Skip to comments.Senator Levin: It was Obama who required Indefinite Detainment Bill INCLUDE U.S. Citizens
Posted on 12/13/2011 8:52:56 AM PST by opentalk
Well now we know, for those who have been holding out hope that Obama will veto the 1031 Indefinite Detainment Bill against holding U.S. Citizens without rights to a trial or lawyer or charges for the rest of their lives . It was Obama who required the bill have the language of U.S. Citizens being held without rights in the bill! The only reason he would veto it, is because it does not give him the absolute power as he wants!
...Here is Senator Levin on the floor of the Senate revealing it was Obama himself who Demanded U.S. Citizens be part of the Indefinite Detainment Bill!
(Excerpt) Read more at sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com ...
It’s a post-9/11 world.
So—How many Republicans support this?
From Senator Levin, there was language in the bill to exempt citizens. Obama asked for it to be removed, and they did.
Can Leaky Carl Levin be verified by an independent source?
Oh this sounds like Barry Ol, Divide and Conquer Maxist Socialist Muslim Barry Soetoro Community Organizing again.
But can this be verified?
When are the re-education camps going to be built? Attendance will be mandatory for all conservatives, once Obama suspends the elections.
Why in the he** did the house vote for this POS bill? What the he** is wrong with them? Either this bill isn’t as bad as it is being made out to be or the GOP once again sold the voters down the river.
Anything come out of the House on this? So far, only the Senate bill is being talked about.
These comments were from Sen. Linsay Graham regarding the Bill
...This bill is a very sound, balanced work product, and I will stand by it, I will fight for it, and I respect those who may disagree. But why did we take out the language Senator Levin wanted me to put in about an American citizen could not be held indefinitely if caught in the homeland? The administration asked us to do that. Why did they ask us to do that? It makes perfect sense. If American citizens have joined the enemy and we captured them at home, we want to make sure we know what they are up to, and we do not want to be required, under our law, to turn them over to a criminal court, where you have to provide them a lawyer at an arbitrary point in time. So the administration was probably right to take this out.(page 45)
“Obama asked for it to be removed, and they did.”
Was there any outrage? Any pushback whatsoever? It doesn’t seem like it.
This is why simply changing the POTUS is not enough - not by a long shot. If we had a Congress who actually cared about American citizens and respected the Constitution, obams’s marxist ways would never see the light of day.
Will my cell have a window? Will I have to share it with someone else?
I’d be just fine with Obama playing president if we had a house and senate willing to crush every unconstitutional thing he does.
Unfortunately every president seems to adopt further dictatorial powers of the president before him.
Give me a president like George Washington who did as little as possible.
Senate version passed 93 o 7 at the end of November.
Who is 'they'?
If Obama signs this, does it mean we can hold him indefinitely and without the benefit of counsel, for aiding terrorists abroad?
...It would be one thing if the military was clamoring for the authority to become the nations jailer. But to the contrary: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opposes the maneuver. So does CIA Director David Petraeus, who usually commands deference from senators in both parties.
Pretty much every security official has lined up against the Senate detention provisions, from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to FBI Director Robert Mueller, who worry that theyll get in the way of FBI investigations of domestic terrorists.
Lindsay, do you realize:
1. A marxist dictator may have a different definiton of "enemy" than you?
2. If that dictator has already "captured them at home" he doesn't have to "make sure (he) know(s) what they are up to".
3. Being "probably right" does not warrant violating the U.S. Constitution.
I agree with your prognostication.
Thanks for the update....I wondered how this could make it past the house and now I know...figures Zero and the commies are behind this effort.
Rand Paul has been sounding alarms, trying to get language that protects citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.