Obama Fumbles Again ... Military Given Go-Ahead To Detain US Terrorist Suspects Without Trial .. MLK Would Still Be In A Birmingham Jail

[Pianki]

Back tracking back stabbing … 5 thumbs fumble. I am happy people like Minister Farakhan said he was not going say anything but just let the movie play. Malcolm said “time will tell”. Looks like Guantanamo Bay will have some new faces … United States Citizens. All the reasons to acquire guns … no simply… GET WEAPONS.  This NDAA Act, which the disputed amendment was crafted by Senator John McCain, Senator Levine and Dick Chenny, codifies the old 2001 AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) on indefinite detention, does expand the definition of who it applies to and yes Americans weather within or outside of the United States is included. Senator Feinstein amendment which would have excluded Americans was defeated. Even the New York Times Editorial page which has been Pro-Obama comes out to call this “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” Has the likes of John McCain finally posses the key that turns Obama off and on?

 

 Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantana...

 

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

 

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

 

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

 

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

 

There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.

 

The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".

Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.

"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."

 

Graham added that it was right that Americans should be subject to the detention law as well as foreigners. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next," he said. "And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.'"

Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.

 

But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won".

 

"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts."

Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

 

"Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."

Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it.

 

"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"

Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities". They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue.

 

The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would "cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers.

But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military.

 

Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.

Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.

 

"The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."

In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.

 

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military.

 

"The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress.

Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the "underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber".

Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court.

Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed.

 

"The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said.

[Amazon13]

Deborah Dills said:

"Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire"! How could we have seen this coming? I sincerely believe that we have been fooled by this man-Obama, and now US citizens are paying the price. He has lied consistantly-by not getting us out of these wars, and invading Lybia without Congressional approval, by not closing Guantanamo Prison, by not making college more affordable, by not helping homeowners avoiding foreclosure, by not giving us the public option on health care, the debt deal debacle, and now-the NDAA signing. OMG. We are now if for the ride of our lives. Our economy is getting ready to tank, so get prepared-as food, water, and shelter will be the new gold. Our jobs are not coming back and neither is the middle class which built this country. 

The FEMA camps are here and ready for any and all citizens who protest against the establishment. Haliburton is behind it. This is no lie though-IT'S FOR REAL-FASCISM IS NOT DEAD!

 http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_sh...

Dear Deborah Dills:

In my opinion it sounds as if you are good on repeating what you hear by word-of-mouth. Why would you feel as though Pres Obama should be held responsible for ending the wars that he didn't start and was against from the beginning? By the way he has ended the war in Iraq, didn't you get that memo last year? Read up on issues before you lash out at our President!

[Pianki]

True that!

Amazon13 said:

Deborah Dills said:

"Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire"! How could we have seen this coming? I sincerely believe that we have been fooled by this man-Obama, and now US citizens are paying the price. He has lied consistantly-by not getting us out of these wars, and invading Lybia without Congressional approval, by not closing Guantanamo Prison, by not making college more affordable, by not helping homeowners avoiding foreclosure, by not giving us the public option on health care, the debt deal debacle, and now-the NDAA signing. OMG. We are now if for the ride of our lives. Our economy is getting ready to tank, so get prepared-as food, water, and shelter will be the new gold. Our jobs are not coming back and neither is the middle class which built this country. 

The FEMA camps are here and ready for any and all citizens who protest against the establishment. Haliburton is behind it. This is no lie though-IT'S FOR REAL-FASCISM IS NOT DEAD!

 http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_sh...

Dear Deborah Dills:

In my opinion it sounds as if you are good on repeating what you hear by word-of-mouth. Why would you feel as though Pres Obama should be held responsible for ending the wars that he didn't start and was against from the beginning? By the way he has ended the war in Iraq, didn't you get that memo last year? Read up on issues before you lash out at our President!

[Deborah Dills]

To respond to your Snarky questions to me, I would like to respond by saying-

Obama "promised" to get us out of these wars during his campaign speech. He has ALL THE POWER TO END THE WARS, since he is the Commander in Chief. No, he didn't start the wars, but he can end them now. I am a vet, and know for sure that the President is the one-the only one, who can with the stroke of his pen, withdraw our troops from combat.

But:

So, just because our government told us that we left a country and marched our troops out, doesn't really mean we have.

Some of these are remnants of the Cold War, some are because of the “War on Terror,” and some have been there since World War II. We have over 70,000 troops in Germany over 6 decades after World War II. We have over 40,000 in South Korea more than 50 years after the Korean War

The United States is now involved in wars in six arc-of-instability nations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. It has military personnel deployed in other arc states, including Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. Of these countries,Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates all host US military bases, while the CIA is reportedly building a secret basesomewhere in the region for use in its expanded drone wars in Yemen and Somalia.  Last year, the Washington Post reported that US had deployed special operations forces in 75 countries, from South America to Central Asia. 

And the US taxpayer is paying for this???

 

[Bennetta]

Too bad some people aren’t even intelligent enough to correctly interpret and stick to the TOPIC OF THIS FORUM DISCUSSION which most of us understand to be about OBAMA SIGNING NDAA into law and its potentially tragic and historical effects on innocent American citizens and our Constitution.  However, I don’t believe the topic was ever meant to be on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION....wonder where that came from?!?!  While attempting to defend the president’s policies/record, it appears some of us are NOT able to decipher the difference between these two very different topics....

By the way, great posts Deborah!

[Amazon13]

Deborah my dear our President never promised anything of such, he has never promised to end all of the wars or conflicts going on at this time in the world. He was specifically speaking of the two most know wars which were Iraq and Afghanistan. Not all of the involvements in the countries that you have listed! Maybe you should go back and listen to some of his speeches made during his initial run for "POTUS", they are all available for the interested citizen who would choose not to rely on their memories. Pres Obama is too smart to make such a broad statement to that effect. He's the President not "GOD"!

In my opinion it sound as if you're a disgruntled Veteran who's angry and the only person you feel should be the recipient of this anger is Pres. Obama! For all who truly believe that the "POTUS" has "ALL THE POWER TO END THE WARS, since he is the Commander in Chief", I say to you that if he has all the power to do anything he wishes, which he doesn't, there would be no need for the three branches of government that we have in place according to the Constitution of The United States Of America. The three of them affords us with Checks and Balances within our government. Please go and "GOOGLE" The three branches of government or click on link below!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet


Deborah Dills said:

To respond to your Snarky questions to me, I would like to respond by saying-

Obama "promised" to get us out of these wars during his campaign speech. He has ALL THE POWER TO END THE WARS, since he is the Commander in Chief. No, he didn't start the wars, but he can end them now. I am a vet, and know for sure that the President is the one-the only one, who can with the stroke of his pen, withdraw our troops from combat.

But:

So, just because our government told us that we left a country and marched our troops out, doesn't really mean we have.

Some of these are remnants of the Cold War, some are because of the “War on Terror,” and some have been there since World War II. We have over 70,000 troops in Germany over 6 decades after World War II. We have over 40,000 in South Korea more than 50 years after the Korean War

The United States is now involved in wars in six arc-of-instability nations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. It has military personnel deployed in other arc states, including Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. Of these countries,Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates all host US military bases, while the CIA is reportedly building a secret basesomewhere in the region for use in its expanded drone wars in Yemen and Somalia.  Last year, the Washington Post reported that US had deployed special operations forces in 75 countries, from South America to Central Asia. 

And the US taxpayer is paying for this???

 

[Amazon13]

Bennetta said:        "According to ACLU, “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”  Therefore, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war."  -------------- Amazon13 Replies            Using your assumptions and the ACLU's views I'd like to know what exactly would  you two entities  consider the purpose of and classification of "Gangs" legally and what laws should they be prosecuted under? Anyone in America who chooses to plot against American citizens are considered a threat to society, if caught doing anything out of the ordinary that endangers American citizens and the properties of Americans in America!       No true, law abiding American citizen would plot, scheme or be in collusion with another against this land or it's citizens, regardless of your being an American citizen. If you are found to be be a terrorist in America, you do know that terrorist are home grown now in order to get around our laws pertaining to such. If found to be a terrorist through investigation and verification then that (American Citizen) person should be dealt with accordingly!        You can't be a true American and hate American people and what they stand for including the laws of the land! I'm not willing to throw caution to the wind and side on the side of any kind of terrorist in America, whether they be natural born citizens, home grown terrorist or naturalized citizens. You see that's the problem today is foreigners take our laws that afford us all with what is suppose to be equal rights in America, something many of them don't have in their native countries, then use our amenities against us through our laws.

 

[Bennetta]

First, you should consider taking a writing course as your grammar is quite poor.

Second, you don't get to ask me to clarify anything for you.  Go and research NDAA on your own and then re-attempt to post a relevant and factual response as oppose to attempting to change the subject to reflect some petty personal issue you apparently have with Illegal Immigration which AGAIN we're not interested in discussing here. NOW GO STUDY THE TOPIC BEFORE you attempt to dare try and step to me on any intellectual level.

Amazon13 said:

Bennetta said:        "According to ACLU, “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”  Therefore, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war."  -------------- Amazon13 Replies            Using your assumptions and the ACLU's views I'd like to know what exactly would  you two entities  consider the purpose of and classification of "Gangs" legally and what laws should they be prosecuted under? Anyone in America who chooses to plot against American citizens are considered a threat to society, if caught doing anything out of the ordinary that endangers American citizens and the properties of Americans in America!       No true, law abiding American citizen would plot, scheme or be in collusion with another against this land or it's citizens, regardless of your being an American citizen. If you are found to be be a terrorist in America, you do know that terrorist are home grown now in order to get around our laws pertaining to such. If found to be a terrorist through investigation and verification then that (American Citizen) person should be dealt with accordingly!        You can't be a true American and hate American people and what they stand for including the laws of the land! I'm not willing to throw caution to the wind and side on the side of any kind of terrorist in America, whether they be natural born citizens, home grown terrorist or naturalized citizens. You see that's the problem today is foreigners take our laws that afford us all with what is suppose to be equal rights in America, something many of them don't have in their native countries, then use our amenities against us through our laws.

 

[Pianki]

As Malcolm X said "Time Will Tell". Obama has been looked at as being the first Jewish President of the U.S.A

Amazon13 said:

Bennetta said:        "According to ACLU, “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”  Therefore, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war."  -------------- Amazon13 Replies            Using your assumptions and the ACLU's views I'd like to know what exactly would  you two entities  consider the purpose of and classification of "Gangs" legally and what laws should they be prosecuted under? Anyone in America who chooses to plot against American citizens are considered a threat to society, if caught doing anything out of the ordinary that endangers American citizens and the properties of Americans in America!       No true, law abiding American citizen would plot, scheme or be in collusion with another against this land or it's citizens, regardless of your being an American citizen. If you are found to be be a terrorist in America, you do know that terrorist are home grown now in order to get around our laws pertaining to such. If found to be a terrorist through investigation and verification then that (American Citizen) person should be dealt with accordingly!        You can't be a true American and hate American people and what they stand for including the laws of the land! I'm not willing to throw caution to the wind and side on the side of any kind of terrorist in America, whether they be natural born citizens, home grown terrorist or naturalized citizens. You see that's the problem today is foreigners take our laws that afford us all with what is suppose to be equal rights in America, something many of them don't have in their native countries, then use our amenities against us through our laws.

 

[Amazon13]

"First, you should consider taking a writing course as your grammar is quite poor"

I started to accuse you of the same thing but thought it to be quite jejune and therefore passed on it. There's nothing wrong with my grammar, if you had taken a good look at my post you would have noticed that the end of the sentences in my post was chopped off by no fault of mine and therefore it looks as though I made typographical errors, which I didn't. You have attacked me for no apparent reason and I refuse to reciprocate. This is a forum where each individual have the opportunity to express themselves and in doing so, no topic is exclusive to the main topics or headlines posted.

I have studied the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and I stand on my beliefs as stated in my post. I will however say that in my opinion, people who respond in bold, capital letters are considered to be yelling at the person who posted there opinions and it displays anger and rage. Now what does that say about ones "intellectual level"?  You have a wonderful day!

[Pianki]

Please check out my post "Wash Before You Wear" It could help someone from suffering what these women did.

Amazon13 said:

"First, you should consider taking a writing course as your grammar is quite poor"

I started to accuse you of the same thing but thought it to be quite jejune and therefore passed on it. There's nothing wrong with my grammar, if you had taken a good look at my post you would have noticed that the end of the sentences in my post was chopped off by no fault of mine and therefore it looks as though I made typographical errors, which I didn't. You have attacked me for no apparent reason and I refuse to reciprocate. This is a forum where each individual have the opportunity to express themselves and in doing so, no topic is exclusive to the main topics or headlines posted.

I have studied the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and I stand on my beliefs as stated in my post. I will however say that in my opinion, people who respond in bold, capital letters are considered to be yelling at the person who posted there opinions and it displays anger and rage. Now what does that say about ones "intellectual level"?  You have a wonderful day!