PDA

View Full Version : Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of U.S. citizens



Cebu_4_2
31st December 2011, 05:10 PM
Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of U.S. citizens

HONOLULU — President Obama expressed misgivings about several provisions of a sweeping defense bill he signed into law on Saturday, pledging that his administration will use broad discretion in interpreting the measure’s legal requirements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-sends-defense-bill-to-obama-after-reworking-detainee-provisions/2011/12/15/gIQAh1vhwO_story.html) to ensure that U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism are not detained indefinitely by the military.
The $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act provides funding for 2012 at $27 billion less than Obama's request and $43 billion less than Congress authorized in 2011.



Gallery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/30/Web-Resampled/2011-12-30/Obama-Hawaii002--296x197.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-holiday-vacation/2011/12/26/gIQACg4zIP_gallery.html)
 President Obama and his family are spending the end-of-year holidays in Hawaii. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-holiday-vacation/2011/12/26/gIQACg4zIP_gallery.html)


Gallery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/10/25/National-Politics/Images/2011-10-24T221550Z_01_WHT23_RTRIDSP_3_OBAMA1.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-gears-up-for-2012-campaign/2011/06/28/gIQAaKR2CI_gallery.html)




The bill also contains several detainee provisions that civil liberties groups and human rights advocates have strongly opposed, arguing that they would allow the military greater authority to detain and interrogate U.S. citizens and non-citizens and deny them legal rights protected by the Constitution.
Obama initially had threatened to veto the legislation. In a signing statement released by the White House on Saturday, Obama said he still does not agree with everything contained in the legislation. But with military funding due to expire Monday, Obama said he signed the bill after Congress made last-minute revisions at the request of the White House before approving it two weeks ago.
In several cases, the president called those changes “minimally acceptable” and vowed to use discretion when applying the 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. “I want to clarify that 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.”
The president said his administration would seek to repeal any provisions that are inconsistent with his values and added that he would “reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat.”
Supporters of the legislation have said it codifies current arrangements such as the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) defended the detainee provisions as being carefully worded in a way that allows the president flexibility and waiver authority.
Human rights advocates, however, described the measure as an expansion and enshrinement of military authority and compared it to the 1950s, when Sen. Joseph McCarthy used demagogic and disputed tactics in an attempt to root out Communist activities.
“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said after Congress approved the bill.
The defense bill also contains a measure that would apply sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran in an effort to pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program and would freeze $700 million in U.S. aid to Pakistan.
The Obama administration had expressed concerns about the Iran sanctions, which the White House feared could backfire and limit its ability to persuade other countries to join the United States in multilateral sanctions by forcing Iran to drive up oil prices.
Congress revised the bill to give the administration six months to apply the sanctions if the White House determines they could disrupt the oil markets.

AndreaGail
31st December 2011, 05:13 PM
Max Keiser@maxkeiser
Thanks Obama, by signing 'Indefinite Detention' I now know what if feels like to get ass raped by a black guy.
...

Gaillo
31st December 2011, 05:13 PM
Did anyone have even a SHRED of doubt that he'd whip out the pen so fast to sign it that ink would spray across the desk? ???

Libertarian_Guard
31st December 2011, 05:28 PM
Call it what it is, a suspension of Habeas Corpus!

Now Obama has joined the ranks of Lincoln and Bush 43. Mixed company perhaps, but still representative of something outside of the Constitution!

midnight rambler
31st December 2011, 05:33 PM
Keep your 'legal rights' the fuck away from me.

Spectrism
31st December 2011, 06:04 PM
YOU LIE!

Remember that line during the Obama speech. Later, the one who allowed his thoughts to slip out his mouth apologized. It was like the devil came up to him and threatened his life if he did not apologize.

Well, we have Obama's assurance of things. Sure we do. He is a bastard liar.

Twisted Titan
31st December 2011, 09:31 PM
He signs a piece of legislation that screwed up and his remedy to that is to sign ever more legislation.

Now you see why it NEVER gets better.

MNeagle
31st December 2011, 09:51 PM
must enlarge:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1996&d=1325396916

Spectrism
1st January 2012, 11:43 AM
How much more does he have to do to prove himself as a biblical anti-Christ figure?
Drop a few nuclear bombs on innocent cities somewhere?

Am I missing something or is that headline a lie? With a semi-colon it would merely be deceptive.
I thought Obama signed defense bill that removes legal rights of any U.S. citizen.

I would have said that he is just another small-minded criminal puppet doing the bidding of someone else, but the absolute lunacy associated with this persona is just beyond coincidence. Who were his parents? Where was this illegal alien kept? Who are his masters? How did he get all the scumbags into office? How has he made it this far without being removed?

Yeup- surely there is something supernatural happening here.

Neuro
1st January 2012, 12:17 PM
Newspeak. Signs away rights and at the same time pledges to maintain them... Now, anyone who holds an opinion that is uncomfortable for the powers, could be indefinetely detained and tortured if not murdered, without any legal recourse...

People will disappear!

MNeagle
1st January 2012, 12:31 PM
HuffPo headline today:



HAPPY NEW YEAR: YOU CAN NOW BE DETAINED INDEFINITELY (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill_n_1177836.html)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/452668/thumbs/r-STATUE-OF-LIBERTY-DEFENSE-BILL-SPLASH-huge.jpg

mamboni
1st January 2012, 12:46 PM
Obama is a duplicitous lying miscreant. He demanded that the provision for indefinite detention without trial encompass American citizens. The Senate acquiesced and added the language to the bill. Then he declared that he was opposed to said provision. Now he signs this unconstitutional provision into law, saying "don't worry, I won't use it." The man is a liar and his word is dirt. What a total disgrace to the office. If the American people don't elect Ron Paul to the presidency then it's over for this republic, over.

gunDriller
1st January 2012, 12:54 PM
http://www.facebook.com/reelectpresidentobama2012

let them know how you feel.

Twisted Titan
1st January 2012, 12:56 PM
Obama is a duplicitous lying miscreant. He demanded that the provision for indefinite detention without trial encompass American citizens. The Senate acquiesced and added the language to the bill. Then he declared that he was opposed to said provision. Now he signs this unconstitutional provision into law, saying "don't worry, I won't use it." The man is a liar and his word is dirt. What a total disgrace to the office. If the American people don't elect Ron Paul to the presidency then it's over for this republic, over.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY

Blink
1st January 2012, 11:40 PM
I think its over regardless of whether RP wins or not. If that ain't the final warning to prepare for the worst, I don't know what is..........

Joe King
2nd January 2012, 12:50 PM
Newspeak. Signs away rights and at the same time pledges to maintain them... Now, anyone who holds an opinion that is uncomfortable for the powers, could be indefinetely detained and tortured if not murdered, without any legal recourse...

People will disappear!It's not newspeak, it's just the fed gov re-defining the Rights they've bestowed upon their creation. As commander in chief of the entity that created that status, he gets to decide who gets civil Rights and who doesn't by whether or not he decides they are an enemy of the State.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It's just a clarifying of what they can do to their creation and how it's decided.

Neuro
2nd January 2012, 03:57 PM
It's not newspeak, it's just the fed gov re-defining the Rights they've bestowed upon their creation. As commander in chief of the entity that created that status, he gets to decide who gets civil Rights and who doesn't by whether or not he decides they are an enemy of the State.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It's just a clarifying of what they can do to their creation and how it's decided.
It isn't civil rights any longer, it's civil privileges, for the commander in chief to give and take as he pleases.

Joe King
2nd January 2012, 03:59 PM
It isn't civil rights any longer, it's civil privileges, for the commander in chief to give and take as he pleases.civil "Rights" are privileges. Always have been. Only reason they haven't done this before now, is because they couldn't come up with a good enough reason that enough of the peeps would swallow.

Neuro
2nd January 2012, 04:14 PM
civil "Rights" are privileges. Always have been. Only reason they haven't done this before now, is because they couldn't come up with a good enough reason that enough of the peeps would swallow.

Sure, even more probable is that they didn't need it until now...

Joe King
2nd January 2012, 04:33 PM
Sure, even more probable is that they didn't need it until now...Don't kid yourself. The gov would have loved to have always been able to lock people up without trial. Trials can be soooo messy when justice is trying to be imposed.

The people have been officially viewed as the enemy for a long time now. They {gov} have just been slow to be so obvious about it, but at some point people notice that the rope around their necks doesn't have much wiggle room anymore.
ie everything comes down to the timing of the final pull because that's when there may be struggle as plans become clear.

It's all part of the on-going, 200+ year old plan to get rid of the Constitution.

That freedom stuff was a nice idea, but it's so impracticle in real-World applications. - TPTB

Neuro
2nd January 2012, 11:55 PM
Pre-Internet they were able to marginalize dissenters to the point they could rule as they wanted more or less, with the aid of tv-programming, drugs, education. Internet has allowed a critical mass of people to see through their veil, thus they need this now.

Joe King
3rd January 2012, 12:11 AM
Pre-Internet they were able to marginalize dissenters to the point they could rule as they wanted more or less, with the aid of tv-programming, drugs, education. Internet has allowed a critical mass of people to see through their veil, thus they need this now.That may be true, but it still comes down to the gov re-defining what it means to be a US citizen.
ie they get to decide what Rights a US citizen has access to because they created the staus, and they just changed it somewhat.

Hatha Sunahara
3rd January 2012, 12:27 AM
Naomi Wolf thinks that the congress people who voted for this bill will become its victims. Here:

http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/

Consistent with my 'sig' line


Hatha

Neuro
3rd January 2012, 01:44 AM
Naomi Wolf thinks that the congress people who voted for this bill will become its victims. Here:

http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/

Consistent with my 'sig' line

Hatha
Probably they will not arrest the Critters that voted for this bill, unless they would grow a conscience, more probably they would focus their attentions on the ones voted in by people starting to awaken...

Neuro
3rd January 2012, 01:47 AM
That may be true, but it still comes down to the gov re-defining what it means to be a US citizen.
ie they get to decide what Rights a US citizen has access to because they created the staus, and they just changed it somewhat.

Jailed and tortured indefinitely on bogus charges without due process is not a minor change...

gunDriller
3rd January 2012, 01:49 AM
i just signed the Weight Watcher's Pledge - and then ate a bag of Reese's - for an appetizer !

Joe King
3rd January 2012, 10:25 AM
Jailed and tortured indefinitely on bogus charges without due process is not a minor change...I never said it was. All I pointed out is that they can change the rules for the thing they created.
ie if people claim a status which the fed gov created in order to derive benefit, people claiming that status have to take the bad along with whatever good benefits it was they wanted to get when they originally claimed to be of the status the fed gov created.

keehah
4th January 2012, 05:21 PM
Israel did much the same a few weeks earlier.

US and Israel march in lockstep towards expansion of military detention (http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/us-and-israel-march-in-lockstep-towards-expansion-of-military-detention.html)

[mondoweiss.net December 16, 2011] ..And as a wave of predictable settler violence, this time against the Israeli army, engulfs Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced measures that would expand the use of Israeli military detention without charge and military trials. The events give new meaning to the phrase "shared values" when explaining the US and Israel relationship.

In Israel, "administrative detention," or "detention without charge or trial that is authorized by administrative order," has long been used to keep Palestinians locked up "for prolonged periods of time," according to B'Tselem. And the new Israeli measures, ostensibly aimed at radical violent settlers, have worried some Israelis that the "new steps would also be used against" Israeli Palestine solidarity activists in the West Bank, as the New York Times reports. B'Tselem has also come out against Israeli steps to expand military detention.

The US and Israeli moves are not identical, to be sure. But the thread that ties these events together is this: The "war on terror," a "war" in which the US and Israel both claim to be fighting the same fight by locking up non-citizens they declare to be "terrorists," has come back home for Israeli and US citizens. And for those who might cheer for Israeli military measures against violent settlers, worries that the expansion of military detention could also affect leftist Israelis should be taken into account. As the US case shows, what happens to "them" can quickly become what happens to "us."

Edited to ad a link and conclusion of a review on lewrockwell.com

Equality Before the Law Finally Achieved (http://lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken138.html)
January 3, 2012

...The craven conservatives and the hypocritical liberals who defend this ongoing destruction of the Bill of Rights attempt to placate the opposition by saying they "welcome debate" and declare that only kooks oppose laws like the NDAA since it is "complicated." This is little more than shilling for the status quo. John McCain simply declares that all proponents of due process "want terrorists to go free." And yet, it is the cranks, who insist on the rule of law, who are "un-American."

When exposed to the persecutions of the past, especially the racially-motivated ones, school children are often left with the impression that things were different in the past, and that somehow, we’ve moved beyond that sort of arbitrary oppression and disregard for natural rights and natural law. That notion is incorrect. The arbitrary exercise of government power is alive and well. Except now, it applies to everyone everywhere. Equality before the law has been achieved at last.