Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans

Originally posted by MrDetective

After all they fear mongering and hype and paranoia in the end it all ends up being the the NDAA will NOT include indefinite detention of Americans. I feel that people in the conspiracy genre need to no jump to conclusions and over-react to issues before they fully develop. I would like your comments and your opinion on this development.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-2-2012 by MrDetective because: (no reason given)

The only reason it was removed is because aware Americans did over react as you put it , it is of my opinion the masses under reacted . The media which use to safe guard our freedoms was fairly silent on the issue . Big news now a day seems to be how some celebrity stubbed a toe .

reply to post by rebellender


Sadly, I don't think it ever will.

GMO food, aspartame, flouride, sports, the glass teat, divide and conquer religions, statism, nationalistic jingoism, fear of the others. The list goes on and on.

No way we unite as a people to fight this now. Not that I can see.

reply to post by MrDetective


Marvelous, so as long as we keep our president in the next election ...the rule stays .... When he's no longer pres then the rule is done and we are back to the law as it stood before the waiver rule... which as some folks have pointed out can be gotten around anyway...

Interesting timing of the waiver rule .......what with the new law that's going through that could basically stop all protests anywhere near a "protected" public servant or visiting dignitaries....

Originally posted by MrDetective

After all they fear mongering and hype and paranoia in the end it all ends up being the the NDAA will NOT include indefinite detention of Americans. I feel that people in the conspiracy genre need to no jump to conclusions and over-react to issues before they fully develop. I would like your comments and your opinion on this development.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-2-2012 by MrDetective because: (no reason given)

You are misinterpreting what this waiver does. And your statement that the bill will not include indefinite detention provisions is absolutely incorrect. Let's look at what this bill does say:

Here is the paragraph that grants the ability to waive paragraph 1:

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

It grants the ability to waive the requirement...

Here is paragraph 1:

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

Before the waiver it was required that a person be held. Now there is no such requirement. However the authorization and the choice remains.

All this wording does is give the Armed Forces the choice on whether to hold a person or not. They are not required to, yet they certainly may.

Originally posted by reaxi0n
reply to post by AutomaticSlim

 

In my opinion he knew it would cause the reaction it did.

Then he waives it in time to score more browney points for the election. "Hey this guy's not so bad after all. He cares!"

Syke.
If he cared he would have never signed it.

Not only this, but the article says these exemptions are only in effect as long as he's in office??? Also McCain et al have concerns that the law may now not be able to do what it was originally intended to do, namely throw Americans into prison without trial. This seems sketchy and temporary at best.

Originally posted by MrDetective

After all they fear mongering and hype and paranoia in the end it all ends up being the the NDAA will NOT include indefinite detention of Americans. I feel that people in the conspiracy genre need to no jump to conclusions and over-react to issues before they fully develop. I would like your comments and your opinion on this development.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-2-2012 by MrDetective because: (no reason given)

Incorrect. The legislation stands as as "passed" and is only "waived" by unilateral executive order. Therefore, the provision can be reinstated by the same unilateral executive order.

Irrespective of your political leanings...this means that long after the NDAA is forgotten about any sitting President will be able to detain Americans indefinitely, without charges or trial...even in a foreign country...upon mere whim.

Remember...we KNOW the kinds of lunatics we have in office right now. But what kinds of lunatics might we have in office 30 years from now? Or 100 years?

This should do little to console us about our "freedoms".

This was nothing but a timely political move. "Look at me, I'm one of the good guys" Designed to get applause from the Obama lovers and try to put the rest at ease. Sorry, ain't workin'.

OK, in the first place..

Does anyone really believe this changes anything? Obama killed al-Alwaki without a trial long before the NDAA was passed, and if they can take your life without consequences what's stopping them from black bagging you?

The article says that 1022 is waived for Legal Residents of the US for the term of Obama's administration (something he could reverse just as easily) but it will regain its power under the next President. And once the Enemy Expatriation Act passes they can strip you of your citizenship anyway, so it's a moot point. Nothing has changed.

Let's not forget about Section 1021 either! That hasn't been waived now has it? Even if Obama keeps his word and doesn't use the military to hold US citizens without a trial, what in the hell do you think KBR and Xe (formerly Blackwater) are for?

It's been Obama's intention all along to have these private armies staff and run the FEMA camps. Don't any of you remember when he said he wanted to have a "private army" that was equal to the military? Well now he has it, courtesy of Dick Cheney and all of his hard work as SecDef and V.P., putting his old company in that position.

Nothing has changed. You know what it reminds me of? When Hitler screwed the Brown Shirts in favor of the S.S.. Obama knows the military won't attack it's own citizens (most of them won't) so he's gone and hired himself a bunch of mercs to do the job.

You Dems wanted "Change," well baby here you go.

Originally posted by MrDetective

After all they fear mongering and hype and paranoia in the end it all ends up being the the NDAA will NOT include indefinite detention of Americans. I feel that people in the conspiracy genre need to no jump to conclusions and over-react to issues before they fully develop. I would like your comments and your opinion on this development.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-2-2012 by MrDetective because: (no reason given)

Without the "fear mongering" and "hype and paranoia" in regards to this act, it wouldn't have become public knowledge. It was very quietly swept under the rug until people started "fear mongering". Regardless of if its now been "waived" .. it set an incredibly dangerous precedent. The precedent being that the US government is capable of taking away the freedoms of the American people, at will. It was passed before, it can be passed again.

Thanks so much harry obama, i know your just getting your stuff together because its election time....

reply to post by MrDetective



Nice to hear.

Originally posted by MrDetective

After all they fear mongering and hype and paranoia in the end it all ends up being the the NDAA will NOT include indefinite detention of Americans. I feel that people in the conspiracy genre need to no jump to conclusions and over-react to issues before they fully develop. I would like your comments and your opinion on this development.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-2-2012 by MrDetective because: (no reason given)

He signed it knowing what was in it. He did this meaningless act to pander for votes. Only Congress can change the law once Obama signed the Bill and Obama knows that. Obama can only pardon a victim of that law one person at a time. He can pretend to waive it all he want's, but he has no such power. The Justice Dept. can still enforce and there is nothing he can do to stop it unless Congress takes action.

I find it sad his supporters are so easy to manipulate and sadly lacking in even the basics of how the Branches of Government work. Only the Legislative Branch can write law or change existing law.

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by MrDetective

 

why does it have to take a jackwagon like Alex Jones to stir up a bunch of crap to get the bill reversed....This time the squeaky wheel got the grease. What about next time the squeaky wheel gets GREASED...
at least we dont have to hear another story about FEMA Camps, that was stupid silly

edit on 29-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)

what's funny is that jackwagon said this years ago and it came true!!, here's a conspiracy ala mode, what if Alex Jones is a double agent, I fear these fema camps lol.

reply to post by hapablab


You are not the first I have heard this from

Originally posted by morder1
He said he wouldnt sign it

He signs it

Now he says he wont use it?

Wonder what will happen next? Hmm

If you would read more than the headlines - you might remember that he signed it with a signing statement that said he would not use this rule in his administration. Whoever gets in after his next term could change this intention. The interment thing was added by the right and the left had to do some sort of compromise so that the right didn't start throwing their graham crackers and milk all over the house.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!

Thank-you to the two groups most vocal in protest about this...Occupy and Anonymous.
I'm still not voting for Obama though...

Originally posted by MrDetective

Originally posted by morder1
He said he wouldnt sign it

He signs it

Now he says he wont use it?

Wonder what will happen next? Hmm

Obama just legally waived it making it VOID from the NDAA BILL

hmmmm Obama seeming too patriotic for you?

IF he was patriotic he would've charged the people responsible for the idea & implementation with treason on the spot.

No if's, ands, or buts, period.

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by morder1
He said he wouldnt sign it

He signs it

Now he says he wont use it?

Wonder what will happen next? Hmm

If you would read more than the headlines - you might remember that he signed it with a signing statement that said he would not use this rule in his administration. Whoever gets in after his next term could change this intention. The interment thing was added by the right and the left had to do some sort of compromise so that the right didn't start throwing their graham crackers and milk all over the house.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!

edit on 29-2-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

Yeah, and by signing it he ensured the next president has power he should've never had IN THE FIRST PLACE.

There's no way you can positively spin this.

Originally posted by MrDetective

After all they fear mongering and hype and paranoia in the end it all ends up being the the NDAA will NOT include indefinite detention of Americans. I feel that people in the conspiracy genre need to no jump to conclusions and over-react to issues before they fully develop. I would like your comments and your opinion on this development.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-2-2012 by MrDetective because: (no reason given)

I think people were rightfully concerned about this issue. I don't personally think there was any real "overreaction" as no one started any riots over this. For the most part people were upset and critical about it but went work and did their thing the next day...where is the overreaction?

Sometimes waiting for an "issue" to "fully develop" before you show concern just means you are going to be a day late and a dollar short when it comes to stopping it.

As far as I'm concerned I always had the reserved opinion Obama was letting the uncertainty of this issue fester till closer to election time for his rise to popularity by qwelling everyones concerns on the issue.

Originally posted by MrDetective

After all they fear mongering and hype and paranoia in the end it all ends up being the the NDAA will NOT include indefinite detention of Americans. I feel that people in the conspiracy genre need to no jump to conclusions and over-react to issues before they fully develop. I would like your comments and your opinion on this development.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 29-2-2012 by MrDetective because: (no reason given)

What, the reason this was waived was because of the public backlash.

Anybody who said they wanted to detain American's was labeled as a conspiracy nut job. If we sat back and let them do what they wished it wouldn't have been waived.


There is always one of you.


That's like showing up to a bar where a drunk is beating a woman, stopping this and calling the police on him, only in court he says he was going to stop -- then you show up and say, see -- we shouldn't have gotten involved, he was clearly going to stop.


Right.