Well , he signed the NDAA

[uscitizen]

A real shame that this was passeed by the republican controlled house...

 

[The T]

A real shame that this was passeed by the republican controlled house...

And a Democrat SENATE...siged by a DEMOCRAT (Marxist) POTUS.

Game, Set, Match...

*IDIOT*

 

[uscitizen]

A real shame that this was passeed by the republican controlled house...

And a Democrat SENATE...siged by a DEMOCRAT (Marxist) POTUS.

Game, Set, Match...

*IDIOT*

LOL.

But the republicans could have stopped it if they wanted.
Shared blame baby!

But then I think all political party's suck.

 

[The T]

A real shame that this was passeed by the republican controlled house...

And a Democrat SENATE...siged by a DEMOCRAT (Marxist) POTUS.

Game, Set, Match...

*IDIOT*

LOL.

But the republicans could have stopped it if they wanted.
Shared blame baby!

But then I think all political party's suck.

THUS YOU missed my point.

YOU remain an IDIOT.

 

[dblack]

A real shame that this was passeed by the republican controlled house...

Yup! And signed by the hopey, changey one himself. We are so fucked. Authoritarian, police state, warmongering sunsabitches on both sides of the aisle.

 

[MikeK]

Mike how can it be upheld to override the constitution?

I don't have the legal skills needed to comprehend the intricacies and explain them to you. But you might wish to read what Jonathan Turley and Naomi Wolff have to say about it. They are legal scholars -- and both are Liberal Democrats.

Jonathan Turley: The NDAA's Historic Assault on American Liberty - Democratic Underground

How Congress is Signing its own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest bill | Naomi Wolf


What I know is Obama let BushCo off the hook, which ensures the same kind of criminality in the future. And while Obama won't misuse the powers inherent by the Patriot Act, and now this NDAA, what about the future?

As to how it can override the Constitution; how did they do it in Jose Padilla's case?

No way man! They're fringe whack jobs like Ron Paul. Real, red-blooded 'liberal Democrats' love war and the police state just as much as their Republican brethren.

The (only) reason I mentioned that Turley and Wolf are Liberal Democrats is to assure readers they are not Republicans who are biased against Obama. Turley and Wolf are not "fringe whack jobs." They are legal experts who understand the hidden pitfalls in this legislation and have taken the time to explain it. If you are interested in understanding these pitfalls, read what they have to say!

 

[dblack]

I don't have the legal skills needed to comprehend the intricacies and explain them to you. But you might wish to read what Jonathan Turley and Naomi Wolff have to say about it. They are legal scholars -- and both are Liberal Democrats.

Jonathan Turley: The NDAA's Historic Assault on American Liberty - Democratic Underground

How Congress is Signing its own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest bill | Naomi Wolf


What I know is Obama let BushCo off the hook, which ensures the same kind of criminality in the future. And while Obama won't misuse the powers inherent by the Patriot Act, and now this NDAA, what about the future?

As to how it can override the Constitution; how did they do it in Jose Padilla's case?

No way man! They're fringe whack jobs like Ron Paul. Real, red-blooded 'liberal Democrats' love war and the police state just as much as their Republican brethren.

The (only) reason I mentioned that Turley and Wolf are Liberal Democrats is to assure readers they are not Republicans who are biased against Obama. Turley and Wolf are not "fringe whack jobs." They are legal experts who understand the hidden pitfalls in this legislation and have taken the time to explain it. If you are interested in understanding these pitfalls, read what they have to say!

Sorry. I forgot to use my sarcasm tags.

 

[ShackledNation]

This bill seems terrible. But I am not entirely convinced that it can apply to US citizens (and I have read a ton of arguments claiming to debunk that myth, but I am not 100% convinced).

"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."

Even if existing law and authorities already allow for such actions, then this bill really doesn't seem to change anything.

If this bill does what many fear, I am disgusted but not surprised it has happened. But I need more clarification before I go all crazy.

 

[KissMy]

"Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision."

"The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation."

 

[KissMy]

I know how we can correct this law. Since CDO's are considered WMD's “financial weapons of mass destruction" Now that the new NDAA bill has become the law of the land, can we just arrest, torture & kill all the Wallstreet Bankers & government officials we believe are guilty without proof or trial? I bet if we did this enough one of 2 things would happen. These people would either hand over their plunder or they would get rid of that stupid law & give us our rights back.

Any of you guys in the FBI or law enforcement. Maybe we should just form a posse & round them up.

 

[KissMy]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mPZlysCAm0&feature=related"]Obama Justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians![/ame]

 

[AquaAthena]

Things are about to get ugly people. You Obama supporters just say one thing against this country and you to might be detained!!! Wonder how you will feel about him if you or one of your family members gets in trouble for free speech! BREAKING: Obama Signs Homeland Battlefield Bill Into Law

At this point in time I hope Newt blasts him and Mitt till the cows come home and IF Obama wins a second term, those who voted for him will get what they deserve and those of us who didn't will also get what they deserve, but we will survive, laughing all the way BACK to sanity and home in `16..... I "do" think the GOP will take the Senate.

 

[KissMy]

Things are about to get ugly people. You Obama supporters just say one thing against this country and you to might be detained!!! Wonder how you will feel about him if you or one of your family members gets in trouble for free speech! BREAKING: Obama Signs Homeland Battlefield Bill Into Law

At this point in time I hope Newt blasts him and Mitt till the cows come home and IF Obama wins a second term, those who voted for him will get what they deserve and those of us who didn't will also get what they deserve, but we will survive, laughing all the way BACK to sanity and home in `16..... I "do" think the GOP will take the Senate.

I love how they always call Ron Paul a kook & say he went full retard when he tells us what our government is doing to us. Then as always Ron Paul's warnings come true.

I am going to write Ron Paul in if he is not on my ballot in 2012.

 

[FireFly]

Obama took our rights & stuck them up our ass & broke it off.

All the whiles his Wall Street buddies are untouchable.

 

[katsung47]

National Defense Authorization Act Outrage Continues To Grow Online
David Seaman |January 05, 2012

In case you've been living under a particularly large and comfy rock, the NDAA is a radical and dangerous bill -- which Barack Hussein Obama quietly signed into law on New Year's Eve, while almost every American was preoccupied with New Year's binge drinking. (His administration had previously vowed to veto the NDAA, before strangely reversing course and signing it into law. He issued a signing statement saying his administration would not use the controversial indefinite detention provisions. This promise, however, is not legally binding -- and it also does not prevent future Presidents from detaining and torturing American citizens without the right to a trial or attorney, and without bringing formal charges against them. The signing statement is the legal equivalent of a Post-it note affixed to a manuscript.)

National Defense Authorization Act Outrage Continues To Grow Online - Business Insider

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In order to get uninterrupted funding for the military, the president had no choice but to agree to the Repub's demands for this. Because President Obama is against it, he did what almost all presidents have done in the past - he added his own signing statement.

those who don't like this should complain to the Repubs who forced it. Not that it will do any good. This is the underhanded, sneaky way the pubs get what they want - blackmail

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, there is nothing in the NDAA which authorizes the president, the military, or any other official entity to detain Americans or LPRAs indefinitely without due process or benefit of counsel:

'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…

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 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Obama’s signing statement acknowledges this fact, and like Obama future presidents will not have the authority to detain Americans.

The idea that the NDAA authorizes indefinite detention of Americans is an ignorant rightist contrivance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In order to get uninterrupted funding for the military, the president had no choice but to agree to the Repub's demands for this. Because President Obama is against it, he did what almost all presidents have done in the past - he added his own signing statement.

those who don't like this should complain to the Repubs who forced it. Not that it will do any good. This is the underhanded, sneaky way the pubs get what they want - blackmail

He could have made good on his veto threat. Congress would have stayed in session and passed a bill that would give temp funding to the military, then come back and done the NDAA right. Defending the signing of the law makes you no different than the jerks who wrote it, you support indefinite detention of American citizens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, there is nothing in the NDAA which authorizes the president, the military, or any other official entity to detain Americans or LPRAs indefinitely without due process or benefit of counsel:

'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…

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 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Obama’s signing statement acknowledges this fact, and like Obama future presidents will not have the authority to detain Americans.

The idea that the NDAA authorizes indefinite detention of Americans is an ignorant rightist contrivance.

Really? Here is what he actually 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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

Can you point out where he said that the law does not authorize detention of citizens? What he specifically said was that he would not do it, not that it cannot be done. Tell me something, if, as you assert, I am propagating an ignorant rightist contrivance, he felt the need to clarify he would not do it?

You might also want to inform the ACLU that they are ignorant rightists who are contriving a lie in order to help the Republicans win the next election.

NDAA | American Civil Liberties Union » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union

Idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

liar.

Show how this...
has been suspended.

Let's you and me meet and settle this shit? what do you say?

A... way to avoid answering the question, dipstick. Got no actual proof, so you avoid the response. Typical; of you.

B... ohhhhhh an internet threat. I'm so totally scared

I don't make threats