Posted on 12/14/2011 3:33:01 PM PST by matt1234
Less than a month after he threatened to veto terrifying legislation that would cease constitutional rights as we know it, Obama has revoked his warning and plans to authorize a bill allowing indefinite detention and torture of Americans.
After passing in the House of Representatives earlier this year, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 went before the US Senate last week, where it was met with overwhelming approval. In the days before, the Obama administration issued a policy statement on November 17 saying explicitly that the president would veto the bill, as it would challenge “the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation.”
Opposition from the White House seemed all but rampant until RT revealed earlier this week that Senator Carl Levin told lawmakers that the legislation was altered because “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that those last minute changes yielded legislation that would “not challenge the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people,” and therefore “the president’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto.”
Originally the White House said that the administration objected to matters in the bill that applied to detainees. Under the act, Americans could be arrested and held indefinitely in military-run prisons and tortured without charges ever being brought forth, essentially making Guantanamo Bay a threat for every American citizen.
Under the legislation, a literal police state will be installed over the United States. Republican Congressman Ron Paul said earlier this week that “this should be the biggest news going right now,” as the legislation would allow mean “literally legalizing martial law.”
“This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous,” said the congressman and potential Republican Party nominee for president.
In its threat of a veto last month, the White House said it had similar sentiments, writing in an official statement from Washington that “The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects.”
“This unnecessary, untested and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals,” added the White House. “Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”
Despite Obama’s promise from last month, a veto seemed questionable after it was revealed that the bill, which approves the budget for the Department of Defense, came at a price tag much lower than the president had asked for.
It is expected to be in Obama’s hands anytime this week.
The American press is referring to this as simply a "defense bill."
Is this more than just a second term?
Would it be then possible for the next president to put Obama in prison indefinitely for economic terrorism?
O wants to get his re-education camps lined up next.
This is to root out domestic terrorists, you know, like Christians.
"Enemy" combatants have been held in foreign prisons since the previous administration. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch if Americans were "disappeared" in the same manner.
What in the he** was the house thinking when they passed this POS, I don’t care what bill it was attached to, it should have been voted down.
I hope the Supreme Court torpedoes this bill, but I doubt that will happen. Someone should challenge it in court as a violation of constitutional rights.
Obama was against it at first because he thought it would be used against Islamic terrorists only. Then someone pointed out that it could be used against Tea Party types and he realized it wasn’t such a bad idea after all.
Yeah - its crazy. Hopefully we can vote in enough Republicans to the House so this kind of stuff doesn’t make its way out of there. Oh. Wait. :(
-PJ
Why would they (both sides) give this power to Obama, given his lack of respect for our sovereignty and Constitution.
Can you say, “Martial Law”?
...WASHINGTON (AP) —Congress is on track to require military custody for suspected terrorists linked to al-Qaida and indefinite detention without trial for some suspects, even U.S. citizens captured on American soil.
Libertarian Republicans and progressive Democrats opposed to the mandates grudgingly conceded Tuesday that they had lost the fight to eliminate the provisions from a sweeping defense bill heading toward congressional approval. The House is expected to vote Wednesday on the $662 billion measure that authorizes funds for military personnel, weapons, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department. A Senate vote is possible on Thursday.
That is a frightening question to ponder. My guess is they are planning or expecting something ugly.
In general many elites have been behaving inexplicably in the last year or so. It makes me wonder what is going on behind their closed doors. What are they hiding?
Speaking of "defense", don't forget to make an additional Christmas run to Wal-Mart or your favorite gun shop for more ammo. One way or another, Holder and obama are going to disarm us. If they can't stop gun buying, their next alternative will be to stop ammo sales.
REMEMBER .... A GUN WITHOUT AMMO IS JUST A CLUB.
Since you can be detained without any explanation or contact with anyone why would torture seem a little far fetched? Who would even know? For that matter, if they just simply decided to make you disappear you who would even know?
Well, this takes it all down to an ‘all-in’ commitment NOT to be taken away, doesn’t it?
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.