Thread: Obama pledges to exempt Americans from indefinite detention law

President Barack Obama signed on New Year’s Eve a bill that gives the military authority to detain American citizens indefinitely and without criminal charge, breaking with the stroke of a pen one of his many campaign promises, even as he pledged that the new powers the bill grants will not be applied to U.S. citizens.

The provision was just one part of a massive $662 billion defense spending authorization that funds the military, penalizes Iran’s central bank and freezes military aid to Pakistan, among other things.

The president’s opponents in Congress, including some Democrats, attached the indefinite detention provision to force the administration to either accept a much heavier load of terrorism suspects, many who would be heading to the Guantanamo Bay military prison, or veto the bill and stand accused of opposing funds for the troops.

President Obama issued a veto threat after a provision was added that required all terrorism suspects be automatically rendered into military custody — a fundamental change to the criminal justice system that members of the administration warned could stymie other agencies or put investigations at risk.

Obama agreed to sign it after language was left in the bill that allows the administration to dedicate terror prisoners to civilian courts instead of military custody. In its final form, the bill stipulates that all terrorism suspects are to be handled by the military unless the administration decides otherwise and explains its reasoning to Congress.

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens,” President Obama said in a signing statement, a tactic presidents occasionally use to clarify how they interpret laws. “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.”

Obama went on to explain that as he understands the indefinite detention provision, his administration is being given “broad authority to determine how best to implement it,” which he said would be used to ensure American citizens are exempt.

“I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat,” Obama wrote.

“As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention.”

The signing statement, while likely a relief to some of the president’s more liberal allies, will not assuage all criticism. As one writer for the progressive blog FireDogLake pointed out, future administrations may interpret the law differently, applying a wholly new standard of who should or should not be held in military custody.

“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,” Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, explained in a media advisory. “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.”

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” he added. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today.”

Stephen C. Webster is the senior editor of Raw Story, and is based out of Austin, Texas. He previously worked as the associate editor of The Lone Star Iconoclast in Crawford, Texas, where he covered state politics and the peace movement’s resurgence at the start of the Iraq war. Webster has also contributed to publications such as True/Slant, Austin Monthly, The Dallas Business Journal, The Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Weekly, The News Connection and others. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenCWebster.



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/3...detention-law/

"Hi, I'm Chucky, and I'm your friend till the end. Hidey-ho!"




The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is mind-boggling,


"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," said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

"It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee...we removed it at the request of the administration," said Levine, emphasizing, "It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to."

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a "battlefield," allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. The bill states that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.

An amendment introduced by Democratic Senator Feinstein, described as "cleverly worded nonsense" by Congressman Justin Amash, does not protect Americans from being subject to the provision.

"The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) is dangerously misleading," writes John Wood of Change.org, which is running a petition to oppose the signing of the bill. "Don't be fooled: In the text of 1031(e), "Nothing in this section shall be construed...", the only word that matters is "construed" because the Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe the law. The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) permits citizens to be imprisoned without evidence or a trial forever, if the Supreme Court does not EXPLICITLY repeal 1031."

The Obama administration never had a problem with Section 1031 of the bill and indeed acted to ensure it applied to American citizens. Doubts over whether or not Obama would veto the bill only arose out of issues with Section 1032, which pertains to the military being required to take custody of individuals.

"Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. Obama has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment," writes Wood.

The notion that the administration lobbied for language that would have protected American citizens and legal residents from indefinite detention to be removed from the bill is unsurprising given Obama's policy with regard to predator drone strikes.

The White House has asserted the right to carry out state-sponsored assassination anywhere in the world without having to provide any evidence or go through any legal process. The administration merely has to state that the target is a terrorist and it doesn't matter whether they are an American citizen or not, as we saw in the case of American-born Anwar al-Awlaki and his son who were both killed earlier this year.

Indeed, at the start of the month, Obama administration lawyers reaffirmed their backing for state sponsored assassination.

Congress has until tomorrow to block the law before it heads to President Obama's desk. Putting faith in an administration that has formalized state-sponsored assassination of U.S. citizens without trial to block the 'indefinite detention' provision of the NDAA bill is naive to say the least.

In the Netherlands similar Snatch & Grab policies are in place;
The Dutch veteran Sietze Planting has been apprehended for no justifyable reason, being incarcerated without any charge or reason known to the public, nor to Planting himself.

Wednesday, December 14th, Planting will have some sort of court trial behind closed doors.
Normally these trials are publicly held. This time no one is allowed to witness his fate. All we know is the Dutch DOJ wants to subject Planting to a committed psychological examination, in which Planting refused to participate.

Just as in the United States, now also countries in Europe have similar policies in place which look like Bill S1867.

We will keep a very close eye to the Sietze Planting's case and are hoping he is not just dissappearing in a black hole as has been set by the NWO implemented LAW world wide.

Wake up people, this concerns you too. No one is safe under these regulations.
Constitutions are suspended and shredded, get that very good thru your minds.

The World Super State is nearing its completion, wake up the people around you!!!!


Read Full Story
Reported by Charles Gillespie
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/....htm?From=News


Well if the pinko Presidante' doesn't want to enforce that law why did he sign it???

Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_ND...#ixzz1iJlFHZOZ


Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so

Sunday, January 01, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law "does not apply to American citizens."

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can't even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under "existing authorities."

Let's parse it intelligently, shall we?

First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...)

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;

(d) CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the "or" operator. This statement essentially means:

• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the "authority of the President" to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:

(e) 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.

This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the "or" operator:

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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.

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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.

In other words, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand "existing authorities."

What are those "existing authorities?"

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens
As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it's widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...)

Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES..."

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama's executive "kill list" justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:




Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_ND...#ixzz1iJlNDZGK

Part 2 of

Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_ND...#ixzz1iJlZXHh6


The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President's expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn't change that view. (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?no...)

Follow more from Rep. Justin Amash at Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash

Storing food could get you labeled as a terror suspect
So then, you might be wondering, "What kinds of activities could get me accused of being involved in supporting terrorism?"

And here's the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested, detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama:

• Criticizing the federal government.
• Using cash to purchase things.
• Storing food and medical supplies.
• Owning a firearm and storing ammunition.
• Standing still and minding your own business near a government building.
• Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building.
• Using a pair of binoculars.
• Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab.
• Protesting your government (or Wall Street).
• Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash.

You see, under existing authority, you could be labeled a "terror suspect" for engaging in any of these activities, and then LEGALLY arrested, detained, interrogated or even killed by the U.S. government, all under Obama's authority (or whatever next President takes over in Washington and perhaps does far worse things with that power...)

You are already enemy combatants, folks. The NDAA does absolutely nothing to protect you from its provisions. In fact, it openly states that it does not limit existing authorities -- authorities which already claim the right to subject you to indefinite military detention merely for being "suspected" of involvement with "terrorism," which could be interpreted to apply in practically any situation.

Reading between the lines
Get this through your heads, folks: to properly understand the NDAA (or any other bill), you have to learn to think like lawyers and tyrants.

They don't just put language right out in plain view that says, "Americans may never be arrested or detained without due process." Instead, they create a web of legalese statements that are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This is designed to hide their true intentions, not to make them clear.

Furthermore, if the bill actually intended to protect Americans from the NDAA, then it should have contained language saying something like, "American citizens are specifically excluded from all the provisions of this bill, in its entirety."

I'll bet anyone a thousand dollars they won't find language like that in the bill. Because it doesn't exist! And the reason it doesn't exist is because the NDAA is clearly intended to apply to American citizens.

The writers of the bill have managed to fool a lot of everyday people who seem unable to parse language and read plain English with any depth of understanding. That is as much a failure of America's public education system as anything else. I find it astonishing that today's citizens can't even read and understand the grammatical structure of sentences written in plain English. This alone is a highly disturbing subject that must be addressed another day. For now, it's enough just to realize that the NDAA really does apply to you, me, and all our neighbors and friends. In signing it, Obama has cemented his place in history as the enabler of government-sponsored mass murder of its own citizens.

History does repeat itself after all, huh? Hitler, Stalin, Mao and now "Obama the enabler." While Obama himself probably won't engage in the mass murder of American citizens, have no illusions that a future President will try to use the powers enacted by Obama to carry out such crimes. Gingrich, anyone?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_ND...#ixzz1iJlZXHh6

Of course, Obama would never ever lie to us, would he?

Great, just what we need... a PLEDGE from a corrupt lying politician and dictator like Barack Obama.

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Great, just what we need... a PLEDGE from a corrupt lying politician and dictator like Barack Obama.

W

Well sure!! Makes ya all warm, safe, and fuzzy in side don't it?
Damn, there should NEVER be any question about whats in these laws these imbeciles pass!
Its our damn country and they work for us!
I am so tired of chasing these morons around the house like juvenile delinquent children!
"What did you do?' "What did you do now?"

An Ohio Officer Asks: Are We Going to Violate the Oath We Have Taken and Enforce the NDAA?

James B. Singleton is a Peace Officer in the State of Ohio, and also a State chapter officer for Ohio Oath Keepers. Like many other men in uniform who are faithful to God and want to remain faithful to the oath they have taken, he is concerned about the monstrous violation of our liberties that is the NDAA, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democrat President. He has written an open letter for police and sheriffs in our nation, posted on the Oath Keepers web-site. I re-post the letter here. Please share with your friends who are in uniform, whether sheriffs, police, or in the military.

Ohio Oath Keepers

Office of the Secretary

Law Enforcement Liaison

Greetings and Salutations,

It’s unfortunate that I have to write this letter, however in light of current events it is inevitable. Just days ago the United States Congress passed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) this in itself was necessary. However in this bill was an insidious piece of verbiage that for all intents and purposes destroys the foundation of everything we believe in and took an oath to uphold. To me the possibility of those citizens and others under my protection being spirited off in the middle of the night by agents of the military, then being summarily incarcerated without access to judge or jury are insufferable and intolerable acts.

It will be argued that this only applies to foreign persons or others suspected of terrorism, but there are far too many avenues available to apply this to any group to which any administration may take umbrage with. When growing up and especially during our training in the academy we are instructed that the constitutional rights of all must be upheld at all times, as well as the respect for all people we come in contact with or represent. This section of the NDAA attempts to remove those rights which are enumerated and given to us by our creator, and places them in the hands of the office of the President of the United States to be disregarded at his whim.

And in those few words lies a conundrum, do we as police officers, sheriffs, deputies and others who have taken the oath to uphold and defend the constitution, now turn our back on that very oath? Do we now turn against the very same people that entrusted us with a most sacred duty to serve and protect them? If in fact we follow a rule of law such as this bill enacts, it would mean that the oath that we all took meant nothing. We are obliged to follow all lawful orders given to us, but we cannot do this blindly. History has seen the result of these acts and has judged them accordingly. I can only ask all of you to take a moment to reflect upon all that we are taught and hold dear, the people we serve deserve and demand our highest respect for it is through them and they alone that we were given this oath. Do we simply turn a blind eye for the sake of political expediency and lose our respect? Is a few pieces of silver so dear that we would sell our honor for it? How will we explain to our friends and loved ones why members of our community were spirited away or how will they see us when they realize (that when their time comes) we won’t be there for them?

I believe that if and when those orders come, I cannot in good faith and in strict observance to my oath, allow myself to be a part of them. I would hope that members of our military in accordance to the articles of the UCMJ, would also refuse them as well. When that time comes I will do exactly as I have sworn to do, I will serve and protect those under my care, so help me God.

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying,

Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?

Then said I, Here am I; send me. Isaiah 6:8

Respectfully Submitted

James B. Singleton

__________________

Secretary Ohio Oath Keepers

LE Liason – Ohio

Read more: An Ohio Officer Asks: Are We Going to Violate the Oath We Have Taken and Enforce the NDAA? An Ohio Officer Asks: Are We Going to Violate the Oath We Have Taken and Enforce the NDAA?


Read more: An Ohio Officer Asks: Are We Going to Violate the Oath We Have Taken and Enforce the NDAA? An Ohio Officer Asks: Are We Going to Violate the Oath We Have Taken and Enforce the NDAA?