- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.
[...]
The president defended his action, writing that he 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.”
The Bill does not allow the indefinite detention without trial/charge of any legal residents of the USA.
And this was why Obama had "reservations." Because there were restrictions on detaining someone unconstitutionally.
but the fact is, this law changes nothing. No citizens of the USA nor legal residents of the USA, shall be detained indefinitely without charge/trial, due to this law or due to any current law.
Signing Statement said:Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
Signing Statement said:My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.
“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/
Hope and Change. Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. A New Beginning. Vote for Change. Help Me Take Back America. Our Time for Change.
Mr. President, either you're lying about why you signed this bill, or you're a coward. Either you're happy the Presidency has a new tool to put in the chest, or you didn't have the guts to tell Congress to send you an authorization bill without that junk attached. Either Congress sent it to you knowing you'd be pleased to sign it despite all of your public bellyaching, or they knew they had you outgunned.
Either way, you're an embarrassment to the office and to the country. You sold us out. Go **** yourself.
...If the President really wanted to calm us down, he would've stated categorically that this law did not apply to American citizens on American soil,...
Scary how the President of the United States only function is to be nothing more than tool for the real people behind the scenes who really make the decisons.
the bill already says that.
why should Obama try to ease the fears of those who have already made their minds about this bill, and likely would simply hand-wave away anything Obama says.
this is what they WANT to believe, and so..they believe it.
Scary how the President of the United States only function is to be nothing more than tool for the real people behind the scenes who really make the decisons.
By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does not have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial....
I already did. I won't do it again.
that's not what his reservations are about.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States.
Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch.
I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests.
...
- President Barack Obama: Dick Cheney on Steroids
I could care less if the person in question is a citizen, legal or illegal alien, or on a tourist visa or just another frothing terrorist from some forsaken hellhole. If the said person is trying to harm the country or it's citizens, the Bill of Rights should be narrowed to the maximum possible. While I have the greatest respect for the writer of the Constitution and the amendments, in their day they could have not foreseen the possibility of mass destruction nor juries that would free an OJ Simpson.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
..
e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
..
bare in mind if this law somehow changed existing law, to now allow for the indefinite detention without trial/charge, of any legal residents of the USA, I too would be yelling bloody murder and probably call for a popular uprising.
but the fact is, this law changes nothing. No citizens of the USA nor legal residents of the USA, shall be detained indefinitely without charge/trial, due to this law or due to any current law.
alright, well let us know when Obama starts indefinitely detaining American citizens or legal aliens on American soil, without charge or trial.
I already did. I won't do it again.
that's not what his reservations are about.
He has reservations, because the bill doesn't allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without charging them. Can't create a dictatorship without that.
If, in your opinion Obama is the best we can do, then we are truly lost. I no longer live in America, nor do my closest relatives. Still, if opinions like yours turn out to hold sway then I have done myself and my son a favor. I just hope that the dumbing down of Obama's America does not spread to few areas of the western world not yet affected.Obama, since long before he was president, was never about civil liberties. Never claimed to be, never pretended to be, period. He is completely and unabashedly authoritarian. And I'm going to vote for him again because our alternatives are honestly that bad.
Obama, since long before he was president, was never about civil liberties. Never claimed to be, never pretended to be, period. He is completely and unabashedly authoritarian.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?