NDAA Bill Signed Into Law....

dieseldiva · Jan 2, 2012

As we were celebrating New Years, this is what the President was up to. When the leftie ACLU speaks out against a Democrat President, it speaks volumes. Just when you thought the Patriot Act was the worst......

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

December 31, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: [email protected]

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.

Turtle · Jan 2, 2012

dieseldiva said:
As we were celebrating New Years, this is what the President was up to.

You mean he was working <gasp> on New Year's Eve?!?!

When the leftie ACLU speaks out against a Democrat President, it speaks volumes.

Yeah, it makes a good case that they're not all that "leftie".

Just when you thought the Patriot Act was the worst......

The Patriot Act is pretty bad, this is pretty bad, but the two combined creates an awesome tool for the up and coming dictator who wants to take control of the Republic by relatively easy means. The battlefield gets redefined to mean anything they want, and enemy combatants gets redefined to mean anything they want. The two laws, in concert, could actually be used to capture and detain, for example, Supreme Court justices who disagree with how the president does business. President Lincoln did that, and Obama apparently has molded his presidency after Lincoln. There's some food for thought.

Ragman · Jan 2, 2012

Turtle said:
You mean he was working <gasp> on New Year's Eve?!?!

Yeah, it makes a good case that they're not all that "leftie".

The Patriot Act is pretty bad, this is pretty bad, but the two combined creates an awesome tool for the up and coming dictator who wants to take control of the Republic by relatively easy means. The battlefield gets redefined to mean anything they want, and enemy combatants gets redefined to mean anything they want. The two laws, in concert, could actually be used to capture and detain, for example, Supreme Court justices who disagree with how the president does business. President Lincoln did that, and Obama apparently has molded his presidency after Lincoln. There's some food for thought.

Apparently, A President Gringrich would do the same.

Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals to compel ‘radical’ judges to explain rulings - Election 2012 - The Washington Post

RLENT · Jan 2, 2012

Finally someone here posts about the NDAA .... even if it is only to try and use it as a weapon against Obama ... what an absolute, frickin' joke !

Who authored this bill ? (a Republican and a Democrat - in secret

)

Did Lindsey Graham support it ?

Who else ?

Did it pass the Replicrat House ?

Who stood against it .... out of the candidates currently running ?

Where does Ron Paul stand on it ?

How about his son Rand Paul ?

My only question is:

Are you to wait until Obama signs it, before starting to talk about SOPA ?

Ya jus' can't make it up .....

Ragman · Jan 2, 2012

RLENT said:
Are you to wait until Obama signs it, before starting to talk about SOPA ?

Ya jus' can't make it up .....

I love Sopa's

layoutshooter · Jan 2, 2012

It was not "in force" until he signed it.

Dictator? We are WELL on the way to that. Might happen as early as 2013. Obama is just the next in a LONG line of tin god wannabes. He just makes no effort in hiding that fact. He is confident that he will be the first dictator of the Nation. Just as his handlers planned.

I wonder, is this why the long term non-com ranks are quietly being purged? Is he trying to get an army more friendly to him rather than the Constitution?

dieseldiva · Jan 2, 2012

RLENT said:
Finally someone here posts about the NDAA .... even if it is only to try and use it as a weapon against Obama ... what an absolute, frickin' joke !

Who authored this bill ? (a Republican and a Democrat - in secret )

Did Lindsey Graham support it ?

Who else ?

Did it pass the Replicrat House ?

Who stood against it .... out of the candidates currently running ?

Where does Ron Paul stand on it ?

How about his son Rand Paul ?

My only question is:

Are you to wait until Obama signs it, before starting to talk about SOPA ?

Ya jus' can't make it up .....

In my best "Mammie" voice.....don't you roll those eyes at ME.....why didn't YOU post about it....

layoutshooter · Jan 2, 2012

What can Ron Paul do about it if elected? He needs congress to repeal it, they won't. I understand he is against this but he was not able to convince enough in congress to vote against it now, what makes anyone think he could convince them to repeal it in 2013 when he would take office?

RLENT · Jan 2, 2012

dieseldiva said:
In my best "Mammie" voice.....don't you roll those eyes at ME.....why didn't YOU post about it....

Because I wanted to see how long it would take for it to hit anyone else's radar screen and for others bring it up ..... and in what context it would be viewed

I've been talking to others (including at least one person on here) for some time - from about the time what was in it became public knowledge.

dieseldiva · Jan 2, 2012

House....

Senate....

The link for the Senate count comes from your man, Rlent....why haven't YOU posted this?? LOL

dieseldiva · Jan 2, 2012

RLENT said:
Because I wanted to see how long it would take for it to hit anyone else's radar screen and for others bring it up ..... and in what context it would be viewed

I've been talking to others (including at least one person on here) for some time - from about the time what was in it became public knowledge.

I see.....sort of a "litmus" test for we "the occupiers" of the soapbox, eh??

RLENT · Jan 2, 2012

dieseldiva said:
I see.....sort of a "litmus" test for we "the occupiers" of the soapbox, eh??

LOL ..... yeah, I suppose you could say that .... it was more of a matter of personal curiosity, than any sort of test ....

I elected not to push it immediately .... largely due to some of the rather short-sighted sentiments expressed here when we started assassinating American citizens without due process of law ....

clcooper · Jan 2, 2012

and i was told that the FEMA camps could never happen . so who wears the tin foil hat now

layoutshooter · Jan 2, 2012

clcooper said:
and i was told that the FEMA camps could never happen . so who wears the tin foil hat now

Barney Rubble?

LDB · Jan 2, 2012

If the ACLU is against it it may not be all that bad.

RLENT · Jan 2, 2012

LDB said:
If the ACLU is against it it may not be all that bad.

Now there's a really intelligent comment - one full of discernment and well-founded reasoning:

"..... if group X is agin' it, I jus' might be for it ....."

Whatever bad one wants to say about the ACLU (and there is plenty), they are on the right side of issues at least enough to warrant avoiding the unthinking and mindless use of labels ...... and actually looking at the specifics of the issue (what a concept !) and what all is involved in the matter to actually see what the merits are .......

Turtle · Jan 2, 2012

LDB said:
If the ACLU is against it it may not be all that bad.

The ACLU is against things which are unconstitutional. You think unconstitutional things are okie dokie? I can't think of a single one that is, or would be. Not one.

layoutshooter · Jan 2, 2012

Turtle said:
The ACLU is against things which are unconstitutional. You think unconstitutional things are okie dokie? I can't think of a single one that is, or would be. Not one.

They are also not for some things that are. Like private gun ownership. They believe that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to the individual. The are only "selective" on their protection of the Constitution. I think they are a sham bunch, pretending to protect as they cut down from behind.

LDB · Jan 2, 2012

RLENT said:
Now there's a really intelligent comment - one full of discernment and well-founded reasoning:

"..... if group X is agin' it, I jus' might be for it ....."

Whatever bad one wants to say about the ACLU (and there is plenty), they are on the right side of issues at least enough to warrant avoiding the unthinking and mindless use of labels ...... and actually looking at the specifics of the issue (what a concept !) and what all is involved in the matter to actually see what the merits are .......

If I had said since the ACLU is against it it's automatically a completely good thing you might have a point. Based on their track record I made a valid statement, since they are against it it may not be all bad.

LDB · Jan 2, 2012

Turtle said:
The ACLU is against things which are unconstitutional. You think unconstitutional things are okie dokie? I can't think of a single one that is, or would be. Not one.

You must not be talking about the same Anti Constitution League of Americans I am. The ones I referred to are often on the wrong side of issues and take positions based only on liberal ideology and nothing to do with the Constitution.