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.

 

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


www.huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- The White House released rules Tuesday evening waiving the most controversial piece of the new military detention law, and exempting U.S. citizens, as well as other broad categories of suspected terrorists.

Indefinite military detention of Americans and others was granted in the defense authorization bill President Barack Obama signed just before Christmas, sparking a storm of anger from civil libertarians on the left and right
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
After all they fear mongering and hype and paranoia in the end it all ends up being the the NDAA will NOT include indefinite detention of Americans. I feel that people in the conspiracy genre need to no jump to conclusions and over-react to issues before they fully develop. I would like your comments and your opinion on this development.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 29-2-2012 by MrDetective because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Oh Barry my hero, please take my vote

/sarcasm



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
This is the best news I have heard since this fight for health and freedom began. The system is withdrawing and giving the people the freedom and the space they need to survive.


+7 more 
posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
If people didn't get up in arms about this part of the bill, would the President have waived it?
I feel that this development was the direct result of people speaking up against it.


+17 more 
posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AutomaticSlim
 


In my opinion he knew it would cause the reaction it did.

Then he waives it in time to score more browney points for the election. "Hey this guy's not so bad after all. He cares!"

Syke.
If he cared he would have never signed it.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
He said he wouldnt sign it

He signs it

Now he says he wont use it?

Wonder what will happen next? Hmm



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
This is nothing more then slight of hand. It's still in the statute and you can bet they will still use it. The president has no power to line item veto anything. He is simply trying to appease people by saying oh we won't use it... So if he wants to use it all he does is change the rules. And in fact Obama and Bush and Clinton et al have all already done it even when it was illegal. These people have proven they have no respect for law time and time again why would anyone believe this BS.... its amazing how easy the sheeple are fooled...Sigh.


edit on 29-2-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MrDetective
 


why does it have to take a jackwagon like Alex Jones to stir up a bunch of crap to get the bill reversed....This time the squeaky wheel got the grease. What about next time the squeaky wheel gets GREASED...
at least we dont have to hear another story about FEMA Camps, that was stupid silly
edit on 29-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MrDetective
 


Believe what you will. Tell us why swat teams are raiding Raw Milk Clubs? Guantanamo? umm... Drone strikes on Americans? Helicopter hits on Reuters reporters... ? nah... nothing to worry about..



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
After all the time people have spent drumming up the NDAA bill and the indefinite detention and now in the end none of them end up being right.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Obama waived it because he personally did not believe in it. I do not believe Obama listens to a crackpot like Alex Jones or any other alarmist. Obama did this because if his personal convictions and not because Alex Jones said so and by the way scared alot of people in the process.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by morder1
He said he wouldnt sign it

He signs it

Now he says he wont use it?

Wonder what will happen next? Hmm



Obama just legally waived it making it VOID from the NDAA BILL

hmmmm Obama seeming too patriotic for you?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Advocates for liberties will likely find the new rules for implementing reassuring, at least while President Obama is in office. But one of their big complaints with his signing of the law is that his policies only last so long as he is in office, and they will likely step up attempts to repeal it.


From the article. that is still very disturbing and Barry can change his mind, the language is still there. It needs to be repealed. McCain is just as much to blame as Obama.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrDetective

Originally posted by morder1
He said he wouldnt sign it

He signs it

Now he says he wont use it?

Wonder what will happen next? Hmm



Obama just legally waived it making it VOID from the NDAA BILL

hmmmm Obama seeming too patriotic for you?


Did you read the article carefully?


The categories of people exempted by the rules:

When placing a foreign country’s nationals or residents in military custody will impede counterterrorism cooperation;

When a foreign government indicates that it will not extradite or transfer suspects to the U.S. if the suspects may be placed in military custody;

When an individual is a U.S. lawful permanent resident who is arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country;

When an individual has been arrested by a federal agency in the U.S. on charges other than terrorism offenses (unless such individual is subsequently charged with one or more terrorism offenses and held in federal custody in connection with those offenses);

When an individual has been arrested by state or local law enforcement, pursuant to state or local authority, and is transferred to federal custody;

When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to secure an individual’s cooperation or confession; or

When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to conduct joint trials with co-defendants who are ineligible for military custody or as to whom a determination has already been made to proceed with a prosecution in a federal or state court.



"The procedures ensure that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of all of the relevant facts, based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team, and not a rigid statutory requirement that does not account for the unique facts and circumstances of each case,"



In other words, if THEY define you as a "terrorist," it still applies to you. You are aware of what they use to define possible terrorist activity, don't you? Or should I dig up some quotes for you?

It is a broad term, it's still in effect, they just sugarcoated it.

eta: And what kind of "patriot" would ever sign that in the first place, after he said he wouldn't? ha.

edit on 2-29-12 by reaxi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MrDetective
 


I dont know why it was ever put in with the language they used, which was foggy. Its only directed at terror suspects and even then the restrictions are still pretty high.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled, a few times now, that US Citizens cannot be subject to the UCMJ, US citizens can not be held without charge, and anything involving a civilian remains the jurisdiction Federal and State law enforcement.

People need to understand that just because a bill is passed and signed into law does not mean there are no issues in said law.

Paranoia for the win...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by reaxi0n
 



When an individual has been arrested by a federal agency in the U.S. on charges other than terrorism offenses (unless such individual is subsequently charged with one or more terrorism offenses and held in federal custody in connection with those offenses);

So... ahhhh, nothing has really changed. They still have the ability to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely as long as that person is labelled a terrorist. So I assume before this change they could detain any citizen indefinitely for any reason? No wonder people were up in arms about that, it's completely absurd. And this change isn't really much better. It's like "screw the due process of the law, if we don't like what you're doing you're completely screwed and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it".
edit on 29-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Yes, exactly.

They changed the words a little but it's still subject to their own definition so the change is pretty much useless.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Notice the law has not been changed...
It is there for future use. Just another political hand job.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Quote from article

"It is important to recognize that the scope of the new law is limited," says a fact sheet released by the White House, focusing on that worry. "Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States."

JUST THE FACTS MAAAM

Fact Sheet PDF http://(link tracking not allowed)/wd3Ak5

JUST THE FACTS







 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join