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:
Right!
Alex Jones is nothing more than a fear monger.
I mean, everythings a conspiracy with this guy.
Didn’t know there is a rabid anti-Alex thing, goin on.
This bill wouldn't have gotten to the president's desk if Republicans and Democrats still cared about the Constitution.
You are apparently suffering from the delusion that republicans are on our side.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/cas/getdocument.action?billnumber=1540&billtype=hr&congress=112&format=html
H.R. 1540.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is the power of Congress to ``provide for the common defense,’’`raise and support armies,’’ and ``provide and maintain a navy,’’ as enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
Response to Mr. McKeon and Congress:
First Amendment
Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Second Amendment
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Third Amendment
No Quartering of Soldiers in Time of Peace
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Fourth Amendment
No Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Fifth Amendment
No Unlawful Imprisonment; Double Jeopardy; Self Incrimination; Due Process
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Sixth Amendment
Right to Speedy Trial; Confronting of Witnesses
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Seventh Amendment
Right to Trial by Jury
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Eighth Amendment
No Excessive Bail; No Cruel or Unusual Punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Ninth Amendment
State Reservation of Rights; Residual Rights to the People
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
Tenth Amendment
Federal Reservation of Rights; Residual Rights to the State or People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791
overwhelmingly passed in both houses.
exactly
Recall, in 2007
Will my cell have a window?
Yes, overlooking the gallows.
Yes indeed they did, but obozo signed it into law.
I have nominations for the first dozen to be detained.
If a state really cared about "states rights" then it would kick the National Guard out. It would then replace it with a true state militia funded entirely by state revenues.
Then if the nation were to go to war that state could have a separate vote to see if their citizens wanted their militia to join forces with the national defense forces.
The state militia could be used to protect its borders from invasion by illegals, and any unconstitutional usurpations from the feds.
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.
Keep in mind, only Congress and a State has the power to engage in War. I always find that interesting. The Constitution allows for a State to defend itself.
They know exactly whats going on, I'm afraid.
Maybe they don't know they're fighting to consolidate totalitarian powers for the President, but they are...
The only way to possibly get the media to say anything is if one of the lefties in the media gets “indefinite detention”. How can this possibly be the least bit Constitutional?
It was a bi-partisan bill, we cannot place total blame for this one on Obama. Many Republicans sold us out .
The SAupreme Court should bring this up on their own as Unconstitutional.
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.