Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama: I can so hold you indefinitely without trial if I want
Flopping Aces ^ | 01-03-12 | DrJohn

Posted on 01/03/2012 12:06:47 PM PST by Starman417

In his latest signing statement Obama said:

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Now why would he even need to say that were it not possible?

Does his signing statement make you feel safer? It ought not. After all, it was Obama who said unequivocally that he would not use signing statements to "get his way."

[VIDEO AT SITE]

Obviously it is now possible for Obama to hold any American he deems a potential terrorist indefinitely without trial.

And who can be declared a terrorist? Among the possibilities are these:

People or groups who:

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 1031; defensebill; detention; dhs; doj; fema; holder; mccain; ndaa; obama; possecomitatus; terrorism

1 posted on 01/03/2012 12:06:50 PM PST by Starman417
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Starman417

If he really had no intention of detaining American citizens, he would not have signed the bill. It’s always what you do never what you say.


2 posted on 01/03/2012 12:09:57 PM PST by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: formosa
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,"

Well good for him but maybe the NEXT administration will authorize indefinite detention and Obama could be the first customer!

3 posted on 01/03/2012 12:13:57 PM PST by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: formosa

But the bill doesnt say unambiguoulsy that US Citizens can be detained, It doesnt make it any easier than it already was for the Feds to detain someone. Can you point to a Section that does ? And again, Obama and the liberals did not get this law enacted on their own, leaders respected as Conservatives helped as well.


4 posted on 01/03/2012 12:17:21 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Obama never tells the truth. I am not amused.


5 posted on 01/03/2012 12:18:32 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

We don't need no steenking trials.

6 posted on 01/03/2012 12:19:28 PM PST by newheart (When does policy become treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Somebody better alert Ellen Barkin

Ellen Barkin: If Obama Loses, Police State 'Around the Corner'

7 posted on 01/03/2012 12:21:32 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

And why is the media silent on this? If it were Bush there’d be howling clear to Mars and back. Oh, wait, never mind. It’d be racist if it was brought up.


8 posted on 01/03/2012 12:22:06 PM PST by SkyDancer ("If You Want To Learn To Love Better, You Should Start With A Friend Who You Hate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Now Freepers won’t be able to vote as he will arrest us and prevent us from voting in the 2012 election. My oh My....


9 posted on 01/03/2012 12:25:35 PM PST by ncfool (The new USSA - United Socialist States of AmeriKa. Welcome to Obummers world or Obamaville USSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: emax

This bill does NOT say UNambiguously, that US Citizens can NOT be detained. Therefore, since it does NOT say that, the reverse is true, that US Citizens CAN be detained.


10 posted on 01/03/2012 12:27:04 PM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: emax

You need to read the whole story.
Obama added the provision to detain US citizens into this bill.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjonathanturley.org%2F2012%2F01%2F02%2Ffinal-curtain-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-into-law-as-final-act-of-2011%2F&ei=FWMDT9T9D8WIgwfM4MWmAg&usg=AFQjCNEDJtulhPs6zX1tNehs4W6EEbJXfQ&sig2=7jiKHHtZLqhQ7ickxkga5g


11 posted on 01/03/2012 12:33:18 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

It’s what has been happening all along. What the hell do you think Gitmo is about and the suits that have been filed. This is nothing new.


12 posted on 01/03/2012 12:40:17 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

The illegitimate bisexual Marxist Kenyan Muslim Usurper got exactly what he wanted out of this law.

Am I now on the watch list?


13 posted on 01/03/2012 12:43:00 PM PST by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

The Bill doesnt make any statements either way-US citizens are subjected to existing laws and authorities.


14 posted on 01/03/2012 12:43:42 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: anyone

I was surprised that Rush briefly discussed this at the start of his third hour today.


15 posted on 01/03/2012 12:45:20 PM PST by Coyote Choir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Obama: I can so hold you indefinitely without trial if I want

Well, look at you all growed up.

16 posted on 01/03/2012 12:45:32 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

He didnt add any provision that clearly says US Citizens can be detained indefinitely. And when an ammendment was created to specifically exempt US Citizens from Section 1031 or 1032, the majority of Congress voted against it. So it was not “just” Obama who prevented the bill from specifically ensuring that sections 1031 and 1032 exclude US Citizens. It was liberal and consevrative elements of Congress. And there are legal reasons as to why they would do that, not merely because they want to to track down all the millions of people who post opinions online and detain them


17 posted on 01/03/2012 12:49:10 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
"It’s what has been happening all along. What the hell do you think Gitmo is about and the suits that have been filed. This is nothing new."

I'm not sure what you mean. This is new or there would not have been anything for Obama to sign. I have not heard of any American citizens in Gitmo. Certainly none that were taken custody in the US while shopping for boots at an Army Surplus store. Which is the power that has now been seized by Obama.

18 posted on 01/03/2012 12:51:28 PM PST by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: emax

You didn’t read it, did you?

Obama added a signing statement that says he could do it but won’t do it.

geesh


19 posted on 01/03/2012 12:53:40 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Does it also apply to Obama? Lock em away!


20 posted on 01/03/2012 12:56:57 PM PST by Leep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
This video is from a couple of years ago. Obama talked about indefinite detention at the National archives, in front of our founding documents.

Rachel Maddow criticizing his power grab at the time

The senate passed this bill on Exactly 220 years to the date after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Senate voted 86 to 13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act.

They seem to intentionally pick locations and dates to send a message (NWO) or mock us.

21 posted on 01/03/2012 1:04:31 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

This is unconsitutional, and we can thank the Congress for passing it!


22 posted on 01/03/2012 1:20:14 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

I read it, just dont think it;s entirely true, and that Obama was the only one who wanted those provisions attached.


23 posted on 01/03/2012 1:34:53 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: emax

Some things that posters here should read:

I know you may not have time to read all of them , but looking at any one of them might help.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/rest-of-what-senator-levin-said.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/11/1044215/-The-Rest-of-What-Levin-Said-on-NDAA-Provisions

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nt77r/the_14_senators_who_voted_against_ndaa_all_the/c3brs66

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/12/indefinitedetentionbs.html

From the first link, is the section Does the NDAA expand the government’s detention authority?

Nope. Under current law, the Obama administration claims the authority to detain:

persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

That claim of authority is based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) passed by Congress shortly after the September 11 attacks, as informed by the law of war. The Bush Administration previously claimed very similar authority, albeit invoking not just the AUMF but also the inherent power of the President under Article II of the Constitution. In any event, such claims have been subjected to judicial challenge repeatedly, most commonly in the context of the Guantanamo detainee habeas litigation. As we explain below, the courts have had a decidedly mixed reaction in the pair of cases involving persons captured within the United States, but as for persons captured abroad, they have largely endorsed the government’s position. The D.C. Circuit, in fact, has tentatively adopted a definition of the class detainable under the AUMF that is, if anything, broader than what the administration seeks. While the administration–and now Congress–would detain only on the basis of “substantial support,” the D.C. Circuit has articulated a standard which would permit detention of those who “purposefully and materially support” the enemy, even if not substantially.

In light of all this, a law that writes the administration’s successful litigating position into statute cannot reasonably be said to expand the government’s detention authority. In fact, to the extent that the new statutory language will preempt the arguably broader D.C. Circuit definition, it may actually narrow it–if only very slightly. So let’s compare the language of the administration’s claimed authority (quoted above) to the language of the NDAA:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

They are almost verbatim the same. The NDAA is really a codification in statute of the existing authority the administration claims. It puts Congress’s stamp of approval behind that claim for the first time, and that’s no small thing. But it does not–notwithstanding the widespread belief to the contrary–expand it. Nobody who is not subject to detention today will become so when the NDAA goes into effect.

The one area in which the NDAA could theoretically be said to expand detention authority involves people held on the basis not of membership in an enemy group but mere support for one. As noted above, the government has long claimed this authority already, and the DC Circuit has in fact endorsed a slightly broader formulation. But so far, anyway, it has done so in dicta only–that is, not in any case where the fact pattern actually depended on the resolution of that issue. In theory, then, the circuit (or the Supreme Court) might at some point have concluded that support alone is insufficient to support a detention. The NDAA will ensure that this does not happen by making clear that independent support does count as a ground for detention (or at least it will do so as a matter of statutory interpretation; in theory, the door would remain open to some form of constitutional challenge, though it is difficult to see how that would work). So even as it marginally narrows the detainable class, the NDAA also tends to ensure that courts will not narrow the scope of that class further.


24 posted on 01/03/2012 1:42:57 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: emax

Side note: I wonder if even Obama can figure out, whether his presidency ends Jan 2013 or 2013, that if he tried to detain US citizens solely because he thought they were enemies of the state, a future Rep president-and at this point the successor to Obama is all but guaranteed to be a Republican-could attempt to find ways to detain him forever as an enemy of the state. Perhaps he realizes it really wouldnt be that hard to argue it.


25 posted on 01/03/2012 1:47:06 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

By extension this means the military and all federal domestic law enforcement agencies can do this.


26 posted on 01/03/2012 2:03:03 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I wonder how long it would take to get this to the supreme court....


27 posted on 01/03/2012 2:18:18 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: newheart

Idi Amin Version 2.0


28 posted on 01/03/2012 2:31:57 PM PST by Prole (Please pray for the families of Chris and Channon. May God always watch over them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Leep

But obama isn’t an American citizen probably...


29 posted on 01/03/2012 8:09:45 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"

You will receive a speedy trial and conviction in a kangaroo court.

30 posted on 01/03/2012 9:11:07 PM PST by informavoracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: emax

And since the bill does not say that FedGov can not detain citizens, then it can only mean that it CAN.

What does it look like with your head in the sand?


31 posted on 01/04/2012 4:53:11 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: formosa
That law has gutted the Fourth Amendment to the CVonstitution. But since Allen West voted for it, who cares.

The beauty of it is when it is used against you, no one will know. You will simply disappear to one of the new super secure Federal Prisons in a remote Western location. Only the guardswho work there will know you are there. You will never see the sunshine again, unless they release you.

32 posted on 01/04/2012 5:06:22 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sport

Hey...what’s that crashing sound downstairs at the door......


33 posted on 01/04/2012 5:18:29 AM PST by hal ogen (1st Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Ask Gadiffi and Murberk their opinion of obama’s word. Of course, you will hve to take a trip way below to ask Gadiffi anything.


34 posted on 01/04/2012 5:20:11 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hal ogen

That is only for the time[s]they want you really bad. Most of the time, it will be a varation of old Sovirt tactics. An unmarked vehicle with several men in it will pull over who they want. the men wil get out and put him in the vehicle. Ome of them will drive his car, park it and leave. The victim’s family may or may not file a missing persons report with the local police.The local police will eventually locate the victim’s car. Concerned citizens may report that they saw someone being arrested.But the locas will say they did not arrest anyone at that location, the State police will say that they did not arrest anyona at that location, same with the FBI. Since they won’t have to bring you before a Masterate, or get a warrant, there will be no record of your apprension. You will simply disappeaar until they want you to re-appear.


35 posted on 01/04/2012 5:37:14 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson