"On page three of the PDF, under Subtitle D – Counterterrorism, Section 1021, which is page 654 of the original document, we read starting on line 19, “The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
How any sane individual could read, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities,” and think that this does not explicitly codify indefinite detention is beyond comprehension."
It's not about the NEW powers, it's about the ones that were not revised from the Patiort Act that are the problem, read this carefully http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
again....think about what is happening to our country...we now have a Person as President who just spit on the Constitution ,that means he has spit in your face,if some one can spit in your face do you think they care about what happens to you...elections have consequences...if you voted for this usurper you have voted against the Constitution....you may be witnessing the end of America as we know it....are you ready?????????
We now have a lawless regime in place...you can ignore it all you want...IT WONT IGNORE YOU !!!!!!
Does he really set the record straight? Here is what Obama signed...
While it is easy to believe that because most of us aren't terrorists or breaking any laws, that we have no reason to be concerned — we took a close look at the language of the 2012 NDAA amendments to see where exactly the facts lie.
•Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."
•Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.
•Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
The bottom line is the government can imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with terrorism. This power is open to wide interpretation and could certainly be abused.
After signing the NDAA, Obama released a statement saying "the [NDAA] does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."
This appears to be untrue. The September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows "[T]he President ... to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The connection between detaining those responsible for 9/11, and imprisoning any "associated force" that acts like the terrorist group, seems unclear.
The unclear nature is what is worrisome. We currently see how a clearly defined document like the Constitution and Bill of Rights is 'interpreted' by those we elect. This is bad, bad news. I'm very disappointed to see the NDAA passed as is. My brain goes all kinds of places with this - especially seeing the current mood the nation is in.
Hey CM Sackett: Here is what he was reading! http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt329/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt329-pt1.pdf
(its page 268 online, I don't know where 657 came from)
and yet heres old uncle ronny talking about it on infowars..
ron paul is giant piece of shit.
Perhaps when Obama said he regretted signing this bill, he meant he hated the new powers it authorized against his Muslim brothers and their shared cause.
Don't think the election will be a slam dunk, despite Obama's low approval ratings.
Over the holidays, Obama and Hillary were still voted the most admired persons in the US.
Not only that - Obama plays dirty with many tricks and many friends to help.
Some of their options:
- Holder's attempts to prevent voter Photo IDs
- Hurried amnesty (and voting registration) for illegal aliens.
- OWS/Arab Spring/Union type civil unrest (aka mob violence - think LA riots) Jimmy Hoffa Jr. promised violence in Obama's presence at a fundraiser this Fall.
- Voter intimidation, coercion
- Paid votes, community team organizers, busses
- Vote count fraud - an array of possibilities from hacking to trunk fulls of fraudulent votes, double or multiple state residency voters...
- Americans Elect, a possible attempt to short-change/short-circuit the elections with a third party candidate (divide and conquer). This organization is already very well funded by unknown donors and has registered in all 50 states.
- Aggressive voter registration in Democratic areas
That's all I can think of off the top of my head...
ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS RIGHT, "I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”
* Page WHAT... Mr. West?
There are only 565 pages to the whole CONSTITION MURDERING, TREASONOUS 'bill'...
* If that language (the TRUE MEANING of all that damn lawyer bull) WAS NOT THERE (in the 'addendums', 'exceptions', etc.)... then why did this senator say THIS on the floor of the Senate... THREE DAYS AFTER that piece of toilet paper you held up in defense of YOUR VOTE?
BTW, Mr. West... this senator was on the same damn panel you were. He's the man that brought this P.O.S. to the Senate floor for a vote. So it could be passed "before Christmas".
NOTE: You are correct sir, in the semantics of your statement. The language of these provisions WAS "Amended"... but the lawyer-speak, ALLOWING THE SINISTER CORE PURPOSE OF THEIR NEVER-BEFORE-PRESENTED IDEAS in a piece of American Legislation.... REMAINS.
Also note - for the first time EVER (I haven't found any reference in ANY legislation to such in my research thus far), the sovereign ground of this Republic (the lands, waters and skies of this nation) have been termed a "Battlefield".
Specifying AMERICA a "battlefield" in the very same line of thought and purpose as places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, etc... strategically and by INTENT makes any 'action' by anyone the government deems a threat -
a COMBAT ACTION.
...see rules, allowances and powers conferred upon the military when dealing with any such 'combat action'.
One commenter at Sen. Udall's video said - IF we enforced our immigration laws, and did not admit enemy nationals to this country, we would not have had 9/11...
Did you know that this year 4500 Iranians are due to receive 'diversity visas' to come to the US?
WHY on earth ... because the liberals have trained their brains to deny truth and live on feelings and delusions, wishes and their own thoughts...they have departed from God's definitions and standards of Truth, Love and respect for Life. Blinded by sin and darkness.
Remember: ultra-leftist, racist and America hater Carl Levin (AH - MI), confirms what was just said. This bill was made at the president's specifications.
O' just wants to make conservatives as angry as possible.
You nailed it- If he starts getting swarmed by the conservative base as the next election approaches, the Republican candidate will not be the issue (neither will Obama) but instead the stories will be about the extremist Tea Party that are already causing the chaos in Congress, implying the question- Do you really want them in charge? Remember that he plays the victim as he always sees himself as one (and so does everybody else who doesn't want to be responsible for themselves) and generally speaking, people getting 'attacked' get sympathy and a rise in approval as people get fed up with the 'attackers'.
That's exactly why I don't give him credit for the drone strikes. It's the easy way out and the 'pieces of the puzzle' dies with the enemy killed by drones.
It's like he doesn't want us to know what the puzzle looks like.
Well, I can say one thing about Obama: he has done one thing right, and it is something that I would've done as president:
I'd say: "Sure. I'll close Gitmo down as a prison." Then I'd turn around and by an old freighter, reassign the prison personnel to it, transfer the prisoners, send over some DIA and CIA personnel as my NEW high value prisoner interrogation unit, and issue a top secret order that prisoners are to be disappeared to this ship, in lieu of Gitmo detention.
And there they would remain, where they would be tried by military tribunal, and, if found guilty, buried at sea.