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 Kills NDAA Bill ##Breaking News##

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
NO This is not a Prank! This is Law! It happened in Febuary but most people missed it hit the news.

IMPORTANT - The NDAA no longer applies to American Citizens

For those of you who refuse to believe this or you don't want to believe this because you have vested interest in continuing hysteria over the NDAA bill read the direct link to the EO on the Whitehouse website below. It is now a confirmed fact that the NDAA no longer applies to American citizens.

This happened in Febuary, but apparently you missed the news!
Obama Issues ‘Policy Directive’ Exempting American Citizens From Indefinite Detention

globalresearch.ca...
www.prisonplanet.com...

www.informationliberation.com...

Direct Link to Executive Order
www.whitehouse.gov...

edit on Fri May 18 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
B. Covered Persons. For purposes of this Directive, the phrase "Covered Person" applies only to a person who is not a citizen of the United States and:

1.whose detention is authorized under the 2001 AUMF, as informed by the laws of war, and affirmed in section 1021 of the NDAA; and
2.(a) who is a member of, or part of, al-Qa'ida or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qa'ida; and (b) who participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
C. Attack or Attempted Attack.

1.An "attack" means the completion of an act of violence or the use of force that involves serious risk to human life.
2.An "attempted attack" means an overt act or acts beyond a substantial step when (a) performed with specific intent to commit an attack; and (b) no further step or act by the individual would be necessary to complete the attack.

D. Application to Individuals Captured or Detained by, or in the Custody of, the Department of Defense. Any time an individual is captured or detained by, or otherwise taken into the custody of, the Department of Defense, the requirement under section 1022(a)(1) of the NDAA will have been satisfied, regardless of whether there has been a final determination as to whether the individual is a Covered Person, and regardless of the authorities under which the individual is captured, detained, or otherwise taken into custody. Therefore, individuals captured or detained by, or otherwise taken into the custody of, the Department of Defense shall not be subject to the procedures outlined in sections II through IV of this Directive. Any subsequent law of war disposition of the individual effectuated by the Department of Defense consistent with section 1021(c) and 1022(a)(3) of the NDAA satisfies all requirements of section 1022 of the NDAA, subject to the conditions on transfer in section 1028 for any individual detained at Guantanamo.

E. No Effect on Individuals Held by State or Local Authorities. The requirement in section 1022(a) of the NDAA does not apply to individuals arrested by, or otherwise taken into the custody of, State or local law enforcement agencies, and the procedures and requirements set out in this Directive shall not apply while individuals are held in the custody of State or local law enforcement agencies.

F. No Effect on Individuals Held by Foreign Governments. The requirement in section 1022(a) of the NDAA does not apply to individuals who are arrested by, or otherwise taken into the custody of, a foreign government, and the procedures and requirements set out in this Directive shall not apply to individuals held in the custody of foreign governments, including but not limited to circumstances where intelligence, law enforcement, or other officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a foreign government.

II. WAIVERS TO PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS

A. Statutory Authority under NDAA. Section 1022(a)(4) of the NDAA authorizes the President to waive application of the military custody requirement under section 1022(a)(1) where doing so is "in the national security interests of the United States." Such waivers ("National Security Waivers") apply to the requirements of section 1022 of the NDAA.

B. Protection of U.S. National Security Interests. In accordance with section 1022(a)(4) of the NDAA, and consistent with section 1022(c)(2), which provides the executive branch with broad discretion to design implementing procedures to ensure that the requirements of section 1022 do not interfere with various authorities necessary to disrupt or respond to terrorism threats, and to ensure that counterterrorism professionals have clear guidance and appropriate tools at their disposal to accomplish their mission effectively, I hereby waive the requirements of section 1022(a)(1), regardless of whether an individual has yet been determined to be a Covered Person, and certify that it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so, when:



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrDetective
 


Interesting... Not sure if it justifies him signing it in the first place... The world is pretty messed up if that kinda law can pass in the first place while applying to citizens of the US...

I still feel like something fishy is going on though, I may research more before I formulate a complete opinion.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
How can this be all cap breaking news, if it happened in February......


Are you going to scour the whole net, looking for praise Obama stories to post all day.....

Des



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MrDetective
 


now if we can get him to repeal the 30,000 unmaned drones said to be watching us in 2016 that would be great



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I am wondering perhaps if this is just a petty campaign tactic... to leave something as overlooked until now... seems odd doesn't it?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I am wondering perhaps if this is just a petty campaign tactic... to leave something as overlooked until now... seems odd doesn't it?


It's like the ATS front page has an all Obama, is wonderful wonderful channel......


Des



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
If Obama killed the NDAA, why did the House of Representatives just vote in favor of KEEPING the privisions in the NDAA that apply to US citizens?
Is our government just stupid beyond belief now and they don't even know what each branch of government is and is not doing?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Yeah a lot of social problem nonsense... We will see what happens closer to elections, but I have seen a lot of Ron Paul threads as well which is good... I just hope people do not become burnt out... It would almost be better to get out all the Obama propaganda now so people will pay more attention to writing Ron Paul in closer to November



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
A couple of small things. One, the bill isn't killed. It's a big bill with lots of provisions and sections. The OP is addressing one section, 1021. Two, there was no Executive Order. The OP's source headlines it as a "Presidential Policy Directive." Three, I would be sincerely unhappy with a President who thought he could get rid of laws he didn't like with just an EO. Four, two days ago a judge issued an injunction against enforcing section 1021, so apparently it wasn't killed or the judge wouldn't have had to kill it herself. In any event, that is much more current and relevant news.

At first glance, this doesn't seem to be a thread with a lot of thought put into it.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
This was in fact discussed on ATS when it happened. The consensus as I remember was that Obama was simply promising not to use the bill to detain Americans. He promises lots of things, you know. How many promises he fulfills is another matter altogether.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I am wondering perhaps if this is just a petty campaign tactic... to leave something as overlooked until now... seems odd doesn't it?


It's like the ATS front page has an all Obama, is wonderful wonderful channel......


Des



The OP sure is pushing a pro-Obama agenda today. I'm still waiting for a reply in his Five things Obama did to help veterans thread. Must be too busy posting Obama propaganda instead.

As for this thread. They will just write a new bill with hidden language and pass it through while noone pays any attention. That's just how the gov rolls these days, deception and misdirection.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PhysicsAdept
 


Other possibilities:

1) People's outrage was beginning to get quite noisy so they shelved the idea lest others be arrested and make us all noisier (the more people that are awake and the noisier we are the less they feel they can get away with)

2) 1) is the case until they pass another law to make it 'suddenly' apply to American citizens when the time is ripe.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Also, you posted two threads about this very subject, both on the same day. I will link them here for all to see.

Both posted by OP on 02/29/2012
Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Detention Of Americans

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Military Detention Of Americans

That's right people. Two threads, same title, different forums, on the same day. How did that one get past the mods. We get it OP, You think Obama is god's gift to the world. No need for multiple duplicate threads to get your point across. This thread here makes number three over the same issue, same timeframe.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Breaking News:

There are still Obama supporters stay tuned to see how the defend his fascist laws.

Zeig Heil Zeig Heil!!!!

The NDAA is here to stay hope you don't get indefinately detained!



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrDetective
 


But does a "Policy Directive" have any legal bearing? It isn't a law, so does it really have any teeth, or is it just his opinion on the matter? Suppose a law enforcement agency follows the law to the letter, would it matter if the President disagreed with the action? Can Obama issue an executive pardon to someone that hasn't been charged yet, but is being held indefinitely?

I think this was a non-story, because it is a non-story.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Breaking News:

There are still Obama supporters stay tuned to see how the defend his fascist laws.

Zeig Heil Zeig Heil!!!!

The NDAA is here to stay hope you don't get indefinately detained!


Why are you focusing on Obama? When it was mostly Republicans that both sponsored this bill and voted for it, are they all not equally guilty of supporting this?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Here is a more recent, (as in today) article regaurding indefinite detention. See, still alive and well and being pushed further everyday.

House OKs Terror Suspects' Indefinite Detention



WASHINGTON — A divided House on Friday endorsed the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even for U.S. citizens seized on American soil.

A coalition of Democrats and tea party Republicans fell short in their effort to end the controversial policy established last year and based on the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Why?

Because the dude sitting in that oval office signs that bill into a law and that is Obama

Thats why.
edit on 18-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Republicans love Tryanny
Libertarians Love Tryanny

Democrats Love Freedom



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join