Obama's America: Tyranny and Permanent War

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Jan 2, 2012.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    December 31, 2011 will be remembered as a day of infamy. More on it below.

    Continue . . .

    Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so



    Obama's New Year's Gift to the American People

    To say that January 1st 2012 is "A Sad Day for America" is a gross understatement.

    The signing of NDAA (HR 1540) into law is tantamount to the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Inauguration in 2012 of Police State USA.

    As in Weimar Germany, fundamental rights and freedoms are repealed under the pretext that democracy is threatened and must be protected.

    The NDAA is "Obama's New Year's Gift" to the American People. ...




    Once again bringing you the news the mass corporate media would rather you ignored. Guess that makes me a radical.
     
    #1 poncho, Jan 2, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2012
  2. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    105
    I am diametrically opposed to this bill. I need to state that before I go any further.

    However, I am having some trouble with the language of the bill.
    The author of the article in the link talks about how the bill won't affect existing authority, but completely glosses over the bill saying that it doesn't affect existing law related to the detention of US citizens.

    If this truly will not affect the laws governing the detention of US citizens, doesn't that preclude the bill from allowing indefinite detention without trial? I am no lawyer, but that's the way it reads to me.

    Again, I am against the bill as I currently understand it. I am just trying to gain some clarification on this.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.

    In fact, the Senate expressly rejected a provision that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens. Sen. Feinstein offered another amendment to sec. 1021 that stated the section “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” That amendment was rejected 45-55. Sen. Feinstein’s other amendment, which does nothing to protect U.S. citizens, passed 99-1.

    Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. I strongly believe in protecting the country’s security and equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies. But the American people cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate our constitutional rights.

    The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity. And I concede that this issue takes time to understand. Over the next few months, I hope to join others who value our country’s constitutional rights to block the NDAA’s dangerous detention provision. Once the American public sees for itself what’s included in the NDAA, I’m confident they will demand we do so.

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=296584837047596
     
    #3 poncho, Jan 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2012
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tyranny and permanent war has been the US goal since the end of WW2.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    And it's time to end it.

    Here's some info for Sapper.

    NLG condemns NDAA provisions on indefinite detention

    The National Lawyers Guild adds its voice to the many others who oppose this legislation. Our opposition is not based solely on the fact that this bill allows indefinite detention of US citizens and residents or that the presumed “battlefield” encompasses the entire globe. We oppose indefinite detention without trial because it is immoral and cruel and because itviolates the U.S. Constitution and international law.

    Have y'all figured it out yet?

    President Obama stated: "Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any 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."

    In other words, the president is using Washingtonspeak to say he already had the authority to do what the NDAA law merely "codifies." So the danger that many Americans, lawmakers and advocacy groups are concerned about is why this president claimed the authority to kill an American citizen in Yemen earlier this year who had not actually carried out any terrorist attacks against the U.S., but was only suspected of wrongdoing.


    Is it sinking in yet? The president of the United States is claiming the power and authority to kill American citizens who are "suspected of wrongdoing".

    Isn't this exactly what we've been sending our military in to fight against since 1898?
     
    #5 poncho, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2012
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    So who on this board is going to run for Congress and change it?
     
  7. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4

    We've done better. We showed you a man that would. Your reaction to him doesn't negate that fact.
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yes we did and we showed him years ago. When Ron Paul was predicting all this.
     
    #8 poncho, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2012
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    You Dispensationalists are not praying hard enough for the Rapture. That's the only thing which will change the direction of history.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    535 seats in Congress -1 that you talk about = 535. So how many more on this board is going to run for Congress and change it?

    and yes, I am talking about you Ponch and Curtis! :1_grouphug:
     
  11. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    When does your campaign start? Oh yeah that's right you don't want it to change do you? You've been campaigning in favor of the status quo since we met.
     
    #12 poncho, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2012
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    Back to you
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Back to me why? Run out of childish quips already? Oh, I'm sooo disappointed. :laugh:

    I'm sorry Salty. I'm getting cranky in my old age. I'm gonna work on that this year. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #14 poncho, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2012
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    Bottom line - why will you not run for public office

    I thought that question was made clear in post # 6,8 & 10, but apparently CS did not kick in.
     
  16. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4

    It's a good way for you to not deal with the subject of the O/P, ain't it ?
     
  17. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    105
    I would run once my military obligation is expired, but I wouldn't have a chance in my home state. I am way too conservative for my home state.
     
  18. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have misdemeanor arrest records in several states. I was once fired from a job after being caught with drugs. I followed the Grateful Dead around the country. Now I am not only a Christian, but a Baptist.

    Any of those will dominate any attempt I make to discuss real issues. I won't run for office.
     
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The question is clear enough Salty. So is your intention. You want to change the subject of the thread from Obama and all the tyrants that came before him and enabled him to become the lawless dictator he is to me.

    Why do you keep doing this? Don't you like looking at the results that your policy of voting for the lesser of two evils has brought about?

    Go back to keeping score on the globalist's puppets. That's what you seem to enjoy most so go enjoy it and let those of us who would like to discuss serious matters discuss them. I'm sure that you and your fellow globalist groupie InTheDark can have many wonderful discussions together.
     
    #19 poncho, Jan 6, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2012
  20. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    105
    Is there another option than voting for the person that will do the least harm? If there are two options, and neither one is a good option, then what do you do?
     

Share This Page

Loading...