Well , he signed the NDAA

[bigrebnc1775]

NYT columnists are not known for lying, but here is an example:

It leaves open the possibility of subjecting American citizens to military detention and trial by a military court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/politics-over-principle.html?

From the actual text of the legislation:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
13 ment to detain a person in military custody under
14 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
15 States.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

If one may not be detained by the military, he consequently may not be tried in a military court as well. And the venue is really not at issue, given the fact the legislation in no way mitigates habeas or other due process rights.

The only thing ‘wrong’ the Administration has done is to poorly handle the politics of the issue.

In 1031 their is no protection from being detained by the military for U.S.Citizens

 

[B94]

NYT columnists are not known for lying, but here is an example:

It leaves open the possibility of subjecting American citizens to military detention and trial by a military court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/politics-over-principle.html?

From the actual text of the legislation:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
13 ment to detain a person in military custody under
14 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
15 States.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

If one may not be detained by the military, he consequently may not be tried in a military court as well. And the venue is really not at issue, given the fact the legislation in no way mitigates habeas or other due process rights.

The only thing ‘wrong’ the Administration has done is to poorly handle the politics of the issue.

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

The key word here is “requirement”. If it is a foreign national, they are required to detain them in this manner. If it is an American citizen, they simply retain the option, without being required.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

NYT columnists are not known for lying, but here is an example:

It leaves open the possibility of subjecting American citizens to military detention and trial by a military court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/politics-over-principle.html?

From the actual text of the legislation:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
13 ment to detain a person in military custody under
14 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
15 States.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

If one may not be detained by the military, he consequently may not be tried in a military court as well. And the venue is really not at issue, given the fact the legislation in no way mitigates habeas or other due process rights.

The only thing ‘wrong’ the Administration has done is to poorly handle the politics of the issue.

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

The key word here is “requirement”. If it is a foreign national, they are required to detain them in this manner. If it is an American citizen, they simply retain the option, without being required.

How ever 1031 their is no protection given to U.S.Citizens

 

[dblack]

NYT columnists are not known for lying, but here is an example:

It leaves open the possibility of subjecting American citizens to military detention and trial by a military court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/politics-over-principle.html?

From the actual text of the legislation:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
13 ment to detain a person in military custody under
14 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
15 States.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

If one may not be detained by the military, he consequently may not be tried in a military court as well. And the venue is really not at issue, given the fact the legislation in no way mitigates habeas or other due process rights.

The only thing ‘wrong’ the Administration has done is to poorly handle the politics of the issue.

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.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:


The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

 

[Truthmatters]

Rinos wrote the bill your team voted for it. The end.

Then give me the names of everyone in the house and congress who voted for it on the right and campaign against them just as hard as you will campaign against Obama.

I really don't give a shit who wrote it does not matter, what matters is who voted for it the ones who wrote are just as guilty as the ones who voted for it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

because you only want to hold Obama responsible.

Your a hypocrit

 

[Truthmatters]

Here is a question.

Can the bill override the constitution?

 

[MikeK]

I know if the shit really hits the fan, the Government can shoot you down like a dog or lock you up and make you disappear. It's what governments do and yet somehow I manage to live without pissing my pants every few days. Man up and live your life in spite of any threats real or IMAGINED.

You've never had as much cause to piss your pants as you have now. This sonofabitch, Obama, is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- and if the DNC doesn't give us an alternative, or if the Democrats can't get the word out to successfully write in someone else, like Kucinich, we're going to end up with a Republican President, which will really seal the deal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then give me the names of everyone in the house and congress who voted for it on the right and campaign against them just as hard as you will campaign against Obama.

I really don't give a shit who wrote it does not matter, what matters is who voted for it the ones who wrote are just as guilty as the ones who voted for it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

because you only want to hold Obama responsible.

Your a hypocrit

From day one when this bill came to light I never once laid all the blame on obama for this. Not one fucking time you fucking hack.

 

[francoHFW]

AS usual the the fear mongered AND jingoist dittoheads fall for ALL the BS. No martial law, just another Pub trap Obama has outsmarted them on, except for the brainwashed twits. LOL

Reminder, twits:
Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

News from The Associated Press

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Remain calm, fcs

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here is a question.

Can the bill override the constitution?

It's called a LAW now you fucking dipshit.

 

[occupied]

Does anyone here feel McCain/Palin would have decided differently? Or any of the present candidates for pres.? When something becomes as inevitable as this seems to be then what do you do? Do you react with fear and partisan recrimination? No, the correct course is to never allow crap like this to scare you into submission. Dare those bastards to lock your ass up for no good reason and live your life as if it is the only one you will ever have and fuck them.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

O has more neocons within his party than Bush had in his.

 

[MikeK]

Things are about to get ugly people. You Obama supporters just say one thing against this country and you to might be detained!!! Wonder how you will feel about him if you or one of your family members gets in trouble for free speech! BREAKING: Obama Signs Homeland Battlefield Bill Into Law

Now, more than ever, we need to show that we are willing to stand up and say no.

He must be impeached.

I agree. Unfortunately there's not enough to to dump him and bring in an alternative.

 

[Truthmatters]

Here is a question.

Can the bill override the constitution?

It's called a LAW now you fucking dipshit.

yeap, can a law be found unconstitutional?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

AS usual the the fear mongered AND jingoist dittoheads fall for ALL the BS. No martial law, just another Pub trap Obama has outsmarted them on, except for the brainwashed twits. LOL

Fuck you NeoCon

 

[Truthmatters]

Things are about to get ugly people. You Obama supporters just say one thing against this country and you to might be detained!!! Wonder how you will feel about him if you or one of your family members gets in trouble for free speech! BREAKING: Obama Signs Homeland Battlefield Bill Into Law

Now, more than ever, we need to show that we are willing to stand up and say no.

He must be impeached.

I agree. Unfortunately there's not enough to to dump him and bring in an alternative.

How about impeaching the people who wwrote this power into the bill??????

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here is a question.

Can the bill override the constitution?

It's called a LAW now you fucking dipshit.

yeap, can a law be found unconstitutional?

Not when other courts have similar cases that have already been presented to them.

 

[Avorysuds]

Here is a clue you silly cons, Obama did NOT write this bill did he?


The house Republicans did huh?

No but he put his name on it... Did Obama write Obamacare or the stimulus? No but he put his name on it and you love to give him credit for it.

 

[Truthmatters]

Heres a clue you fools.

It will be found unconstitutional in face of the constitution.


Now how will it be found unconstitutional if its never applied?

 

[dblack]

Does anyone here feel McCain/Palin would have decided differently? Or any of the present candidates for pres.?

With the obvious exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, no. Which is why I won't be voting for any of them. And why I won't vote for Obama.