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: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Yeah threatened by his puppet masters, I get what you are saying. So we agree then.




posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Yes, besides that's how most every piece of draconian legislation gets passed.

Either that or threaten to kill 5,000 points off the Dow Jones!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
It's been signed, still waiting on the official transcript to be released.

Obama Signs NDAA with Signing Statements



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


I'm waiting on an official statement from the White House until I believe anything further on it and until that occurs it's still unsigned!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


There official statement can be read here.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


No mention of it on the White House website :

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


It's there now: www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


I read over it twice before drawing this :

No, we are not under immediate or direct threat of martial law as the provisions modified by The WH are heavily concentrated in the capture of foreign terrorist suspects and is not targeting Americans!

No special courts setup :
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

DoD now can aide local law enforcement via logistical and technical support only and not personell to remain complaint with The Posse Comitatus Act that specifically bans the use of the Military as a local law enforcement matters so there will not be any boots in our cities anytime soon.


edit on 1-1-2012 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I dont think they need "boots in the ground" if they come to arrest you. All they need is few men and some vehicles what they can use to haul you away, there is no need to have whole battalion to do such thing.


Alex Jones explains quite well that Obama wasn't against NDAA at all.


It was the Obama administration all along that demanded the indefinite detention provisions be added while at the same time telling the America people he was fighting to protect their rights.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Alvar
 


AJ's a corporate hack as far as I'm concerned. Why is he still alive and haven't been killed yet?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Alvar
 


AJ's a corporate hack as far as I'm concerned. Why is he still alive and haven't been killed yet?


What does your opinion of AJ have to do with the fact that Obama is for this.......

Thats right......your OPINION , against FACT.......

Stop deflecting



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


AJ is a corproate hack and this is not my opinion but is a fact. Why is he still alive? Who is he working for?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


You claim that AJ works for someone, but you don't tell us who does he work for... why? I certainly would like to hear answer. AJ's video did trash Obamas lies quite well in that video.

Obama claimed in WH letter that he didn't like NDAA, but in reality he wanted it all the time.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
The signing statement may act as a political pacifier (qualifier) but it is not binding to Obama and certainly does not restrict future POTUSs. So much for his "promise" not to sign the legislation.......



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join