one heart and there's not enough attention or even esteem given to the movement by the corporate elite who have the power to do anything.. Maybe people should have had foresight at some point that this would unravel.. But they were too busy being angry that Osama brought down WTC 7 with his wishful thinking and lap dances the night before..
more and more people are waking up to the truth, but the problem is the elite keep putting out propaganda to keep the masses "occupied" on other things that dont matter,
has this been signed by Obama I am trying to follow this on the news and can't find it on today's news mostly covers the pygmy leader who has now passed his nukes to his offspring.. nothing to worry about there though with 6 billion to lynch folks from their homes and kill them..
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
has this been signed by Obama I am trying to follow this on the news and can't find it on today's news mostly covers the pygmy leader who has now passed his nukes to his offspring.. nothing to worry about there though with 6 billion to lynch folks from their homes and kill them..
Excuse me, we have an no-racism rule here. Please do not insult the pygmies here. Yes, this has been signed by Obama.
Most Americans are naively patriotic and trust the government to take care of their thinking for them. They do not give a rat's ass about how many people we kill overseas or how many brown-skinned people are tortured as long as they can have their steak and potatoes for supper with a tank full of gas to go. If there is an economic collapse or internal crisis and people revolt, these same tactics will be used against them in a heart beat. The Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act in the OP have laid the legal framework for it to take place - all that is lacking is a crisis - like a 'new Pearl Harbor' or 'Great Depression'.
Most Americans are naively patriotic and trust the government to take care of their thinking for them. They do not give a rat's ass about how many people we kill overseas or how many brown-skinned people are tortured as long as they can have their steak and potatoes for supper with a tank full of gas to go. If there is an economic collapse or internal crisis and people revolt, these same tactics will be used against them in a heart beat. The Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act in the OP have laid the legal framework for it to take place - all that is lacking is a crisis - like a 'new Pearl Harbor' or 'Great Depression'.
I wonder how many are even made aware of this? I hardly see any coverage of it, just one orphan article and yes this will affect all Americans just the same Muslim or not, they've essentially given leverage to any govt. moron the uppermost hand over any citizen and don't have to offer any supporting evidence.. hostility is endless and takes any form so anyone can be held indefinitely without trial or charges or rights to a lawyer.. they've basically repealed the constitution, not that the constitution had any weightiness to begin with...
does anyone have an article that he oked this and didn't veto it.. I am surprised people aren't outraged.. This article is in fact one of the reasons people in Egypt revolted.. 'Qanoon at'tawriq'.. have people not seen the type of torture private citizens received at the hands of these tyrants?
sob7an Allah
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I'm not really into all this stuff and you should also be aware that any searches and readings of this sort on the net will attract unwarranted attention and bring you under the radar of those behind all this. With that said, you should check out alex jone's channel. I posted some of the videos below but i couldn't find one of former Mayor Jesse Ventura where he shows all the secrete locations and prisons set up as well as millions of empty coffins large enough to hold multiple bodies.
Speaking as a long-time supporter of the Democratic Party, and a recent supporter of Obama, I can say with certainty that this has a lot of us Dems shaking our heads in confusion -- we feel like we've been ambushed. Obama had never supported Guantanamo Bay or the principles behind it. In the early part of his Presidency, he tried to close it down but was stopped by objections from, I'm ashamed to say, the American people, who were afraid of the idea of "terrorists" being housed in their state or region.
It's baffling how many members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, supported this bill -- too many for a Presidential veto to have been effective, since a veto can be over-ridden by a 2/3 vote of Congress. But it was Obama who insisted that paragraph (e) in section 1031 be struck out before he would sign it; that was the part that exempted American citizens (also legal immigrants, I believe) on American soil from indefinite military detention. The reason he gave publicly was something like, "if the law applies to one, it should apply to all".
And our VP Joe Biden? He's been fighting this kind of nonsense during all his decades in the Senate, at home and abroad, whether the President and Congress were Republican or Democrat, Some Democrat Biden watchers speculate that Biden, as VP, had to support Obama, but that Biden's support has been muted compared with his usual standards.
I don't have a clue as to why this happened. It's not only frightening and un-Constitutional, it's bizarre. Is this a general blindfolded "fishing expedition" or do they have specific targets in mind??
I agree with Islamica that searching the net can attract unwarranted attention if you stumble upon the wrong information, and I would not recommend it for those who are in any way fragile, like having small children to raise, etc. There are plenty of people out there searching now who are less fragile and more "expendable" (for example, I'm old, I've lived my life, and my children are grown -- I'm expendable -- the only problem is, I'm a lousy researcher at this kind of thing.)
Having been through something similar years ago in this country, my advice to all is be wary, but don't hide under a rock or act paranoid -- that in itself looks suspicious. "Hide in plain sight", be very open about everything. This is a good time to collect friends and associates and third party witnesses and evidences (like grocery receipts) -- join benign or benevolent non-political organizations (book clubs are fun) -- and keep living a normal life in plain sight.
Thanks for the heads up, Islamica. I'll be visiting the links. I've been a loyal citizen of this country too long to turn a blind eye to such an outrage. rebecca
Obama Signs Defense Bill Despite 'Serious Reservations'
President Barack Obama said he's signing a $662 billion defense bill despite "serious reservations" over its provisions on handling suspected terrorists.
First Posted: 12/31/11 03:25 PM ET Updated: 12/31/11 06:22 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.
The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto.
He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president. Congress also clarified that civilian law enforcement agencies -- such as the FBI -- would still have authority to investigate terrorism and added a provision that asserts nothing in the detention measures changes current law regarding U.S. citizens.
Still, the signing on New Year's Eve as few people were paying attention angered civil liberties advocates, who argue that the law for the first time spells out certain measures that have not actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, including the possibility of detaining citizens in military custody without trial for as long as there is a war on terror.
"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 Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"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," Romero added. "The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress or internationally.”
The administration was especially sensitive about the law and about reaction to the president signing it. In addition to enacting the measure while few people were paying attention -- and many opponents still had hopes the president would veto the bill -- the White House added a signing statement specifying that the Obama administration would not detain Americans without trial. The White House also sent out a notice to its online community highlighting Obama's complaints with the law, in a tacit admission that many of the president's more ardent supporters despise the detention provisions.
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in the signing statement.
Presidents issue such statements when they feel a law conflicts with the executive's constitutional powers. Obama criticized them during the Bush administration, but has found the practice useful on a handful of occasions.
In this case, Obama argued that the changes Congress made to the bill affirm only authorities that the Bush and Obama administrations have already claimed in fighting terrorism. But he noted that the codification of those powers in law was unnecessary and perhaps harmful. And he insisted he would not use the powers to detain citizens without trial.
"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama wrote. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My administration will interpret section 1021 [of the bill] in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
Civil liberties advocates like Romero pointed out that once the provisions are law, however, they will be available to a President Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or any future president, who could choose to use the powers granted more aggressively.
"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."
Because of the provisions specifying that the new legislation does not change current law, the new law leaves the authority it grants open to interpretation and to the possibility -- albeit in very difficult circumstances -- of someone challenging a detention through the courts.
"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," Romero said. "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."
Obama also said he will not abide by the law's requirement to detain terror suspects using the military.
"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat," Obama said. "While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations."
Finally, he rejected a number of other provisions, saying the White House is concerned they interfere with the president's constitutional powers and ability to fight terrorism.
"My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office," Obama warned.
Malaysia had something called the Internal Security Act under which a person can be detained without trial for up to two years without recourse to due process in court. Just the Home Minister's signature is enough authorization. This ISA has just been deleted from the law books. I think the US of A somehow got a copy of it before it was deleted.
prophet PBUH said a time will come when being a muslim will equal to holding onto burning coal. Muslims really should be migrating from the west because the big bang starts in the middle east.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
GuestFellow liked this post
President Barack Obama said he's signing a $662 billion defense bill despite "serious reservations" over its provisions on handling suspected terrorists.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks