Another executive order from Obama ..

[bigrebnc1775]

Riars rie!

Plesident Obama may suck, but dat no mean he ensrave da peopre.

Have you read section 1021?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No but the words in section 1021 makes it true.

If by ‘true’ you mean an American can be detained without benefit of a habeas petition, you’d be wrong – and the words of the Supreme Court make that true.

Have you read section 1021?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and liars like you should not be allowed to post their lies on message boards.

You are the biggest liar here son.
truth don't matter and conservative are equal liars.

So....where DID you find those live nukes in Libya anyway, you lying sack of whale shit?

I haven't looked for them but it was reported they had them dumb ass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

You killed the thread.

Good post and good notation of a good post.

Again, I like pissing on decisions by President Obama. But there's really nothing upsetting about that EO.

There just isn't.

It's still worded that the government can take what you have and it does not have to be an emergency. According to obama.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
20 SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
21 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
22 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-
23 THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
24 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-
25 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Dec 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00653 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\KLMERY~1\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\H1540C~1.XML H
December 12, 2011 (2:19 p.m.)
F:\SLC\ASCR12\H1540CONFRPT.XML
f:\VHLC\121211\121211.094.xml (514854|11)654
1 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
2 Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes
3 the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States
4 to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b))
5 pending disposition under the law of war.

6 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
7 this section is any person as follows:
8 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
9 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
10 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
11 sible for those attacks.
12 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
13 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
14 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
15 States or its coalition partners, including any person
16 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
17 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
18 forces.

19 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf
Nothing separating American citizens from anyone else.

 

[007]

Obama Signs Executive Order For Emergency Control Over U.S. Infrastructure, Resources, Citizens | The New World Reporter

That is blatantly unconstitutional.

As if the kenyan gave a damn...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh nozies. A person recruited -- and who accepts the call -- might possibly get ACTIVATED?

Yep like the communist do,..... Got it.

Your post makes no sense. But it is clear that you misunderstood what you quoted.

Is that better,

 

[Liability]

You killed the thread.

Good post and good notation of a good post.

Again, I like pissing on decisions by President Obama. But there's really nothing upsetting about that EO.

There just isn't.

It's still worded that the government can take what you have and it does not have to be an emergency. According to obama.

No. It isn't.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

How come the GOP number on priority is to give tax cuts to billionaires? That's supposed to do "what" exactly?

It hasn't seemed to help the economy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good post and good notation of a good post.

Again, I like pissing on decisions by President Obama. But there's really nothing upsetting about that EO.

There just isn't.

It's still worded that the government can take what you have and it does not have to be an emergency. According to obama.

No. It isn't.

To improve something would mean you had control over it, wouldn't it?

(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Or even this part

Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.

 

[Liability]

It's still worded that the government can take what you have and it does not have to be an emergency. According to obama.

No. It isn't.

To improve something would mean you had control over it, wouldn't it?

(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Or even this part

Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.

No.

After an attack, to improve something implies only something along the line of first aid.

To improve our ability to recover after an attack -- where we presently have no contingency plans in place or piss poor ones only -- requires some effort and good planning. Not some amorphous "control."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. It isn't.

To improve something would mean you had control over it, wouldn't it?


Or even this part

Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.

No.

After an attack, to improve something implies only something along the line of first aid.

To improve our ability to recover after an attack -- where we presently have no contingency plans in place or piss poor ones only -- requires some effort and good planning. Not some amorphous "control."

So a policy maker is not the controller? What if the policy is not followed? Why have a policy if no one follows it or there is no penalty

 

[Liability]

To improve something would mean you had control over it, wouldn't it?


Or even this part

No.

After an attack, to improve something implies only something along the line of first aid.

To improve our ability to recover after an attack -- where we presently have no contingency plans in place or piss poor ones only -- requires some effort and good planning. Not some amorphous "control."

So a policy maker is not the controller? What if the policy is not followed? Why have a policy if no one follows it or there is no penalty

You are in full babble mode.

The policy maker now being referred to by you makes policy in how to implement a PLAN to deal with the contingency of an attack on America that damages our national-interest infrastructures.

How is that a bad thing again?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No.

After an attack, to improve something implies only something along the line of first aid.

To improve our ability to recover after an attack -- where we presently have no contingency plans in place or piss poor ones only -- requires some effort and good planning. Not some amorphous "control."

So a policy maker is not the controller? What if the policy is not followed? Why have a policy if no one follows it or there is no penalty

You are in full babble mode.

The policy maker now being referred to by you makes policy in how to implement a PLAN to deal with the contingency of an attack on America that damages our national-interest infrastructures.

How is that a bad thing again?

Hows a dictatorship in the name of safety sound to you? We are a country that have restraints on the government for a reason.

 

[Liability]

So a policy maker is not the controller? What if the policy is not followed? Why have a policy if no one follows it or there is no penalty

You are in full babble mode.

The policy maker now being referred to by you makes policy in how to implement a PLAN to deal with the contingency of an attack on America that damages our national-interest infrastructures.

How is that a bad thing again?

Hows a dictatorship in the name of safety sound to you?

Like you are high.

We are a country that have restraints on the government for a reason.

And none of those reasons include a "need" to be unprepared for an act of terrorism or war that damages our infrastructure.

What you seem to willingly forget is that we did not set up a government o checks and balances and restraints and enumerated powers to make government utterly inefficient. We did the checks and balances thing, we imposed restraints and enumerated the legitimate powers of government to make government LESS powerful and less potentially threatening to us. NONETHELESS, we STILL wanted to craft a government capable of DOING the very things we ask governments to do. We were seeking a BALANCE, not just to hobble government forever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are in full babble mode.

The policy maker now being referred to by you makes policy in how to implement a PLAN to deal with the contingency of an attack on America that damages our national-interest infrastructures.

How is that a bad thing again?

Hows a dictatorship in the name of safety sound to you?

Like you are high.

We are a country that have restraints on the government for a reason.

And none of those reasons include a "need" to be unprepared for an act of terrorism or war that damages our infrastructure.

What you seem to willingly forget is that we did not set up a government o checks and balances and restraints and enumerated powers to make government utterly inefficient. We did the checks and balances thing, we imposed restraints and enumerated the legitimate powers of government to make government LESS powerful and less potentially threatening to us. NONETHELESS, we STILL wanted to craft a government capable of DOING the very things we ask governments to do. We were seeking a BALANCE, not just to hobble government forever.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I hope I am wrong I just don't see it that way though.

 

[Liability]

Hows a dictatorship in the name of safety sound to you?

Like you are high.

We are a country that have restraints on the government for a reason.

And none of those reasons include a "need" to be unprepared for an act of terrorism or war that damages our infrastructure.

What you seem to willingly forget is that we did not set up a government o checks and balances and restraints and enumerated powers to make government utterly inefficient. We did the checks and balances thing, we imposed restraints and enumerated the legitimate powers of government to make government LESS powerful and less potentially threatening to us. NONETHELESS, we STILL wanted to craft a government capable of DOING the very things we ask governments to do. We were seeking a BALANCE, not just to hobble government forever.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I hope I am wrong I just don't see it that way though.

Ok. But the words in the EO say what they actually say. So, I don't see how you can read them any other way.

You're still ok in my book, even if I did speak abrasively to you.

I'm feeling a little guilty at the moment and a little contrite.

Sorry.

 

[EriktheRed]

Y'know, starting another thread on it isn't gonna make it any more true...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/214194-peacetime-martial-law-coming.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Like you are high.



And none of those reasons include a "need" to be unprepared for an act of terrorism or war that damages our infrastructure.

What you seem to willingly forget is that we did not set up a government o checks and balances and restraints and enumerated powers to make government utterly inefficient. We did the checks and balances thing, we imposed restraints and enumerated the legitimate powers of government to make government LESS powerful and less potentially threatening to us. NONETHELESS, we STILL wanted to craft a government capable of DOING the very things we ask governments to do. We were seeking a BALANCE, not just to hobble government forever.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I hope I am wrong I just don't see it that way though.

Ok. But the words in the EO say what they actually say. So, I don't see how you can read them any other way.

You're still ok in my book, even if I did speak abrasively to you.

I'm feeling a little guilty at the moment and a little contrite.

Sorry.

But the words in the EO say what they actually say. So, I don't see how you can read them any other way.

I have a strong sense of perception. I pick up on things that others miss.

 

[paulitician]

Ridiculously unnecessary action. Big Brother just keeps gettting bigger. How sad.