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.

it's exactly all that pressure from various groups from all directions that got this clause temporarily waived.

all it does is let the powers that be know that more work is needed to break down the american spirit of independence and freedom.

Thank you king obama for waiving something that shouldn't have been in their to begin with, and that we need our kings permission to waive something.

reply to post by MrDetective


Excellent, because it is a whole lot of 'timothy McVeighs' living in the United States, a whole lot, inside terrorism is worst then foreign terrorist, good job.

Originally posted by MrDetective
Obama waived it because he personally did not believe in it. I do not believe Obama listens to a crackpot like Alex Jones or any other alarmist. Obama did this because if his personal convictions and not because Alex Jones said so and by the way scared alot of people in the process.

Do some fact checking, this part of the bill was specifically requested by Obama's administration. All Obama did was say he won't use it, he can change his mind, and it only applies to his term. The next president can still do it. Waiving it is not the same as reversing the law, the law allowing this is still in effect.

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)

Wow what a crappy attitude. I look at this the other way. This is one time where the fear mongering has actually been confirmed by the President. You were probably one of the poeple who looked at the bill and said "This doesn't allow for indefinfite detention of Americans, the conspiracy people are crazy" Yet now Obama admits that was the case.

Also, if you think this changes anything your crazy.

1. Even if everything he says is true future presidents aren't held by his waivers.

2. The waiver expressedly says only "lawful American citizens" are protected, and goes on to say unless theyre terrorists. We've all seen the justice department newsletters that say terrorists can be anyone from returning troops to people who cite the Constitution.

3. If you think its outlandish for Obama to do the above, consider al Awaki. American citizen, accussed of being a terrorist. Never given a trial, just executed because Obama knew he was guilty. Why would thing be any different now?

4. Why should we believe a man who first said he was going to not sign this bill because of this provision, only to later find out from members of his own party that while he was saying that he was the one behind the scenes forcing this language in the bill.

For you to tout this as some victory over conspiracy theorists is hilarious. In fact, I use this very example and Obamas admitting that the bill did allow for indefinite detention as proof to people of just how right the "conspiracy theorists" are.

Obama: "Hey, vote for me! I'm the hero of the hour!"

The whole thing was designed for just this very "rescue". I want him out of office in the worst way!

This has already been said but:

He didn't totally do away with it. He merely 'promised' that he wouldn't use it.... really? A promise from a politician?

Like a 7 foot tall, violent prison inmate with a shotgun, promising that he won't shoot anyone with his shotgun.

The 'Law' is still very much in affect and will continue to be so untill something is actually done about it, or, there are none of you left for it to apply to.

I just watched this video. It says that NDAA is going into effect on Thursday and how it is no coincidence that its happening behind all the Iran news. The video is from RT news. I am in Canada but i know this will still affect me since i am close to the border. Hopefully this gets turned around though.

m.youtube.com...

If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt,

which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year,

would you have approved?*


*If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again

within 10 years,

would you have approved? *


*If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law

that he admitted he never even read,

would you think that he is just an

ignorant hot head? *


*If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico

and sued a state in the United States to force that state

to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism

and wonder who's side he was on? *


*If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps

like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot? *


*If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work

by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling

on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry

because one foreign company had an accident,

would you have agreed? *


*If any other of our presidents had used a forged document

as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him? *


*If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference,

would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept

he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men

behind the scenes? *


*If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars

to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved? *


*If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings

of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM,

would you have approved? *


*If any other of our presidents had made a joke

at the expense of the Special Olympics,

would you have approved? *


*If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive

and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him

a thoughtful and historically significant gift,

would you have approved? *


*If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England

an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it

a proud moment for America ? *


*If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia

would you have approved? *


*If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference

to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off

as a minor slip? *


*If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers

with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes,

would you have approved? *


*If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states

in the United States , wouldn't you have had second thoughts

about his capabilities? *


*If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark

to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him

walking out his front door in his home town,

would you not have thought he was a self-important,

conceited, egotistical jerk. *


*If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate

as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador

when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it

when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment? *


*If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel

to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded

he's a hypocrite?*


*If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed

Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter

in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic,

would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened

on 9-11? *


*If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid

to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed

or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made

into a major ongoing political issue with claims of

racism and incompetence? *


*If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars

who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate

on much of what is happening in America ,

would you have ever approved. *

*If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO

of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority

to do so, would you have approved? *


*So, tell me again,

what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? *


*Can't think of anything?

Don't worry.

He's done all this in 34 months –

so you don’t have that much time to come up with an answer.*

*Every statement and action in this email is factual

and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama.

Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable. *

AND NOW--

HE ACTUALLY WANTS US TO RE-ELECT HIM.

reply to post by Raivan31


The law has already ruled on the detention of US citizens, their constitutional rights, and what the government / military can and cannot do.

It stemmed from the MCA of 2006, with the Supreme Court ruling the act as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled (going back to 2001 up to today), and has been consistent in that ruling, that constitutional rights cannot be denied to US citizens.

The Jose Padilla case reaffirmed that when the court ruled that because he is a US citizen, he cannot be prosecuted by the military.

Let me rewrite that title as if Ron Paul were president.

"Ron Paul SLAMS lawmakers for a DRACONIAN attempt to MURDER Civil Liberties,
and sends their sorry asses packing"

See that sounds better, waives wouldn't cut it if RP were president.

reply to post by Surfrat

I think you win the "who hates Obama most" contest.
I thought it may have gone to another member recently,
but you knocked it outta the park with this one.
Thank god you backed it up with all facts.
But don't rest on this achievement, you've got a lot of competition here.

The Real Conversation

I'm not talking about Obama hating. I'm not talking about left and right BS. I'm not talking about how Ron Paul is the Libertarian's Obama (messiah pun). I'm talking about the real conversation about this act. When reading through this thread I see very little real discussion.

Are you a terrorist?

Do you routinely coordinate with or are otherwise affiliated with Al Qaeda?

The drafters of the Constitution trampled it constantly. Are we really that different?

The founding fathers would openly use the Military to quell rebellions on US soil.

The United States has been killing United States citizens since day one. We're not exactly breaking "new ground" here.

What does it mean to "defend the Constitution"?

Why was this act drafted?


I present that list for a few reasons, but partly because people have this fairy-tale view of 18th century United States, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution. These were brutally rebellious times. These men were war lords, financial elites, corrupt business men, or, in other words, the new US Aristocracy. So little has changed, fundamentally, yet people are up in arms thinking that we are destroying some ordained set of principles that had once created a utopian existence.

That's fantasy. It's not real.

We're a Union of States trying to do the best we can. But when you look at absolutely everything through the lens that somehow the US Government is different than the US People, and there is a mastermind and nefarious centuries long plan to keep you stupid, poor, and intimidated until the ultimate day of reckoning when they can kill of the lot of you and imprison the rest, then it's going to be ultra hard for you to be a contributing member of society. But, if you approach the issues through a more realistic lens then you might find yourself in a position to actually make a difference.

This law says if you're a terrorist, plotting against the US with Al Qaeda, then you can possibly be considered a combatant and dealt with by the military. Sure, it's a sticky and tricky subject, and should be approached carefully, but it's not completely out of left field. The US Constitution straight up says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Clearly is you're plotting against the US government you fit into that category. Right? No? I'm definitely not a law expert, nor a Constitutional scholar, but I know that since the beginning you were treated extremely harshly if your plan was to rebel against or attack the United States.

If an enemy of the State employs a strategy that is specifically designed to undermine our system of universal human rights (which is not something everyone believes in, by the way), then are we within reason to modify our laws to combat this new enemy? How do we do that?

So what does it mean to defend the Constitution?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but how can that be if it's also a document that requires interpretation? How can it be supreme if not only can it be interpreted, but it can be changed?

Finally, on the subject of the Constitution being lauded as some ordained document bestowed upon us as the example of peerless political law. The Constitution was a huge political win. There were several sides to the story. Some were straight up opposed. Similar to how we have wins now, the Constitution was a political process. Don't submit to the illusions that the political process was somehow more "pure" then than it is now. It's a silly notion, and I'm not sure how it's become so prevalent.

To clarify, I'm not saying the US Constitution is not an extremely important piece of political legislation. It obvious is. I'm merely pointing out that the conversation is not so "cut and dry." I think people get frustrated, and immediately assume corruption or conspiracy, because they've been led to believe by some that the answers are "easy and obvious," and that the answer are being intentionally "hidden, or withheld from them."

They're not. That's fantasy.

We're trying to do our best, as a Union of States, and as a global citizen. Do your part, but try not to be too naive.

I know for me, personally, I try not to be naive, or ignorant, or blinded by political maneuvers, but I fail all the time. But I continue to try and overcome those failures, admit those failures, and continue to persevere.

Thanks for listening.

they will do it anyway.

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 ended like this is because Virginia passed a law making this detention illegal. The federal government didn't want to be caught in court in a battle with Virginia over a constitutional issue, so they caved in.

However, it's not clear, legally, if Obama can simply "waive" part of a bill that is already a law. Line item vetos are not constitutional anyway, certainly not after the fact. So this may in fact just be a bunch of bull#, and the rules may still be in force.