It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AG Holder: Obama Will Add Signing Statement to NDAA

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Oh boy, wonder what this is gonna be...and if we'll ever found out exactly what the statement includes or takes away from the approved act.

" James Madison, writing as "Publius," wrote in The Federalist, No. 47: "The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Source

In a story published by the Talking Points Memo Muckraker, Attorney General Eric Holder (left) has confirmed that before President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 into law he will append a signing statement.

Although the President initially signaled he would veto the measure, the TPM Muckraker continued:

Holder said the language of the NDAA had been moved in a "substantial way" from some of the original language which led the president to issue a veto threat.


Holder: Obama will issue signing statement with NDAA detention rules

Let's hope the signing statement doesn't contain, as according to the FBI activists, who upset economic loss to businesses. Which could encompass any group that protests against or are involved in stopping the flow of imports or exports of goods...as is the case in California.

Source

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.




edit on 23-12-2011 by Daedal because: Edit




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
When will we know what he added?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron
When will we know what he added?


Probably never...but let's hope for the best.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
That criminal Holder should be in jail,but that's another matter.

Who wants to bet that the signing statement will mean that Obama won't have to report to anyone when he arrests/kills a group/someone?

Look at what Holder is saying :

“But I think through these procedures, with these regulations we will be crafting, we can minimize the problems that will actually affect us in an operational way.”

Aka we will do whatever we want and anything in the bill that stops us will be ignored using signing statements.

And a reminder on signing statements :

In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[2][dead link] In fact, the Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety and return it to the House in which it originated, along with his written objections to it.

But eh, let the Obama supporters vote for this piece of trash yet again right?
edit on 23-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I can only imagine the signing statement will somehow make the bill worse.

Either that or it will say "suckers" real big with a big fat O at the end.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
And if you think Obama is gonna make the bill better, think again :



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 
2006 was that not under Bush??? oh yea how many times did he do this??? I think more that 50 all in the name of National Security NSA wire taps, TSA pat downs, DHS detaining FBI/CIA covert ops, and CIA in home land use.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Vitchilo
 
2006 was that not under Bush??? oh yea how many times did he do this??? I think more that 50 all in the name of National Security NSA wire taps, TSA pat downs, DHS detaining FBI/CIA covert ops, and CIA in home land use.


Yep. Bush started it and Obama has continued it. Signing statements are unconstitutional but they don't care.

As for the number, I think Bush used 140+ signing statements during his term.
edit on 23-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This stinks, and it's very saddening to know that our democracy is turning into anything but. I always wonder how these people sleep at night, knowing that this bill (and others) will most likely hurt innocent people - then I remember money and greed can numb the consciousness. Surely they are not truly happy, though; how can one be happy knowing he/she negatively affect the lives of many?

And what's worse is many do not even know the bill exists. I hope people start seriously waking up soon and decide it's time to take back their rights.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by celebration
This stinks, and it's very saddening to know that our democracy is turning into anything but. I always wonder how these people sleep at night, knowing that this bill (and others) will most likely hurt innocent people - then I remember money and greed can numb the consciousness. Surely they are not truly happy, though; how can one be happy knowing he/she negatively affect the lives of many?

And what's worse is many do not even know the bill exists. I hope people start seriously waking up soon and decide it's time to take back their rights.


America is being sodomized. Plain and simple. -------------------------



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
It's a little too soon to find it just yet, but a list of them can be found at CoherentBabble.com and at www.whitehouse.gov...WhiteHouse.gov.[/url]

Keep an eye on both those sites and let us know what you find.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by celebration
 



This stinks, and it's very saddening to know that our democracy is turning into anything but. I always wonder how these people sleep at night, knowing that this bill (and others) will most likely hurt innocent people - then I remember money and greed can numb the consciousness. Surely they are not truly happy, though; how can one be happy knowing he/she negatively affect the lives of many?

Apparently you never read books on psychology of psychopaths... you do know there's bad people in the world who just want to see the world burn right?

This is what your government is :


These are not just a bunch of corrupt greedy people, they are SICKOS of the highest variety. A bunch of psychopaths killers who will do anything including torture kids (which they did under Bush and probably continues under Obama) for their own amusement and will kill (or worse) to get more power.

9/11? Government OP. OKC? Government OP. 1993 WTC bombing? Government OP. Drug dealing? Government OP. Tuskegee experiment? Government OP. State sponsored sterilization of women up to the 70s being done publicly? Government OP. Lying to go to war and kill a million Iraqis? Government OP. Overthrowing Iran and Iraq and putting brutal dictators to replace them? Government OP.

That's some evil people up there.
edit on 23-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



Liar Liar Pants on Fire....
edit on 23-12-2011 by pianopraze because: Obama liar, not V...



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Very good point. Obama being a big big big liar yet again.

And this ain't just about the NDAA :
Obama signs bill, says he's not bound by huge sections of it

Obama just remembered signing statements it seems.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


The signing statement isn't available online yet so I can't say what he's saying or what he's not saying. So I won't.

Candidate Obama said that in response to GWB's 109 signing statements in his first term, 50 in his second for a total of 159 signing statements. Currently, Obama has 19 signing statements.

Still in his third month of his presidency the current POTUS said this in a memo:

based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. In issuing signing statements, I shall adhere to the following principles:

1.The executive branch will take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable, to inform the Congress of its constitutional concerns about pending legislation. Such communication should facilitate the efforts of the executive branch and the Congress to work together to address these concerns during the legislative process, thus minimizing the number of occasions on which I am presented with an enrolled bill that may require a signing statement.

2.Because legislation enacted by the Congress comes with a presumption of constitutionality, I will strive to avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.

3.To promote transparency and accountability, I will ensure that signing statements identify my constitutional concerns about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection.

4.I will announce in signing statements that I will construe a statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional problem only if that construction is a legitimate one.


When you get a chance to read the actual statement, let me know.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The most logical thing I could see him adding if he does sign it is to specify ground rules for how citizens can be protected.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
The most logical thing I could see him adding if he does sign it is to specify ground rules for how citizens can be protected.

US citizens to be protected? You must be kidding. Obama HIMSELF asked for the NDAA to apply to US citizens.

Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


That is not him speaking, that is him being threatened into saying this, learn the difference! Along the same exact lines of 43 being forced to say and do what he did and said. Externally being threatened via leverage like, "You sign this or else Capitol Hill will be nuked!",
edit on 24-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I don't know what's more upsetting, that the indefinent detention amendment specifically does not apply to US citizens and so many people think it does...or that it exists at all.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 
one more time: If you act in a hostile manner or are in a belligerent act then you give up you right of Citizenship. Is this not clear enough? A citizen is not one that partakes in hostile or belligerent acts... can you not read between the lines?


edit on 25-12-2011 by bekod because: editting







 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join