Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

hosted.ap.org

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, that's great Mr.President...your adminstration won't detain US Citizens without trial. What about that Presidents that come after you?

I knew he would sign it, I just kept praying that he wouldn't or that he would send it back for a re-write. All remaining hope I had in Obama was just obliterated.

Happy New Year America


hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Where've you been?

That seems like a TOTAL cop out. He signed something into law that he KNOWS will allow for the detention of American citizens, but *HE* isn't going to do it, so I guess he thinks we can't possibly blame *HIM*.

He's always trying to cover himself, isn't he? Kind of like when he voted "present" all of those times so he wouldn't have to take a position.

I can not respect him for that one single bit.

reply to post by Figzer


What do you mean, where have I been?

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
That seems like a TOTAL cop out. He signed something into law that he KNOWS will allow for the detention of American citizens, but *HE* isn't going to do it, so I guess he thinks we can't possibly blame *HIM*.

He's always trying to cover himself, isn't he? Kind of like when he voted "present" all of those times so he wouldn't have to take a position.

I can not respect him for that one single bit.

I couldn't agree more. It's like the politicians that scream and yell till they're hoarse about the evils of earmarks...then sign the bill full of them after making damn sure THEIR earmarks were included. He signed it with stipulations..but nothing he can't reverse later with the right 'crisis'. Well, another day, another year and another step away from a Free America.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


I think for the first time in my adult life I won't be voting for a presidential candidate. The provisions in the defense budget did not need to be there, stripping away a citizens right to a trial whether he intends to enforce that or not does not make America one bit safer.

This law would certainly be found unconstitutional if tested in court. Court can not test it though until someone is arrested. No one has standing to bring it until they use it.

Originally posted by kawika
This law would certainly be found unconstitutional if tested in court. Court can not test it though until someone is arrested. No one has standing to bring it until they use it.

How could it be tested if you suddenly disappeared? Would they even let your family know what was going on?

reply to post by kawika


I'm not too sure on that, I think SCOTUS can as they have done with Obamacare, step in if a bill/law/whatever is possibly unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Kali74

Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

hosted.ap.org

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement.




Dam, he usually does the opposite of what he says he is going to do.

Originally posted by Kali74

Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

hosted.ap.org

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Lol, and people will believe him. Totally ridiculas, he knows damn well, if he didnt agree with it or even some of it he should never have signed it. Indeed, I think the fact that he has signed it means, IMO, that he has committed treason and should be tried as such.

reply to post by Kali74


Here's the "change" that Obama promised us, America.

Our choice last election cycle was between the man who co-sponsored this treasonous bill, and the man who signed it into law.

Perhaps this will show America that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. This really could be a blessing in disguise as Ron Paul will easily be able to throw this in Obama's face when he gets the Republican nomination.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich, America

reply to post by Kali74

Obamas Hippocratic way of running things is really starting to piss me off. the thing that everyone should remember is that Hitler got into power by giving germany free bread. He played the right angle for a country that had no food, and used certain wartime laws that were previously passed to help him build his powerful regime. In germany htey had no food. In America there is no freedom. Be careful of the wolf in sheeps clothing that comes to "free the 99%" from these ridiculous laws.

All that time we spent arguing about whether or not this bill could apply to american citizens should have been spent fighting it. It never should have made it past the Senate.

Originally posted by kawika
This law would certainly be found unconstitutional if tested in court. Court can not test it though until someone is arrested. No one has standing to bring it until they use it.

This is not true. In fact, the section of NDAA 2012 that has so many rightfully concerned is not, as so many disingenuous legislators who voted for it are stating, "extending any new authorities" to the federal government. It is true that the NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 of the act do not "extend any new authorities" and is merely codifying into legislation what has all ready been held by the courts.

In Rumsfeld v Padilla, on September 8th of 2005, The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal government had the authority to hold Padilla without any charge or trial, as an "enemy combatant". The 4th Circuit ruling has never been heard by the Supreme Court because the issue became moot when then President Bush transferred Padilla from Guantanamo Bay to the United States to be charged and held for trial.

It was Padilla's lawyer who filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus on Padilla's behalf that got the issue in the courts to begin with. So it is just not true that this portion of the 2012 NDAA cannot be challenged. It can be and it will be.

This hasnt even made Foxnews. Somehow i think these must be watered down and not the "we will not target Iran's central bank" sanctions that were spoken of a couple of months ago.

why did he sign it then, just goes to show how dumb he really is.

hope you can get him out next election, however the replacement wouldn't be much better

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

I think for the first time in my adult life I won't be voting for a presidential candidate.

This is the only choice worthy of consideration these days.

The corruption is so bad that continuing to follow the process is simply prolonging the necessary death of our political system.