Obama Wants to Veto Indefinite Detention Bill(s.1867) Because It Would Hold U.S. to Geneva Conventio

Sorry if this has been posted or in the wrong category. It didn't turn up in a search.
But they objection by Obama is the inability to torture anyone to death without accountability. To me the argument seems to be about how badly the gov is allowed to treat a human body, dead or alive.
globalresearch.ca...
www.whitehouse.gov...

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Sounds like NAZI Germany to me. Anyone else getting the same feeling? Actually I have seen horrifying parallels sine the Bush Administration.

We all thought that we would get a break from the Bush regime when a Democrat got in - well I didn't but a lot did - but I think we can see pretty clearly that Obama is shaping up as George Bush III. William Kristol
en.wikipedia.org... (Project for A New American Century) en.wikipedia.org... said in the film Why We Fight that nothing would change with a change of political party inside the White House.

Too bad FDR didn't prosecute the perpetrators of the attempted coup that Major Gen. Smedley Butler revealed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Known as the "Business Plot" en.wikipedia.org... FDR said that prosecution would be too upsetting to the economics of the US. As you can see from the link the New York Times was doing the same thing it is now, covering...

History repeats itself because we don't remember history.

"After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country"

Sweet God in heaven. We must be careful about debate in Congress.

Who are we kidding. Like Congress would read it.

I wonder if this actually Obama making the call, trying to become a real boy rather than the strings that move Obama.

reply to post by GoldenRuled
from the white house link

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of

it seems that they already have this so why need an other version or does the new version clear up what if fogy to begin with? back with part 2

part 2 where it left of

legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
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. 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. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.

so in essence, they already have this 1031 1032 in place do not need to tie up the system with confusing Mumbo jumbo and having to know if your legal to apprehend or not will just slow us down , but then as it is your in our sites you need to be , not just on say so.

should i add part 3??? it does seem to leave a bad taste in ones mouth, leaving it like this , for what if you want to know what the rest of it says , but then i will let you the reader decide. stars will do, no need to reply to me directly

If and when this bill gets vetoed,

what happens to all the other side issues and the main issues?

Perhaps SLObama and Co. have a hidden agenda here.

Maybe he really wants to stall the defense spending?

Are there any other "provisions" that would be controversial?

In the meantime, all the pseudo intellectuals keep right on collecting inflated salaries and benefits.

And the majority of citizens remain in a financial tailspin.

Does anything at all in this bill have a positive impact on the majority of citizens?

I think I find it disturbing that the Administration is more concerned and disturbed with the effect on their ability to violate other people rights than they are about the fact this bill "accidentally" struck out the prohibition on bestiality, to simply use the term on the paper. I would really have hoped that issue would warrant serious mention if not an issue more important to talk about than detainee authority.

I guess we all have our priorities and what strikes us the hardest. Hmmm

reply to post by xuenchen
only if they work for a Gov Contractor, this bill will pass even though Obama would veto it , Congress has the votes to get it into law as far as 1031 1032, they could side line it,that is, remove it from the final version of the bill, or keep it in just to make things interesting.
DoD say he is mine.
FBI say no he's not he mine,
CIA says no not yours but ours,
TSA say ,pat down time,
GI say why not shoot the SOB,
Hostile say,
"All i did was say peace, not war at the Fed building, now I'm off to Git Mo bay"

Here is the real answer in the first link of the OP:

The Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war. As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing "extraordinary renditions" to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

The bill would make the detainees "prisoners of war" which can not be tortured under Geneva Convention. They have been labeled "enemy combatants" or "terrorists" to get around this.

How can this man live with himself he's such a liar:

reply to post by pianopraze

The bill would make the detainees "prisoners of war" which can not be tortured under Geneva Convention. They have been labeled "enemy combatants" or "terrorists" to get around this.

They have the "hidden" prisons set up in foreign countries already.

They can and will (if not already) do the same right here in River City.

Who will be able to "prove" anything anyway?

It's not like they will list prisoners on the news !!!

This thing may get shot down, but they will still do it anyway.

We are not dealing with normal people.

They are psychopaths and maniacs.

Anything is possible.

Let's see if he actually follows through with the Veto threat before we slam him, Sound good?

A simple stroke of the pen will delay and cancel this action cold!

Flood the emails of The WH and demand that he veto. He will veto something that the clearcut majority of American's clearly are demanding and wanting.

This is direct action in politics!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

Like he has in the past? 65% of the country was screaming to veto obamacare, 85% were screaming for the stimulus veto. Obama himself describes the majority of this country as fearful isolationists that need someone to push them past that like it or not. And no need to to house 'enemy combatants on foreign soil, the FEMA camps already here and staffed can house 30+ million people.

Are you people actually in favor of s.1867?

Are you performing mental gymnastics in order to somehow blame Obama?

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
Are you people actually in favor of s.1867?

Are you performing mental gymnastics in order to somehow blame Obama?

i can't imagine anyone in their right mind being for a bill like this. if we have to turn ourselves into animals to protect ourselves, what have we won?

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Instead of finding out who is in fact pulling this and backing this play will open up a whole new uncovered conspiracy that makes this seem small by comparo instead of using any cheap arse and lame arse excuse to attack Obama and the nation.