Thread: Obama Announces He can Imprison Anyone He Chooses…IF He Chooses to do so

Obama Announces He can Imprison Anyone He Chooses…IF He Chooses to do so
68Share 0digg
WITH HELP FROM A COMPLICIT CONGRESS

by Sher Zieve, ©2012

Is Obama planning to detain people he deems to be "terrorists?"

(Jan. 2, 2012) — Today’s column will be short and to the point. It has finally arrived, folks. I’d hoped I was wrong about it but, tragically and chillingly, I was not. Obama has just announced–in his own words–that he can detain (imprison) anyone he wants with the new unconstitutional NDAA bill passed by Congress and signed by the now self-proclaimed Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. Note: As usual, the Marxist-media doesn’t care and is, instead, jubilant that Dear Leader Obama has finally done away with that pesky Constitution.

In a statement published 31 December on his White House site, Mr. Obama states: “Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” He goes on to state: “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” Note: Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) advised in the below YouTube video that the White House and Barack Obama DEMANDED the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents. So, the collaborative Congress gave him the dictatorial powers he has wanted since he usurped the Office of POTUS.

The now formal Dictator of the USA Obama also disingenuously stated: “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground [yes, it does] and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then.”

“Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” 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.” Note: But, it does.

“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.” Note: No, it did not. In fact, per Democrat Senator Carl Levin, just the opposite occurred–as Obama demanded protections for US citizens and legal residents be removed before he would sign the bill! Obama continues with: “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Translation: “I may choose to be a beneficent dictator, if I wish to do so.”

“Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values [they are not ’traditions and values’ they are US law] 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.” Note: This is another abject ObamaLie. The new revised NDAA bill, which Obama demanded, effectively renders the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights–and the US Constitution, itself–null and void.

We have now reached the end of the road as a free country. As never before, only two choices now remain We-the-People: “If we refuse to rise up and fight, we’ll be forced to lie down and die.”

“And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable”–Isaiah 3:5

© 2012, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.




http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/...oses-to-do-so/


Kick them all OUT!!!!!!

535 seats open in 2012..and a couple of traitors in the big house..your choice!!!!!!

we need to be imprisoning these terrorists that are in DC. they are the real threat

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:

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...)


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_ND...#ixzz1iVYezpML

Part 2 of Myth busted...

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?


Stay informed! FREE subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_ND...#ixzz1iVYoFJKk


Sorry folks but I just have to pound it home because it makes me sick sick sick...to death....535 job openings in 2012...will we make a difference????

This Is The Section Of The NDAA That Is Causing People To Freak Out




For 49 years the National Defense Authorization Act was a simple law signed off on by the President to give the Department of Defense the money it needed to get through another 12 months of spending.

This year, the Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) and senior member John McCain (R.-Ariz.) crafted provisions for the bill that many said would erode the 5th Amendment.

Although Obama initially promised to veto any bill containing the Armed Services amendments, he ultimately signed the full package into law on New Year's Eve while vacationing with his family in Hawaii.

So why exactly are people freaking out about this bill?

While it is easy to believe that because most of us aren't terrorists or breaking any laws, that we have no reason to be concerned — we took a close look at the language of the 2012 NDAA amendments to see where exactly the facts lie.

Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."
Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.
Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

The bottom line is the government can imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with terrorism. This power is open to wide interpretation and could certainly be abused.

After signing the NDAA, Obama released a statement saying "the [NDAA] does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

This appears to be untrue. The September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows "[T]he President ... to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The connection between detaining those responsible for 9/11, and imprisoning any "associated force" that acts like the terrorist group, seems unclear.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/langu...#ixzz1ickFgGjx




http://www.businessinsider.com/langu...g%202012-01-05

National Defense Authorization Act Outrage Continues To Grow Online




this is day three of living in post-NDAA America.

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.)

How bad is this law, really? Here are some experts:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul on NDAA: "...bold and dangerous attempt to establish martial law in America."

Rep. Justin Amash: NDAA was "carefully crafted to mislead the public."

Amnesty International: "Provisions that were snuck into the bill with little notice from mainstream media could spell indefinite detention without a hearing, keep Guantanamo open, and hinder fair trials."

And Americans, despite some pro-Obama spin to the contrary, are definitely targeted by NDAA's indefinite detention provisions. As Salon columnist and constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald explained: "Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill: This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood."

The American broadcast media has been eerily silent on NDAA's passage into law, despite the fact that foreign newspapers and broadcast networks have been covering this as one of their top international stories.

Yesterday, however, FOX News began to let NDAA mentions seep into their news coverage. Which reminds me, folks! There is a grassroots movement to convince News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch to invite me on FOX News, so that I can discuss the dangers posed by the NDAA, and SOPA, which is a radical Internet censorship bill Congress plans to vote on later this month. (SOPA would make online criticism of NDAA subject to government censorship and deletion. Profoundly scary. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has warned that SOPA "would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world.")

This Murdoch direct appeal isn't too crazy a request, by the way: I've been on FOX twice before, once on FOX's now defunct nationally syndicated morning show (which was a nightmare; dishonest producers), and then on FOX News proper (amazing experience; everyone was 'nice,' and the anchor even personally walked me out of the building after the show to talk more about the issue we were discussing on-air -- passionate journalism!).

But enough self-aggrandizing for one morning! Here are NDAA reactions from others around the Web -- online outrage has been steadily growing, as Americans realize their cherished civil rights protections and Bill of Rights are now as obsolete as last year's iProduct.

Rupert Murdoch: "Obama decision on terrorist detention very courageous - and dead right!" via his Twitter. Reactions to this rather contrarian view were not polite, to say the least.

Author Naomi Wolf, with a warning for Congress: "I never thought I would have to write this: but - incredibly - Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. 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. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: A roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.

They may have supported this bill because - although it's hard to believe - they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that 'at most', low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: History shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves."

Tumblr user Raychel, who has posted reaction to NDAA: "Seeing as the NDAA now applies to American citizens, like I said, I don't know if it's such a great idea to expose myself to the point of my writings being published in an article ha ha! What are your thoughts on it?

I first found out about NDAA through my research on Ron Paul via YouTube. Watching debates, interviews, etc. I stumbled across a lot of videos that were definitely not getting enough hype. That being said, no I don't think the traditional media has done it's (sic) job of bringing it to the public's attention. It's done quite a good job of the opposite, actually. The media is showing us stories about missing pets, celebrities acting like banshees, and the top rated videos on YouTube (which obviously aren't the Ron Paul videos I found, sadly!) I've noticed over the years that the media is definitely keeping secrets from the people. Things we deserve to know go unmentioned, but you bet if a dog saved a man's life who was drowning THAT video would be ALL over the news and Internet for weeks!" (via email to Business Insider)

Jonathan Turley in The Guardian (UK): "President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely."

Petitions and online protests like this one, which call for the impeachment of Obama and recall of Senators who voted in favor of NDAA, are also beginning to appear.

This should be an interesting year. If you don't see any future articles or tweets from me, you'll know I've been relocated to the Guantanamo Beach Club.

Continue the conversation, follow me: I don't write articles every day, but when I do, they are on subjects you should know about. You can follow me on Google+ or on Twitter to see my newest posts and keep in touch. I publish content and editorial opinion regarding NDAA and SOPA on my Google+ account that you won't find anywhere else.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-...#ixzz1ickaY4Nb


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-...#ixzz1ickQb8N6

The first state to rebel against indefinite detention




Single state defies Obama detention plan

World Net Daily

When Congress adopted and Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, alarms were raised over the possibility that it would allow the indefinite and rights-free detention of those who are called �belligerents,� even if they are American citizens.

While the argument over those provisions rages, one state lawmaker in Rhode Island has jumped into action to protect the danger he sees for residents of his state, proposing a resolution to exempt his constituents from sections of the federal law.

Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. today told WND he has drafted a resolution, which is being circulated among the lawmakers even now, to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA �that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.�

�Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act, signed into law on New Years Eve of 2011, provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military on American soil, without charge, and without right to legal counsel and right to trial,� he explained.

�Given the fact that the constitutions of Rhode Island and that of the United States are replete with guarantees of individual liberties, right to habeas corpus, and right to freedom of speech, the offending sections of that law are repugnant to the sensibilities of anyone that has a basic understanding of the foundation of this country,� he said.

The opinions on the legislation signed by Obama vary. Commentator Chuck Baldwin, who himself has been the target of smears by the Department of Homeland Security-related apparatus, explained the law, �for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places U.S. citizens under military rule.�

Good news!

The first, of hopefully many, State Representatives has drafted a
resolution to reject the President's unconstitutional authority to
indefinitely detain the citizens of his state.

It's not much, but it's a start. Let's hope this catches on in
other states.

Better yet, let's make sure this catches on in other states...

Video:

Defending civil liberties The first state to rebel against indefinite detention

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.



Read more here

Single state defies Obama detention plan

Wow this pg. is going to come in handy I reckon!

http://www.alipac.us/f9/congressiona...atives-248063/