FINAL CURTAIN: OBAMA SIGNS IMDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS INTO LAW AS FINAL ACT OF 2011

JonathanTurley.org ^ | January 2, 2012 | Jonathan Turley

[Yosemitest]

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens.
It was a symbolic moment to say the least.
With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country
. . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements
and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops.
It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light.
As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision.
That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House
and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting.
You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting.
They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President.
The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights.
Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure.
It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking.
Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration.
Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades.
On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law.
That is not true.
The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review.
Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times.
One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens.
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation.
That spin is facially ridiculous.
The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated.
The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights.
Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial,
the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military.
The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031,
which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops.
Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power
while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure.
Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents.
Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment.
2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

So here is a resolution better than losing weight this year . . . make 2012 the year you regained your rights.

Here is the signing statement attached to the bill:

————-

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”
I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad,
crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.
In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD),
to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force,
and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it.
In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions
that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists
that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations,
and the results we have achieved are undeniable.
Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals
with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people,
and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Source: ABC

[383rr]

You got it. All they have to use is the terror keyword, and all discusion ends on the subject.

[383rr]

It’ll be even easier than that. They’ll just say you were attempting to aid/contact/join (insert name of any known terror organization...)

All they’ll have to do is say “terror”, and people will scream for your blood.

[Biggirl]

That is why this election year 2012 is so very important.

[Biggirl]

My big concern is that, we could see a second American Revolution.

[Yosemitest]

"Can you point to an original source, other than Benson, that verifies the comment?"

Why? So you can shoot it down?

I triedc to find out just who Paul F. Boller and John George are?
Funny, why is it that no biographies are available on them?
So next I researched their book, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions.
You'll be amazed what a little research can tell you ab out a source.

First review:
I thought this book would contain not just a list of quotes, but would be arranged as a narrative about misattribution.
Instead it was laid out like a reference book, with a list of misattributed quotes by their supposed authors.

Also, while it contained a good number of quotes from political figures such as Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill,
it contained fewer literary quotes than I'd hoped. Perhaps these misquotes
(such as the supposed quote by Charles Dickens "There is nothing better than a friend, unless it is a friend with chocolate")
have only proliferated since the advent of the Internet?
I'd be curious to read more on that topic, but this book (published in 1989) is obviously not the place.

Second review:
I enjoyed this book much less than I expected.
About half way through I began looking forward to the end.
When I finished the book I tried to think why I felt this way.
I came up with a couple of things that may be the reason.
First, this book was put together by two professors who may well know the facts;
but that doesn't mean they can use the facts to make a good, entertaining or inspiring book.
Upon finishing this book,a reader should thirst for more.
My feeling was;
enough is enough.
Secondly, there seemed to be no overall direction but rather collecting up examples in very selected areas.
Thirdly, the authors seemed to have an agenda to dispute statements attributed to liberal/socialist individuals by right wingers, but not the other way around.
Being a good writer, like being a good teacher, means that one should inspire the reader or student to want to read or learn more.
This book just didn't do it for me.

It deserves repeating:

"the authors seemed to have an agenda to dispute statements attributed to liberal/socialist individuals by right wingers, but not the other way around."

So ... lets look at the original statement and situation.

" “Watchman, what of the night?” (Isaiah 21:11) is the cry of the faithful.
I have tried to warn you of the darkness that is moving over us
and what we can do about it if we will only follow the Prophet.

Have you counted the cost if our countrymen and especially the body of the Priesthood continue to remain complacent,
mislead through some of our news media, deceived by some of our officials, and perverted by some of our educators?

Are you prepared to see some of your loved ones murdered, your remaining liberties abridged, the Church persecuted, and your eternal reward jeopardized?

I have personally witnessed the heart-rending results of the loss of freedom.
I have seen it with my own eyes.
I have been close to the godless evil of the socialist-communist conspiracy on both sides of the iron curtain,
particularly during my years as European Mission President at the close of the war,
and today and also during my eight years in the Cabinet.

It may shock you to learn that the first communist cell in government, so far as we know, was organized in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the 1930’s, John Abt was there.
It was John Abt whom Oswald, the accused assassin of President Kennedy, requested for his attorney.
Harry Dexter White was there.
Lee Pressman was there.
And communist Alger Hiss, who was the principle architect and first secretary of the United Nations organizing committee, was there also.

I have talked face-to-face with the godless Communist leaders.
It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Khrushchev for a half day, when he visited the United States.
Not that I’m proud of it –
I opposed his coming then and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor.
But according to President Eisenhower, Khrushchev had expressed a desire to learn something of American agriculture,
and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why.

As we talked face-to-face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under Communism.
After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his, and all other grandchildren, would live under freedom,
he arrogantly declared, in substance:
You Americans are so gullible.
No you won’t accept Communism outright,
but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you’ll finally wake up and you find you already have Communism.
We won’t have to fight you.
We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like over-ripe fruit into our hands.

And they are ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme. "

So after reading, and LISTENING to his statement, I can only imagine

that Ezra Taft Benson and Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev were walking together on Mr. Benson's farm,
with Mr. Benson's grandchildren runing well ahead of them, play in the fields, when this occured.

I assume that

there were no other witnesses to the event.

That being my estimation of the situation, proof is in WHO you believe.
Do the words spoken ... ring true?

"You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you;
we’ll so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "


Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier

Yes, I believe the words DO RING TRUE.
That's why liberals, communists, Fabian Socialists, whatever ... can't abide this statement.
They must destroy it, because LIBERALS LIE, and are burned in the fiery furnace of truth.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Flames

Your Conservative Source of News and Information

Abolish FReepathons
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

[mas cerveza por favor]

Right, the terror keyword triggers media-brainwashing induced response.

[bayouranger]

Always ready.

[HoldenD]

“Thing is, the left is hopping mad, especially at DU.”

Sure they would be. Before they so-recently traded all their principles for the election of Obama, the traditional left was once a stalwart supporter of civil rights. Or at least, ostensibly.

And yes, Obama signed it, but lets not forget who passed it. Lets ask ourselves, why did our fellow partisans sell us down the river?

[mas cerveza por favor]

they would get due process-if the govt was still interested in playing by the rules and following the laws. If they werent, then NDAA 2012 would be wholly irrelevant anyway,

The hostile elite is not interested in playing by the rules if they can get away with it. NDAA makes it easier to flout the Constitution.

[BigSkyFreeper]

He “Didn’t want to” but he did anyway. This bill illustrates just who he really is: A dictatorial thug.

[Yosemitest]

First of all, your "text of the Bill" is wrong.
I don't know where you got your text, but it AIN'T Pages 426 thru page 432 of S. 1867.

You missed it. Read the original article again.

"One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens.
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation.
That spin is facially ridiculous.
The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated.
The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights.
Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial,
the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military.
The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031,
which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial."

Now, let's make this REAL SIMPLE.

You're looking for a wavier THAT AIN"T THERE!!!
Text of Pages 426 thru page 432 of S. 1867.
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(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.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described
in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code
(as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country,
or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this
section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized
under section 1031 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co
ordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the
law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security
interests of the United States.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited
to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2)
and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not
require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to
be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the
time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply
when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4)
may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third
country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody
or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

---

Read this:

Regime Grabs Power to Detain US Citizens
January 03, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Yeah, and I can't believe that nobody's talking about that, either:
The thing Obama signed on New Year's Eve, the new Defense Authorization Act.
I don't know if people don't know what's in this or if other things take precedence.
Well, it is being reported because I saw it. I saw it reported.
Obama signed this thing, the new Defense Authorization Act on New Year's Eve.
Folks, you know what this thing does?
It allows the United States military to detain anybody for no reason!
They don't even have to charge you.
I mean, this is specified. This is not the Patriot Act.
This is way beyond. This is total authoritarianism.
This is the kind of stuff that exists in Third World banana republics.
The government can detain anybody! All they have to do...
They actually don't have to do anything.

They just have to say they suspect you of terrorism.

They don't have to prove it, they don't have to have any evidence, they can charge you.
They can put you away in a jail, you are not allowed a lawyer, you are not allowed habeas corpus.
It's the most amazing thing.
Obama even issued a signing statement with it in which he said:
Don't worry, I'm not going to do this.
Don't worry, I'm not gonna do it.
Well, he can, as can anybody in the military, as can any future president.
They can just decide to detain you. For no reason. I mean, literally no reason.
Where is the left on this?
Where are the civil libertarians?
This is...
You can talk about Bush and the Patriot Act all you want if you're a leftist and a Democrat.
Where are you people?
This is the biggest affront to the whole notion of civil rights that I can recall.
There is a column. Jonathan Turley, who is a legal beagle and a guest on TV shows.
He's a law professor at Georgetown or George Washington, I forget which.

He posted a column on his blog, and the UK Guardian asked for permission to publish it.
So it's on their website.
He basically says what I just said to you in terms of describing what this is.
The reason it was signed into law was so that the military could be funded.
The old argument was,
"If you don't sign this the military won't get funded."Nobody stood up against this.
It was the end of the year, everybody wants outta town to get home for the holidays or what have you.
But there it is.
Now, George W. Bush never even contemplated anything like this, and nobody's talking about it.
You can say,
"Well, Rush, come on.
They're not gonna just start detaining people left and right.
You know they're only gonna use this for people they suspect of being terrorists."

Well, how they gonna define "terrorism"?
If you are a liberal Democrat politician might you think that what happens on Fox is terrorism? (pause)
Might you? You know how wacky some of these people are.
So, anyway, it's out there.
It was signed on New Year's Eve, with a signing statement that said from Obama:
Don't worry, I'm not gonna do this.
That was his signing statement, essentially.
I'm paraphrasing the signing statements but that's essentially what he said.
And this from Business Insider.
"The United States authorities have offered to lift the threat of legal action against 11 Swiss banks in exchange for information."
This is part of a very long story.
"The justice department's doing everything it can to get the names of Americans who have Swiss bank accounts."

The Department of Justice damn near busted the United Bank of Switzerland over this a few years back
and now they're going after other Swiss banks.
The lawyers at the DOJ don't kid around. They're basically saying:
Give us the names of American account holders or we will sue the crap out of you.
So the IRS and the Department of Justice are now -- again, a Business Insider story -- grabbing new powers in the hunt for revenue.
There's two stories here.
The first is the Switzerland bank story where the DOJ is telling Swiss banks:
You tell us or we're gonna sue you until the cows come home,
and these banks are giving up the information.
Which, the coin of the realm in Swiss banking was privacy.
They're giving it up.
If you have a Swiss back the, the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, is going to learn about it.

They're gonna find out if you are doing something they don't like.
Not necessarily illegal.
Don't forget, now, they could say that what you're doing is aiding and abetting terrorism and detain you,
based on what they find in your bank account.
"A federal district court judge in California has given the IRS permission to serve a John Doe summons on the California State Board of Equalization"
that's the state IRS
"demanding the names of residents who transferred property to their children or grandchildren for little or no money from 2005 to 2010.
The IRS has used John Doe summons to seek lists of American taxpayers' unreported offshore accounts at Swiss bank USB and the HSBC bank in India.
These techniques have worked well in Switzerland, the hardworking folks at DOJ, IRS are now bringing them to California.
That means that the IRS can look at anybody's real estate transactions.

"With John Doe warrants they can go fishing and snooping in whatever they like."
Now, again, I'm reading this from Business Insider which is a website.
Think of it what you will.
"The country starved for revenue.
The outfit that's charged with collecting that revenue has an army of tough minded lawyers behind it.
It will have the power to turn over stones as it pleases.
In the end, this effort will raise some additional revenue, it'll scare the heck out of a few people as well;
some people will cheer it.
I see the John Doe warrants as a big and dangerous step and a very slippery slope," writes the writer here,
"sure won't do much for Uncle Sam's image but a lot of people aren't gonna care."

In fact the entire Democrat Party voting base is gonna be encouraging this. The entire Occupy Wall Streeters.
Go get a John Doe summons and find every transaction of everybody that's got any money
and find out if they're giving money away to their kids or whatever or putting their real estate in their kids' names or what have you.
As far as the Defense Authorization Act,
"According to Senator Carl Levin, it was Obama who required indefinite detainment that included US citizens."
Remember, we have killed an American citizen with a drone. Al-Awlaki.
We've done that. He was an American citizen.

"According to Senator Levin, it was Obama who required that his powers to be able to detain anybody for no reason, include US citizens.
The original bill was focused on enemies of America, terrorists specifically.
Levin said there was language in the bill to exempt US citizens but Obama asked for that language to be removed. Lindsey Graham has said the same thing, according to the Congressional Record."
Lindsey Graham said,
"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."

So while Obama's out there trying to blame this on Congress and having a signing statement saying,
"Well, you know, I'm never gonna do this,"
it was Obama who required the language be in the legislation.
This was on New Year's Eve.
So it's like four days ago that this was signed,
of course it's a weekend, and not a whole lot of this is being reported, certainly not being discussed.
I'm telling you what's in the bill
and I'm telling you what's a in the signing statement --
and, of course, the message is gonna be,
"Well, wait a minute now. Why are you concerned?
If you're not doing any anything wrong, you'll not show up on anybody's radar."
Well, let's define doing something "wrong."
You live in Venezuela and you say something about Hugo Chavez gaining weight while on chemo
and you don't believe he's really got cancer and you could end up in jail.
That's what dictators do.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links


• The NDAA's Historic Assault on American liberty - Jonathan Turley
  
• Business insider: The IRS & DOJ Are Grabbing New Powers In The Hunt For Revenue
  
  
• Digital Journal: Obama Demanded NDAA Include Americans for Indefinite Detainment
  
  

---

Thanks Rush.
Thanks to Michael Savage for bringing this up on his Radio Show Monday Night on "The Savage Nation".

Now RightFighter ... contemplate THAT for a spell.

[Venturer]

Obama just put two lesbian liberals on the court and you dont think he can get anyone worse.

If I am paranoid I have good reason.

[politicianslie]

My big concern is that, we could see a second American Revolution.

My big concern is that we will NOT see a second American Revolution.

[GOPJ]

bump

[apoliticalone]

We’ve allowed the terrorists to win, not by changing the rules for them, but for American citizens. We’re now presumed guilty and our nation is going to fiscal hxll.

Both Parties are part of this.

[apoliticalone]

Notice that none of the presidential candidates mentions this new law in any of their speeches.

Are we to assume that they are all in agreement with it?

---

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism

Unfortunately this is the only thing I could find.

[Biggirl]

I believe we will, one way or another.

[GOPJ]

unbelievable

This should be all over every form of news media there is 24-7. Why is there so much silence? This is not a minor technicality folks. This is big. Really big.

The corrupt liberal media was up in arms a few years ago about library books being "known" to the government. Obviously liberals feel this law will not be used against them... shame on them for being so vile - stupid, and short sighted...

[dixiechick2000]

This is one of the scariest pieces of legislation that I’ve seen in my relatively long lifetime.

Your graphic shows a dang dictator, and is right on the money.