Skip to comments.FINAL CURTAIN: OBAMA SIGNS IMDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS INTO LAW AS FINAL ACT OF 2011
Posted on 01/02/2012 5:56:39 PM PST by 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 Obamas 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:
Of course the Feds would win a hot war, but in this day and age of 24/7 news cycles any hot war would be preceded by a cold one that could easily be won by an underdog militia threatening to defend itself against a bloated federal army.
YA THINK SO DO YA?
What about this here law obama just signed???
bechya don’t got any smart answer for that!
BUMPity bump, bump !
I ran across that site today while researching another issue. Didn’t stay long. Have no desire to return.
D-Day: [to Bluto] Let it go. War’s over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Nothing is over until we decide it is.
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?
Dictator Obama, indeed.
What about all those “Rethuglicans” who voted for this abomination to give Obama these dictatorial powers?
In fact, the Manchurian Candidate himself, John McPain, co-sponsored this monstrosity.
I don’t hear any of them backing away, apologizing, or calling for repeal.... Does anyone else?
I did a Google search and ABC news is the only MSM report I saw, on page 5, after about 50 non-MSM reports.
Thing is, the left is hopping mad, especially at DU.
and there was no one left, and then they came for me.....
Who knows? They should stop beating on each other long enough for us to find out.
Anyone who complains about this will be denounced as a kook or soft on terror.
Putting it in the military budget, signing it on New Years Eve, they know how stupid people are.
Paul made a fuss but the media ignored the story.
Well here are some people who in particular look to refute what detractors are saying regarding the abilities of NDAA 2012 to detain US citizens:
This next one is blatantly liberal but since it directly refutes the arguments from Gleen Greenwald, a lawyer who posts at Salon.com which is also hyper liberal, I figured it was worth showing too:
And Marco Rubio, respected as a true defender of US liberty here, gives his defense, just in case you have not already seen it:
oh definitely. The lefties I know on facebook had a big drive to send obama warnings that their supporters would stay home on election day if he signed it.
I gave them the thumbs up on these efforts but I didn’t think too much about it. You see, I did not believe obama would sign it. I thought there was no chance in hell he would sign it. I thought this was a bill that SOMEONE in congress did not WANT signed into law so they sabotaged it with this stupid provision for indefinite incarceration without a trial.
I am as stunned about him signing it as the lefties are.
Are we to assume that they are all in agreement with it?
yes. obviously. Some of them may even have had a part in drafting it.
Well Obama also had said, apparently, word for word : “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”
make of that what you will
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.