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.

 

Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

page: 4
95
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
you know... this fool cannot let one single christmas holiday time go by without slamming the coffin lid down harder, can he? It's almost like this a favorite time to "gift" the American people with some new and cruel law.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
"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."

Saying this just confirms what everyone said about this bill before hand ..that it DOES inlcude language which will allow indefinite military detention of American citizens, otherwise why didnt he just say "nothing in it allows for that."



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nana2
you know... this fool cannot let one single christmas holiday time go by without slamming the coffin lid down harder, can he? It's almost like this a favorite time to "gift" the American people with some new and cruel law.


And with the signing announcment,

The White House declared their official holiday song is now:

"The Nutcracker Suite".



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nana2
"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."

Saying this just confirms what everyone said about this bill before hand ..that it DOES inlcude language which will allow indefinite military detention of American citizens, otherwise why didnt he just say "nothing in it allows for that."


[color=cyan]***

Bingo !

I guess He settled THAT argument all by hisself


Here comes November ...... 3-2-1



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

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.


So is The Patriot Act but that sure isnt stopping them, eh?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

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 in court if there's never a trial...that's the whole purpous of the bill, so they don't need a trial.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Does anyone else find it, and I don't know if "ironic" is the proper word, that on this date in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclaimation into being and now on the same date in 2011, President Obama just signed a document into law that will enslave us all?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrParanoid
Does anyone else find it, and I don't know if "ironic" is the proper word, that on this date in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclaimation into being and now on the same date in 2011, President Obama just signed a document into law that will enslave us all?


Strange coincidence indeed.

maybe Lee Michaels can help




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I believe the original post, left out the a paragraph before the president's statement (from the AP):

Here it is:
----------------
The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"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."
----------------

It appears the detaining part was removed?!?!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I believe the original post, left out the a paragraph before the president's statement (from the AP):

Here it is:
----------------
The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"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."
----------------

It appears the detaining part was removed?!?!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Get Ron Paul in there and we won't have to worry about this stuff people!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
This is Obama's grab for the '12 elections where can use this to say "While holding this office I guarantee that no citizens will be held indefinitely" out campaigning.

What was the voting record on this bill for the other candidates?

Either way, the actions of our elected officials and the speach given by Obama downgrades the right to habeaus corpus, to citizens of the United States into to "traditions" or "values".

All of this posturing by the political parties have been going on as of late to set public opinion on various topics to induce knee-jerk reactions during the upcoming election cycle's various political plays we'll see. For example - do you believe that ANY politician would support a bill that would stop social security checks from being distributed? Bull# - if that bill actually passed then the occupy movement would have started with people in wheel chairs, not the online group "anonymous". The politicians, their staff and most educated individuals know the reaction from such an issue would cause chaos costing the system millions. The current congressional bills and other "world events" are spoon-fed drama real-life drama stories broadcasted to set the tone and context we'll see used during the primary race for US President, with the victor previously determined by which candidate is more charismatic to the public. This is how most election cycles have progressed since the early 1900's.

As much as I believe some of Ron Paul's ideas on the economy are bat-# crazy he's the only real hope this nation has as the next president who won't nose-dive the United States of America into the stone age for the next 200 years. He has a good record of doing what he feels, and believes, to be true - even under pressure.

The right thing in this case would be to veto the bill.

Obama didn't do the right thing and tried to cover it up with a apologetic speech.
edit on 1-1-2012 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2012 by Evil_Santa because: grammar



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
In light of recent events I have altered my stance on the American Government and it's policies.
I want to take this moment to apologise for any despariging remarks I may have made in the past regarding my government and its treatment of our constitution.

I realize now that it was I who was wrong and misperceived your loving kindness and compassion for overbearing tyranny and oppression. Please King Obama, find it in your heart to forgive me and my transgressions against my country and for questioning your rulership.

You are a fine ruler and worthy of your title.

It is not my place to question anything you do or say.

Please do not make me disappear.
my family needs me.
My kids are scared that daddy is going away soon.

I vow to help you in your quest to stamp out any opposition to you and your polic.......err...."terrorism"
If I see something I will definately SAY something.

Forever your loyal subject.

Screwed.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I believe the original post, left out the a paragraph before the president's statement (from the AP):

Here it is:
----------------
The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"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."
----------------

It appears the detaining part was removed?!?!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


So you won't be voting for Ron Paul? wow that makes you just as bad as Obama.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by euphoria5150
 
would you like to see the real statement or are you happy with the one you read , in other words are you ready to handle truth or MSM bs? if you want the truth as to what Obama really said www.whitehouse.gov... if not, then do not go to the link


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



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I get a kick out of lord obama's signing the bill dispite reservations. He's the President he didn't have to sign it if he didn't like it. He could've simply said that if you plan on detaining American citizens, think again, I'm not signing it.
So his "signing" it dispite reservations
clearly shows he's all in favor of it. It really scares me to think what he'll do next when/if? he gets re-elected.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by euphoria5150
 


They didn't drop the section no, they took out the word require. Meaning it's still an option.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


No, I won't be voting for Ron Paul as I don't support his views. Kind of like how I don't go to church because I don't believe the Bible is God's word.



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join