Coming Soon: Americans In Gitmo. Ever Get The Feeling You've Been Cheated?...

[paulitician]

Do you still think this President is the person you voted for when he was railing against the Patriot Act as a Candidate?


Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill.

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

More:
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial | World news | The Guardian
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

 

[bitterlyclingin]

(I'm sure Barry would just love to get his hands on an authorization for him to use U.S. drones on Rush or Sean, Bill or Michael, whenever he saw the need, especially if the U.S. electorate goes against him next November and his friends in#OWS are rioting in the streets in his behalf.)

"As many of you know, Congress is working to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. One of the provisions in the bill, pertaining to our terrorist detainee policy, has created a stir among Constitutionally-minded citizens.

Thank you to Red State for allowing me space to clarify what is and what is not in this provision. Sometimes when we feel strongly about an important issue, such as our liberty, the debate can be muddled by hyperbole and passion. It is my sincere hope that we can use this opportunity to give you the exact details on what this provision seeks to accomplish, so that we are not rejecting an entire defense bill –which provides pay and supplies to our troops- based on incorrect or inflated statements in the media.

Understand that I share your concerns about government intrusion on our civil liberties. I do not believe we must choose between our security and our freedom, but I am also keenly aware of the fact that we must be smart about combating terrorists like the Underwear or Times Square bomber who seek to exploit our free society in order to do us harm.

The provision we included in the defense authorization act does not address or extend new authority to detain U.S. Citizens. What it does do is affirm that the military may lawfully detain foreign individuals who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States, as stated by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It does not, under any circumstances, strip or remove habeas rights – as some organizations like the ALCU have claimed. Anyone -foreign born or not- who is detained by the military or civilian law enforcement, is free to openly challenge their detention before a federal judge.

In cases such as the Christmas Day Bomber, where a foreign terrorist is caught in a plot to attack the United States, the provision establishes a new requirement for military custody. This is to ensure that terrorists cannot be brought to American shores. The provision only applies to individuals who are part of, or substantially supporting, Al Qaeda or associated forces AND have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. I’m sure we agree that it is vital that terrorists bent on waging war against American freedom are treated according to the laws of war, not treated like simple criminals.

The provision further provides a waiver for the President when such a requirement is not in the national security interests of the United States. Most importantly, the provision explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement. The President cannot, under any circumstances, waive the U.S. citizen exemption.

I have included a link to the House Armed Services Committee Republicans website, which has a summary of our detainee provisions included for your review"


Myths on the New Detainee Policy | RedState

 

[paulitician]

This quote really sums it up perfectly...

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

 

[Katzndogz]

Human rights groups made the first mistake in extending all those human rights to terrorists. Americans compounded the mistake by the concept of so many terrorists being US citizens.

 

[paulitician]

What a country. Police State U.S.A.

 

[Politician]

(I'm sure Barry would just love to get his hands on an authorization for him to use U.S. drones on Rush or Sean, Bill or Michael, whenever he saw the need, especially if the U.S. electorate goes against him next November and his friends in#OWS are rioting in the streets in his behalf.)

"As many of you know, Congress is working to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. One of the provisions in the bill, pertaining to our terrorist detainee policy, has created a stir among Constitutionally-minded citizens.

Thank you to Red State for allowing me space to clarify what is and what is not in this provision. Sometimes when we feel strongly about an important issue, such as our liberty, the debate can be muddled by hyperbole and passion. It is my sincere hope that we can use this opportunity to give you the exact details on what this provision seeks to accomplish, so that we are not rejecting an entire defense bill –which provides pay and supplies to our troops- based on incorrect or inflated statements in the media.

Understand that I share your concerns about government intrusion on our civil liberties. I do not believe we must choose between our security and our freedom, but I am also keenly aware of the fact that we must be smart about combating terrorists like the Underwear or Times Square bomber who seek to exploit our free society in order to do us harm.

The provision we included in the defense authorization act does not address or extend new authority to detain U.S. Citizens. What it does do is affirm that the military may lawfully detain foreign individuals who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States, as stated by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It does not, under any circumstances, strip or remove habeas rights – as some organizations like the ALCU have claimed. Anyone -foreign born or not- who is detained by the military or civilian law enforcement, is free to openly challenge their detention before a federal judge.

In cases such as the Christmas Day Bomber, where a foreign terrorist is caught in a plot to attack the United States, the provision establishes a new requirement for military custody. This is to ensure that terrorists cannot be brought to American shores. The provision only applies to individuals who are part of, or substantially supporting, Al Qaeda or associated forces AND have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. I’m sure we agree that it is vital that terrorists bent on waging war against American freedom are treated according to the laws of war, not treated like simple criminals.

The provision further provides a waiver for the President when such a requirement is not in the national security interests of the United States. Most importantly, the provision explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement. The President cannot, under any circumstances, waive the U.S. citizen exemption.

I have included a link to the House Armed Services Committee Republicans website, which has a summary of our detainee provisions included for your review"


Myths on the New Detainee Policy | RedState

This is a catastrophic move for our country by doing this. Redstate has been outed as misleading in the facts about this ACT not pertaining to American citizens, it does. Mainstream news outlets like The Hill, as well as blogs like Red State, are still pretending the indefinite detention provision doesn’t apply to American citizens, even though three of the bill’s primary sponsors, Senator Carl Levin, Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham, said it does during speeches on the Senate floor.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

Senator McCain also told Rand Paul during a hearing on the bill that American citizens could be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely, “no matter who they are.”

I urge you to call your lawmakers in your districts to complain about this. Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto this. The president is disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. That is what has made the United States stand out as a free country for it's citizens. Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.

 

[paulitician]

(I'm sure Barry would just love to get his hands on an authorization for him to use U.S. drones on Rush or Sean, Bill or Michael, whenever he saw the need, especially if the U.S. electorate goes against him next November and his friends in#OWS are rioting in the streets in his behalf.)

"As many of you know, Congress is working to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. One of the provisions in the bill, pertaining to our terrorist detainee policy, has created a stir among Constitutionally-minded citizens.

Thank you to Red State for allowing me space to clarify what is and what is not in this provision. Sometimes when we feel strongly about an important issue, such as our liberty, the debate can be muddled by hyperbole and passion. It is my sincere hope that we can use this opportunity to give you the exact details on what this provision seeks to accomplish, so that we are not rejecting an entire defense bill –which provides pay and supplies to our troops- based on incorrect or inflated statements in the media.

Understand that I share your concerns about government intrusion on our civil liberties. I do not believe we must choose between our security and our freedom, but I am also keenly aware of the fact that we must be smart about combating terrorists like the Underwear or Times Square bomber who seek to exploit our free society in order to do us harm.

The provision we included in the defense authorization act does not address or extend new authority to detain U.S. Citizens. What it does do is affirm that the military may lawfully detain foreign individuals who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States, as stated by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It does not, under any circumstances, strip or remove habeas rights – as some organizations like the ALCU have claimed. Anyone -foreign born or not- who is detained by the military or civilian law enforcement, is free to openly challenge their detention before a federal judge.

In cases such as the Christmas Day Bomber, where a foreign terrorist is caught in a plot to attack the United States, the provision establishes a new requirement for military custody. This is to ensure that terrorists cannot be brought to American shores. The provision only applies to individuals who are part of, or substantially supporting, Al Qaeda or associated forces AND have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. I’m sure we agree that it is vital that terrorists bent on waging war against American freedom are treated according to the laws of war, not treated like simple criminals.

The provision further provides a waiver for the President when such a requirement is not in the national security interests of the United States. Most importantly, the provision explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement. The President cannot, under any circumstances, waive the U.S. citizen exemption.

I have included a link to the House Armed Services Committee Republicans website, which has a summary of our detainee provisions included for your review"


Myths on the New Detainee Policy | RedState

This is a catastrophic move for our country by doing this. Redstate has been outed as misleading in the facts about this ACT not pertaining to American citizens, it does. Mainstream news outlets like The Hill, as well as neo-con blogs like Red State, are still pretending the indefinite detention provision doesn’t apply to American citizens, even though three of the bill’s primary sponsors, Senator Carl Levin, Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham, said it does during speeches on the Senate floor.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

It was the White House itself that demanded Section 1031 apply to American citizens.said Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee stated this:

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,”

Senator McCain also told Rand Paul during a hearing on the bill that American citizens could be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely, “no matter who they are.”

I urge you to call your lawmakers in your districts to complain about this. Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto this. The president is disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. That is what has made the United States stand out as a free country for it's citizens. Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.

Seems like such a rigged system. Now more than ever,i fully accept the assertions in the movie 'The Obama Deception.' The game really is fixed.

 

[Vaard]

damn obama for an amendment that a republican put in there!

i am so mad at obama for the things republicans did........

 

[paulitician]

damn obama for an amendment that a republican put in there!

i am so mad at obama for the things republicans did........

Democrats are supporting this and apparently Obama is too. The Democrats control the U.S. Senate. If he opposes this,he will Veto it.

 

[G.T.]

Call the waaaambulance

 

[Politician]

Call the waaaambulance

Are you in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again for the slow stupid and brain damaged...... US citizens are exempt from arrest or detention by military personnel inside the US.

Even if they were not the Courts would have nullified the provision.

 

[paulitician]

Once again for the slow stupid and brain damaged...... US citizens are exempt from arrest or detention by military personnel inside the US.

Even if they were not the Courts would have nullified the provision.

Seriously Sgt, I respect you but do we really need this? How much more Big Government control do we really need. Don't they have enough control already? I mean since 911,they've taken control of everything with massive expansion of Government. How many more agencies and laws do we need to stop Terrorism? When does it end?

All this because a few Terrorist assholes attacked us one time 10yrs. ago? I mean how long are they gonna milk that and continue taking our freedom away? My God,enough is enough already. Government is big and powerful enough. This new law is just ridiculously unnecessary. How many more rights are we gonna have to give up because a couple of Terrorists attacked us 10yrs. ago?

 

[grunt11b]

Prison Planet.com » Obama’s U-Turn On Indefinite Detention Bill a “Historic Tragedy” For Rights

Prison Planet.com » Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

Watch out OWS, they will be coming for your non-peaceful communist filled protests next, and then use you as a precursor to bag innocent and peaceful Tea party members. We all know how this is going to play out, and OWS was and is nothing more than some shit stirrers giving the government an excuse to incarcerate honest and peaceful Americans protesting what is going on in Washington. As soon as I seen Van Jones was behind these OWS protests I knew it wasn't going to be good. But that is okay, we still have the guns, even if they rape the ballot.

 

[paulitician]

How many more rights are they gonna steal from us in the name of 911? My God,it happened 10 friggin years ago. I thought we were fighting all those Wars over there so we could be free over here? The exact opposite has happened for God's sake. We're less free now than we were before the Wars. So how much longer are they gonna milk 911 to help create their Police State? How much bigger and more powerful can our Government get? And for what? Because a couple of Terrorist assholes attacked us one time 10yrs. ago? Come on America,get it together. Let's take our freedom back.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have been told repeatedly that the new law EXEMPTS US Citizens. But you keep making thread after thread claiming we are all in danger. Are you brain dead?

 

[G.T.]

You have been told repeatedly that the new law EXEMPTS US Citizens. But you keep making thread after thread claiming we are all in danger. Are you brain dead?

he's quite braindead

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats are already dreaming about shipping republicans over there. Don't think you will get a complaint from them. You won't.

 

[Katzndogz]

You have been told repeatedly that the new law EXEMPTS US Citizens. But you keep making thread after thread claiming we are all in danger. Are you brain dead?

True the law AT ONE TIME exempted citizens, but obama demanded that it apply to citizens so it was changed.

» ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Heads To Obama’s Desk As White House Drops Veto Threat Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[rdean]

Do you still think this President is the person you voted for when he was railing against the Patriot Act as a Candidate?


Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill.

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

More:
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial | World news | The Guardian
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

I remember when the generals told us that Gitmo was being used as a "recruiting tool" for terrorists and said it should be shut down. Republicans agreed until Obama began to shut it down. Then Republicans screamed that Obama wanted to put terrorists in our back years and on our city streets. Republicans terrorized Americans so well that the tide of public opinion forced this administration to keep Gitmo open. Now get this. Even though it threatens the safety of our soldiers, Republicans see bringing Obama down as more important than the safety of our young American men and women. Even while insisting they aren't, Republicans have worked unceasingly on the side of al Qaeda creating much more damage than al Qaeda could ever dream of.