Obama's new executive order on Guantanamo

People laugh when I say the republic has fallen. Oh your crazy!

How can you have a Republic without law? Without fair elections?

In my opinion the Republic had been crumbling with the coup de grace on September 11, 2001.

reply to post by stephinrazin


So the first world trade center attack, the attack on the USS Cole and 2 embassies being blown up in Africa, all done by al queida, are not related in any way, shape or form to the actions on 9/11?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Even if you believe that 911 was done by al queda it does not change the aftermath. A threat may or may not exist. Torture, indefinite detainment, warrantless spying, and greatly increased federal power does exist. The homeland security apparatus is on such a scale that it rivals East Germany, or the former Soviet Union. Whether this resulted from a genuine danger does not matter. After 9-11 the last vestiges of the Constitution were shredded.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Well, he certainly rico-suaved the pants off of folks with his slick-talking

DD, look at his followers though...not the brightest bulb in the box!

Considering that the Patriot Act, which by the way was misnamed, presented to the public as an antiterrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists. The ability to expand the definition of " terrorism " has opened the door for the implemented executive order, to now be judge and jury.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


LORD FORBID the movie the EVENT has any truth to it....

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Just for informative purposes, there is a 1970's movie, documentary style called : Threads......and it will spook the shizat out of you! Talks about the coming wrath, nuclear holocaust etc etc......

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Threads I will check out.. Thanks

It Stops Now...

Changing politicians names to show your political disapproval and posting threats of violence will stop now.

MOD EDIT: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

COMMUNICATING THREATS OF VIOLENCE ON ATS…

here is a link to the executive order in question

www.propublica.org...
(couldnt ge tthe link to work but cut and paste does..sry for that)

not sure about the source but here is also a link to the subsequent executive order 13492

Executive order 13492

also not sure about this link workin on better...

This is also being torn apart in another thread
Here
in which i posed an honest observation neither of the executive orders contains the language refered to in the FOX news video on both threads.

I also asked then for anyone to provide some evidence from within these orders that might be cause for alarm and was met with much rhetoric and spite.

Can anyone here provide me with the information i am seeking?

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I agree, that is excessive.

About the EO... What is the "law of war?" "Law of war detention" is all over the place.

Still reading, but I thought "all's fair in love and war." Where is this "law" and who made it?

reply to post by DimensionalDetective



Next time please read the links:

(2) Alterations of a politicians name, or any other high-profile political figure, for disparaging political effect is not allowed, including within member avatars and signatures.

MOD EDIT: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)


Please return to the topic, further discussion of this should be via u2u or
Contacting Staff: Alerts, Suggestions, Complaints

I am still reading, but found this:

Sec. 3 (a) (5) The detainee and rep can have evidence against the detainee withheld: "In exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to protect national security, including intelligence sources and methods, the PRB may determine that the representative must receive a sufficient substitute or summary, rather than the underlying information."

Heh. There's that "national security" thing again. Who determines what is "sufficient?" Can this be used to deny the detainee information relative to what (s)he is accused of?

Ah. Here...

Sec. 3 (a) (7) "The PRB shall make a prompt determination, by consensus and in writing, as to whether the detainee's continued detention is warranted under the standard in section 2 of this order."

Section 2: "Continued law of war detention is warranted for a detainee subject to the periodic review in section 3 of this order if it is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States."

Hoe-kay. Who gets to determine what is "a significant threat to the security of the United States?" The President? If so, this may be the "smoking gun."

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I am still reading, but found this:

Sec. 3 (a) (5) The detainee and rep can have evidence against the detainee withheld: "In exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to protect national security, including intelligence sources and methods, the PRB may determine that the representative must receive a sufficient substitute or summary, rather than the underlying information."

Heh. There's that "national security" thing again. Who determines what is "sufficient?" Can this be used to deny the detainee information relative to what (s)he is accused of?

Ah. Here...

Sec. 3 (a) (7) "The PRB shall make a prompt determination, by consensus and in writing, as to whether the detainee's continued detention is warranted under the standard in section 2 of this order."

Section 2: "Continued law of war detention is warranted for a detainee subject to the periodic review in section 3 of this order if it is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States."

Hoe-kay. Who gets to determine what is "a significant threat to the security of the United States?" The President? If so, this may be the "smoking gun."

edit on 3/9/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo

Valid point and good questions thank you

reply to post by RadicalRebel


Most welcome. I seem to have a knack for combing legalese. [grin]

I still haven't finished reading - got interrupted - but I will continue, looking for anything else in there.

EDIT to add: Read the rest. Found nothing else. Gonna go look up these "laws" of war...

When you think about it...Hitler was only crazy because of the consent dose of what they found to be meth mixed with vitamins and pain medicine(?). I believe it was called vitimal?

Anyways, my point is that Obama should be compared to Hitler in his intentions, not the way he presents them. Then you can easily see them as the same people.

Obama is a sober Hitler,

Bumping this old Double D thread, cause I miss the guy, and we as Americans are still waiting for the closure of Gitmo.

Have to say, another broken promise by this President.