Obama Waives Indefinite Detention for U.S. citizens from NDAA

All the hysteria
All the madness
All the hype
All for not

As you can see Obama signed a PPD waiving U.S. citizens from indefinite detention.

www.whitehouse.gov...

B. Covered Persons. For purposes of this Directive, the phrase "Covered Person" applies only to a person who is not a citizen of the United States and:

Don't even try to spin this. Section B above is the law -----

So how does this make holding people with out trial till the end of time okay?

Citizen or not.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Unalienable rights, as in all men women and children are born with them...

NDAA is against the very spirit of America.

That doesn't mean the next President won't use it.
Obama's not opening that door (yet), but he's not locking it back up, either.

Obama said he didn't agree with everything in the bill but he was going to sign it anyways, which he did.

reply to post by subject x


It means that he removed it from the NDAA>

Bye the way for Republicons that dont understand what NDAA stands for.

NDAA bills are signed every year.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Obama kept his promise by waiving the "Indefinite Detention" section from the bill

He had 60 days to waive parts of the bill he wanted removed.

He waived the controversial part all of you folks are whining about.

reply to post by CigaretteMan


He shouldn't have to waive #, there shouldn't be laws on the books allowing for it in the first place, it should never of come up.

And he should of veto it.

This does not make any of it okay...

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Obama said he didn't agree with everything in the bill but he was going to sign it anyways, which he did.

How does that justify anything?
If one doesn't agree with EVERYTHING in a bill, one does NOT sign it.

Its a pretty simple concept.
Rewrite the damn thing.

Originally posted by CigaretteMan
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

Obama kept his promise by waiving the "Indefinite Detention" section from the bill

He had 60 days to waive parts of the bill he wanted removed.

He waived the controversial part all of you folks are whining about.

Oh boy oh boy
Why was it there to begin with.
Nothing but a re-election ploy.

Delete

Actually Obama promised to veto the whole bill, not just part of it.

reply to post by CigaretteMan


That Presidential directive can disappear at the wave of an autopen. This should never have been put into law.

reply to post by benrl

And he should of veto it.

The only thing Obama wants to Veto is the extension of student loans...Out of all things Obama wants to veto something that he used to get through college...

I'll bite.

So, what makes a PPD binding on the next President? Just because President Obama puts out this 'policy,' what is to say the next President will not write a new PPD countering this one.

M.

One this is not breaking.
Two all he says essentially is that HIS administration will never use it. It's on the table after he's out of office.
How bout you don't spin it.

I would not be satisfied unless Sections 1021 and 1022 (to my knowledge the sections dealing with indefinite detention) of the NDAA were repealed. Many don't know that there's a bill sitting in Congress RIGHT NOW--H.R. 3166, the Enemy Expatriation Act, which if passed could be utilized to 'get around that pesky U.S. citizen' clause...

digitaljournal.com...

Ah, it was an agenda point then.

Figures. Re election year let's stir up some madness, let the people speak then remove the controversial part.

Point being he said he'd never sign the whole thing. He did. He's just using it for advantage.
What did we expect? Let's see if he will do this with CISPA. HAH!

Well, if he's not in office next year Romney can change it.

reply to post by benrl


for all the conspiracies here why not take it a step further and say like an event like the tv show "event" happened. would it be right to detain a hostile alien even if they were from another planet but looked human within america. im sure if some of the things people say are true and the government does now about side civilizations or extra terrestrial civilizations that if one was on american territory would they now have the authority vested by legal precedent to detain indefinitely?

reply to post by Kali74

Two all he says essentially is that HIS administration will never use it. It's on the table after he's out of office. How bout you don't spin it.

All the more reason to vote for Mittens!

I'm sure he will completely repeal all of it!

reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior


No thanks!
They're all psychopaths...