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 sidesteps NDAA provision requiring military custody for terror suspects

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Well he did say some NDAA provisions were questionable.

Now He has written a directive to allow civilian investigators to handle cases of terror suspects.

He seems to be talking specifically about "foreign" suspects getting civilian investigators.

Apparently there is no mention of "American" suspects not getting military tribunals.

More confusion here ?

Another Congressional "By-Pass" in the works ?


Tuesday, February 28, 2012 21:37 EST -- The Raw Story

WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama announced measures Tuesday allowing civilian investigators to handle cases of terror suspects, effectively sidestepping a 2011 law requiring they be brought before military courts.

The directive provides more flexibility to the president in deciding whether to use military tribunals to try foreign terror suspects, and is likely to upset lawmakers who included the rule in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).



“The executive branch must utilize all elements of national power — including military, intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic tools — to effectively confront the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and its associated forces,” Obama wrote in a presidential directive.

Terror Suspects


Some may view this as "dictatorial" in nature

Why don't the laws by Congress ever get specific ?




What ARE the dangers of trying foreign terror suspects in Federal civilian courts ?




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




What ARE the dangers of trying foreign terror suspects in Federal civilian courts ?

None.

Got proof? No? Release.

Burden of proof... but under NDAA they don't need it.


“The executive branch must utilize all elements of national power — including military, intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic tools — to effectively confront the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and its associated forces,” Obama wrote in a presidential directive.

All hail ME, Lord Obama, creator of the universe!
Basically saying he does what he wants regardless of congress.

And the presidential directive means he can do ANYTHING he wants, even MURDER ANYONE, even American citizen in America if he says they are Al-CIAda or associated forces (aka anyone).
edit on 28-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Oh isn't this rich? I know I predicted exactly this thing...and there were probably 6-8 people that said the same thing in as many words on the threads after this passed. At least that many. I thought he'd take a little longer to totally circumvent the spirit of what he said wouldn't happen. After all, he had supporters saying he meant everything he said and this would never mean a bad thing to Americans. Remember?

Lol... it didn't take him long at all. Did it? Wow... Things really are sliding downhill fast when appearances just don't mean anything to them anymore. They don't even try and make things look right..... Not good.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
So if we take a hypothetical situation where a "terrorist" is taken into custody in a foreign country and sent to Gitmo.

Now somebody decides to try this terrorist in a U.S. court.

And then we see a dismissal for any reason.

Now what happens ?

I wonder how many "advisers" would be able to influence a President's decision.

I wonder how many "advisers" were involved in the influence to write the directive ?

Unless of course, Obama is acting alone



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

As I recall, we say a glimpse of that back when they were talking about having the trial in New York for KLM and others. Recall all that? Recall how they all but outright SAID that a 100% full aquittal wouldn't change anything for their status in custody? We'd still hold them..and likely, forever. Guilty or not. SO why bother with a trial at all?

I want to see KLM burn in hell......just so no one confuses my position about him and others at his level. It just blew me away that America, the land I love, would hold a trial where the outcome was PUBLICLY joked about and taken as a given before the first witness was heard or the first Juror was seated. THIS is what I grew up learning about and watching videos of.....from the U.S.S.R.. This isn't what I ever thought I'd see in the United States.



new topics

 
3

log in

join