No Western Govt Has Ever Claimed The power To Do This! The King Of England! Not Hitler! Not Stalin!

page: 13
252
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I've been reading all the executive orders for the month of March and back into February, and I cant find this? Now I know its Fox, and they do have the tendency to Omit little facts, or even invent them, but I thought there might be something to this. Does anyone have the actual number for this executive order that The Judge talks of ? The only one having anything to do with detainees and GITMO lately is "EXECUTIVE ORDER PERIODIC REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE"
www.whitehouse.gov...

This is the only one in the time frame for the Fox news story that is about GITMO.

Has anyone read this? or are the comments just on what the judge said and other websites and or opinions?
Ive read it, and I could be completely wrong, but I see nothing in this saying this. And I even referenced the past executive orders listed in this order. Maybe I'm stupid, but please, could someone cut and paste the exact section where the President gets the powers to indefinably detain someone even after acquittal?

If this isnt the EO, then please post the number, or a link to the exact original order so I can see it myself. I think its an outrage, if true...

Please school me, with facts ...




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
And another example today -

Ruling Gives DOJ Access To WikiLeaks-Linked Twitter Accounts



March 12, 2011 at 10:23 AM

A federal judge in Virginia issued a ruling today that allows the US Department of Justice to access the Twitter accounts and associated data like the email addresses of principal WikiLeaks members, including Julian Assange. The measure comes after the DOJ subpoena’d those members back in January in a probe to determine whether or not they broke the law in their involvement with the organisation. The group’s lawyers have already decided to appeal, so we’ll have to wait and see just how much heat the WikiLeaks higher-ups will be in should an investigation truly begin



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


If this is what your basing all this on, this happened back in 2001, first Bush in an executive order at the request of Donald Rumsfield. The later in 2001, the Supreme Court backed it up in Sadvydas v. Davis.

I still cant find anything with the current president doing this though.

Again. PLEASE,,, links to factual sources. If its an executive order, it can be read by all. If its top secret, then not even the judge would know what was in it for real, and its just speculation. Im not fan of Obama, but like to know whats real, and what is rumors



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
yes, but this isn't about the executive order, and this has been going at least since 911. Remember when the CIA under Bush had companies like ATT build secret rooms next to main switching terminals all around the country and spied on everyone, phone, internet, wireless? Just another good reason not to get involved in the so called "social networking" fad. Twitter, FaceBook, My Space,,, etc.. great ways to get in trouble now or in the future. Once you post it, its in cyber space forever , linked to you. And just cause you delete it at your end, doesnt remove it from servers all over the place to pop up and haunt you later down the road.
personally, I dont think facebook and twitter got so big, so fast, and so rich all by their little selves. The resources for the gov is unfathomable with them, and I would not doubt it if they had help from the gov. But that is just speculation that is likely never to be proven either way.



Originally posted by Seagle
And another example today -

Ruling Gives DOJ Access To WikiLeaks-Linked Twitter Accounts



March 12, 2011 at 10:23 AM

A federal judge in Virginia issued a ruling today that allows the US Department of Justice to access the Twitter accounts and associated data like the email addresses of principal WikiLeaks members, including Julian Assange. The measure comes after the DOJ subpoena’d those members back in January in a probe to determine whether or not they broke the law in their involvement with the organisation. The group’s lawyers have already decided to appeal, so we’ll have to wait and see just how much heat the WikiLeaks higher-ups will be in should an investigation truly begin



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
www.fas.org...


here , this should give you some fat to chew on for a while. Its a lot to read, but very informative if you can do it.

"Detention of American Citizens
as Enemy Combatants"



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Another bench mark on the road to all out tyranny in the US. I never have been able to understand the relationship between Andrew Napolitano and Janet Napolitano. How can two members of the same family be in such important positions on absolutely opposite ends of the spectrum? Is this a sham somehow, or just an enjoyable irony? What does Thanksgiving look like at their house when they sit around discussing their exploits? This just always has seemed suspect to me.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pogsilive
I've been reading all the executive orders for the month of March and back into February, and I cant find this? Now I know its Fox, and they do have the tendency to Omit little facts, or even invent them, but I thought there might be something to this. Does anyone have the actual number for this executive order that The Judge talks of ?
It’s Executive Order 13567, and it’s the one you linked on the White House website, “Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


Has anyone read this? or are the comments just on what the judge said and other websites and or opinions? Ive read it, and I could be completely wrong, but I see nothing in this saying this.
That’s because, as you’ve alluded to earlier, Fox News has a tendency to, well, lie.

And it’s quite sad to see all these members outraged about it, treating this executive order like Obama just declared himself dictator — like Fox News told them to — when, in fact, this order is actually an improvement over the system invented and put in place by the Bush administration, which was patently worse.

I am by no means defending the Obama administration, because it has continued many of the Bush administration’s policies, and, in some cases, have gone even further. This, however, is simply not one of those cases.

Don’t take it from me, take it from, for example, Human Rights First, a US non-profit human rights organization—

Human Rights First is calling today’s executive order establishing a periodic adversarial review process for detainees held at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay a step in the right direction. Even so, the organization is cautioning that the Obama Administration must now focus its attention on efforts to transfer those Guantanamo detainees who have been cleared for release and prosecute in federal courts those for whom there is evidence of criminal conduct.

Or from Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor who has defended some detainees in Guantanamo—

The order sets up a new administrative procedure—the Periodic Review Board (PRB)—to review cases of individuals whom the administration’s task force previously selected for continued detention or criminal prosecution. The order disavows any claim of new detention authority. Rather, it provides an alternative avenue of release for detainees who, in the administration’s view, may be lawfully held under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), as informed by the law of war.

The PRB is the latest installment in the alphabet soup of Guantanamo review schemes. On paper at least, it’s a significant improvement over the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), created by the Bush administration in 2004 to rubber-stamp its determination that the detainees were “enemy combatants” and avoid the habeas corpus review the Supreme Court had just mandated in Rasul v. Bush. This time, detainees are assigned personal representatives who, well, actually represent them. (Under the CSRT, the detainees’ personal representatives could—and sometimes did—advocate against them). ...

But if you oppose the type of prolonged, indefinite detention that has come to define Guantanamo (as I do), the order is a mixed blessing at best.

In sum, while Obama’s executive order improves the system created by the Bush administration — that Fox News didn’t bother to mention — it still falls short of Obama’s campaign promise of closing Guantanamo.

Things got a little bit better for the detainees and the rule of law, but it’s still an improvement to a system that shouldn’t exist in the first place if the Bush administration had followed the law, and if the Obama administration had the political courage to permanently fix.

edit on 12-3-2011 by aptness because: added link



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
See how it says " Continued Law Of War Detention ..." Meaning, they are extending the Bush executive order from all the way back in 2001. Why are you blaming Obama for something Bush and Republicans already did?

Also, it does not say what the Judge, or what others have been saying. There is nothing saying Indefinitely imprisoned. It says reviewed, but nothing about keeping someone forever. They could do it under this, Bush, rule, but they could do a lot of things under a lot of rules and they dont. What if the person they are reviewing is a loon that hates the US and swears to kill everyone he sees once he is out? Woudl you say let him free? Or what if its someone who is determined not to be harmful, and not seen as a threat. Would you want him to stay? This give them to opportunity to review the cases and see if they are dangerous or not. Not to automatically keep anyone they want forever.

And if you read this section and not just cherry pick and interpret your way, you will see it actually says that Detainees have constitutional privileges, habeas corpus, and the order is not intended to affect the jurisdiction of Federal courts for them.... But that wouldn't give you something to be upset about then would it.

"(b) This order is intended solely to establish, as a discretionary matter, a process to review on a periodic basis the executive branch's continued, discretionary exercise of existing detention authority in individual cases. It does not create any additional or separate source of detention authority, and it does not affect the scope of detention authority under existing law. Detainees at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and nothing in this order is intended to affect the jurisdiction of Federal courts to determine the legality of their detention."







Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by Kali74
 


No rights being denied?.. how about the "right" to be freed by a jury / due process?

"Sec. 2. Standard for Continued Detention. 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."

Some govt clowns "periodic review" can nullify a "not guilty" verdict as long as said clowns decide the acquitted represents "a significant threat to the security of the United States."



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by Kali74
 


No rights being denied?.. how about the "right" to be freed by a jury / due process?

"Sec. 2. Standard for Continued Detention. 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."

Some govt clowns "periodic review" can nullify a "not guilty" verdict as long as said clowns decide the acquitted represents "a significant threat to the security of the United States."





And were in it does it even say what you are claiming?? That periodic review means it can nullify a non guilty verdict ? it says that nowhere in it? You are just repeating what the judge says, and that speculation based on bias opinionated political BS.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Aptness,
Thank you for the executive order number. I appreciated it and am in the process of reading it.
Also, thank you for making sense out of this, using a little seldom heard cognitive reasoning here.
I think you should change your Id name to DENY IGNORANCE. because for a sight that presses just that point, there seems to be more than its fair share of it here. Yes, even I occasionally can be ignorant when if I just believe what I'm told and not learn the truth for myself.


Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Pogsilive
I've been reading all the executive orders for the month of March and back into February, and I cant find this? Now I know its Fox, and they do have the tendency to Omit little facts, or even invent them, but I thought there might be something to this. Does anyone have the actual number for this executive order that The Judge talks of ?
It’s Executive Order 13567, and it’s the one you linked on the White House website, “Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


Has anyone read this? or are the comments just on what the judge said and other websites and or opinions? Ive read it, and I could be completely wrong, but I see nothing in this saying this.
That’s because, as you’ve alluded to earlier, Fox News has a tendency to, well, lie.

And it’s quite sad to see all these members outraged about it, treating this executive order like Obama just declared himself dictator — like Fox News told them to — when, in fact, this order is actually an improvement over the system invented and put in place by the Bush administration, which was patently worse.

I am by no means defending the Obama administration, because it has continued many of the Bush administration’s policies, and, in some cases, have gone even further. This, however, is simply not one of those cases.

Don’t take it from me, take it from, for example, Human Rights First, a US non-profit human rights organization—

Human Rights First is calling today’s executive order establishing a periodic adversarial review process for detainees held at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay a step in the right direction. Even so, the organization is cautioning that the Obama Administration must now focus its attention on efforts to transfer those Guantanamo detainees who have been cleared for release and prosecute in federal courts those for whom there is evidence of criminal conduct.

Or from Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor who has defended some detainees in Guantanamo—

The order sets up a new administrative procedure—the Periodic Review Board (PRB)—to review cases of individuals whom the administration’s task force previously selected for continued detention or criminal prosecution. The order disavows any claim of new detention authority. Rather, it provides an alternative avenue of release for detainees who, in the administration’s view, may be lawfully held under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), as informed by the law of war.

The PRB is the latest installment in the alphabet soup of Guantanamo review schemes. On paper at least, it’s a significant improvement over the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), created by the Bush administration in 2004 to rubber-stamp its determination that the detainees were “enemy combatants” and avoid the habeas corpus review the Supreme Court had just mandated in Rasul v. Bush. This time, detainees are assigned personal representatives who, well, actually represent them. (Under the CSRT, the detainees’ personal representatives could—and sometimes did—advocate against them). ...

But if you oppose the type of prolonged, indefinite detention that has come to define Guantanamo (as I do), the order is a mixed blessing at best.

In sum, while Obama’s executive order improves the system created by the Bush administration — that Fox News didn’t bother to mention — it still falls short of Obama’s campaign promise of closing Guantanamo.

Things got a little bit better for the detainees and the rule of law, but it’s still an improvement to a system that shouldn’t exist in the first place if the Bush administration had followed the law, and if the Obama administration had the political courage to permanently fix.

edit on 12-3-2011 by aptness because: added link



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Activist1984
Another bench mark on the road to all out tyranny in the US. I never have been able to understand the relationship between Andrew Napolitano and Janet Napolitano. How can two members of the same family be in such important positions on absolutely opposite ends of the spectrum? Is this a sham somehow, or just an enjoyable irony? What does Thanksgiving look like at their house when they sit around discussing their exploits? This just always has seemed suspect to me.




I think if you check you will find they have the same last name, but not in the same family.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
I am not a fan of the Democrats, Nor am I a fan of the Republicans. In my personal opinion the only difference between the two is the name of their parties, and what they say and do in the public eye. They all are on the same team, and that is to do the bidding of the rich and power. They are more puppets than people, but all with a common cause. To do what they are told to do by the top 1% in this country.

That said, I would like to ask if maybe some here could , how do I put it. Lets use some old sayings I'm sure we've all heard many times before..

-Look before you Leap-

-Dont Assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME -

just to name 2 of many with the same message.. So try to find to find out for yourself before you - Jump the Gun- Read, reasearch a little. consider the sources you read and their past history and biases. Dont just take the word of Beck, The Judge, Limbaugh, Steward, Maddow, Oberaman, Palin, Bachman, etc....whatever your preferred source is.

The reason I am saying this is because it really does no good to regurgitate false or misleading information. In fact, it only increases the powers that be , power, as they can publicly write it off as nut jobs, conspiracy, etc...
Also, maybe try to find a common cause, say, like making America a better place for every citizen in it, and then work as a force of a couple hundred million, and not a force of a million or so here, and a million or so there , and so on, all against everything the other is for. Remember, Divide and Conquer is the oldest trick in the book. And well, its really worker well in America.

Just my opinion. You are welcome to totally ignore me and continue on.

Just remember what this websites motto is and try to work toward it.

DENY IGNORANCE...



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SFGirl
 


SFGirl,
[

Im not insinuating anything, but a lot of people did things with the Nazi's during the war to spare their own lives. Yes, there are even well documented records of Jewish people working with the Nazi's, even in the military, and even turning in other Jews to be slaughtered. Lets also not forget some Americans helped Hitler too. In fact, its well known Prescott Bush , George HW father, and George W. grandfather, made millions selling goods to Hitler during the war. [ in fact, HW bush actually was in partnership business with Bin Ladins and his family before the 911 event], So I dont think its fair to say what you did. And I'm not supporting radical Muslims, just like I dont support any radicals, Christians, Jewish, Or even Buddhist if there are any. But I'm just saying, some helped Hitler to save their own lives, some did it to make money , as in the case of Bush.

come to think of it, Shindlers list, a biographical story, was about a Polish Jew, who hid that he was a jew and worked for the Germans, but is praised for being a great man cause he also helped other jews escape. So is it fair to group all Muslims the way you did?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Originally posted by the_denv

In all seriousness, this has scared the crap out of me but in the back of my head I knew it was coming.


It has been a long time coming, I pity those on both sides of the political divide who believe this is all about Obama.

That level of shallowness and ignorance is almost more frightening than this executive order.

Almost!






I TOTALLY AGEE WITH YOU !!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Ya this is just uncalled for but I am not surprised!

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take this on!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by morder1


I think "The Judge" is about the only thing I can stand to watch on Fox anymore... He brings up some good points about the erosion of The Constitution...

I had heard a little about the bill that Obama had signed about Guantanamo Bay, but wow, keeping people for life after being acquitted???


Isn't he the same guy who's been linked to the IRA terror organization ?
I'm not surprised he's on UNFOX Unfair and Unbalanced.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by morder1
Yeah really, where does this end?? Does it end 20 years from now when we are all living in 1984? Forced to love big brother...


Good Question, here is the sad fact though, Income tax was a law signed in during WW2, it was stated by the Govt as being a last ditch effort to save America in a burgeoning war time economy, and that at the end of WW2 Income tax should be removed as it is unconstitutional....yeah that never happened. Anything that gives "them" more power goes on the books and stays there. We really have no say, voting is more of mental masterbation than anything that benefits us on the civil level in any way at all.
Keep the masses entertained with sock monkeys and they wont know what we are up too!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pogsilive
See how it says " Continued Law Of War Detention ..." Meaning, they are extending the Bush executive order from all the way back in 2001. Why are you blaming Obama for something Bush and Republicans already did?
Allow me, if you may, a little context and elaboration here.

The Bush administration botched everything when initially didn’t even set up a review process, required by the Geneva Conventions, for the detainees. Laws of war require the detaining power to do a triage, in order to determine the status of detainees, who is a prisoner of war and who isn’t and if there are innocents and civilians wrongly detained, to be released as soon as possible.

Only after lawsuits reached the Supreme Court, in 2004, and a decision that pointed out the illegal nature of the Bush administration detention policies, they set up a review process. And in 2006, the Supreme Court again found that, the review process the Bush administration was, basically forced, to set up was still not in conformity with the laws of war.

The Conventions also require people to be treated like prisoners of war until “their status is determined by a competent tribunal.” Instead, the Bush administration argued everyone was an “unlawful combatant,” that had no rights, and tortured them — which is strictly prohibited by the laws of war, and is considered a war crime by international and US law. Torture, humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited, and unlike what torture apologists want you to believe, even when done to detainees that don’t qualify as a prisoners of war.


“Continued law of war detention” in Obama’s executive order alludes to a provision in the laws of war, namely Article 118 of the Third Geneva Convention, which allows a detaining power to keep a prisoner of war until the “cessation of active hostilities.”

The perverted thing about the “war on terror” is that, since we’re not waging war against a particular nation or a group of people — that can surrender; sign a peace treaty — and instead we’re waging war against a tactic, you can claim hostilities never actually end. Unless you’re gullible enough to believe ‘terrorists’ will cease to exist.

Not to mention that many detainees don’t qualify as prisoners of war. If they don’t, and were actively participating in the hostilities, they are criminals and have to be charged and prosecuted for their offenses.

The problem is that many of the people the Bush administration detained, were tortured — making their confessions inadmissible in court — and many weren’t actually guilty of anything and there is no evidence to charge them with anything.

The Obama administration is now in the difficult position of having to deal with people who (1) some were completely innocent, but after what was done to them, they now might feel a motivation to fight us or tell the world what happened to them; and (2) some were legitimately held for being belligerents but were tortured in our custody or there’s not enough evidence to charge them.

So Obama is using “continued law of war detention” to keep holding some people to whom that law of war provision, in my opinion, doesn’t apply and can’t or won’t be charged because there isn’t any evidence to do so. That’s where the “indefinite detention” criticisms come from.

This executive order improves the chances of people challenging their detention and eventually being released, but it also, in my opinion, obliterates any realistic chance of Obama closing Guantanamo like he promised.

Obama doesn’t have enough political courage and respect for the rule of law to do the right thing, so instead ends up improving, slightly, a system the Bush administration created and that shouldn’t have existed in the first place.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Or its entirely possible that once Obama got into office and had full access to the information Bush had, his view changed. Its entirely possible they have information that is not available to the public, which is defining their positions.

Also enemy combtanats, while not meeting the UN term for Prisoner of War, allows the detaining country the ability to ccharge them, but are not required to do so. They also have the option of holding those people until such time as hositilities between the Taliban / Al Queida are ended. Prior to that, we can charge them under US military or domestic law, or hold them until a prisoner swap can be accomplished between the 2 sides (which to date we have refused because they are pulling the release 50 of ours for one of yours issue).

They will be held until the end of hostilities, which means they wont be released anytime soon.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
We can foil the plans of the PTB at any moment by deciding to not participate anymore.

If we all stopped working this very minute, when I say all, I mean police, military, bank officers, everyone...the only thing we would have to do is work together to insure we all ate. We can have voluntary shifts at the power plants until the fuel ran out.

There wouldn't be any evictions because the bank officers and police aren't working! There would be no person to oppress you.

We would force the hidden PTB to finally show themselves because someone would have to come out the cave and attempt to force us to work again.



I think that it's relatively Impossible to "just stop." What really CAN take place is directed community action.

For instance; States deciding to open their own banks. Instead of being in debt and paying off interest -- a state can collateralize the VALUE of a bridge as an "asset" just as a bank can with a house. So the value of the bridge can be used to PAY for the creation of the bridge. Instead of the clock ticking on debt, the bank has a VALUE, that can run to zero as the bridge is constructed. The net result is a bridge that has economic impacts, and salaries that add taxes to the State economy. The final outlay and capital risk for the State that "banks" on its own infrastructure is many times less than borrowing the money.

States also issue bonds to produce money for projects -- but bonds require a DEBT.


>> On a PERSONAL level -- I think Police can stop evicting people. Let the Banksters try and throw people out. Or perhaps, be a LOT SLOWER to respond to their alarms -- eventually, they'll have to hire private mercenaries like Blackwater, but hey, that's inevitable. Just stop using our tax dollars to protect their greedy asses.

In Libya, the police and military have stopped answering to Kadaffi -- and he has to execute people with is "palace guard." So there, PASSIVE resistance does not work.

But here -- we can make the multinational corporations lose money, we can throw a wrench the works. Best if it is anonymous and faceless -- as direct confrontation will not work. It isn't even legal to protest if it has an economic impact. I can't even TELL THE TRUTH on the TV about some food or product that is dangerous if it hurts the company.





new topics
top topics
 
252
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join