It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by snarky412
And especially with this being election year and all the problems with the current administration, why is Apaio getting more attention from the media then Obama himself??.
I am not defending the sheriff merely stating the difference of MEDIA coverage between him and the current administration's scandals. And he's not the one running for re-election of POTUS.
Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by snarky412
So, lets understand your logic.
If Sheriff Joe violates the constitution and steals tax payer money it's ok but if Obama does it then it's somehow worse? Such a hypocritical mindset. Apaio would be the same exact type of president as Obama based off his record as a sheriff.
This shows that you all could careless about the constitution or being corrupt as long as it suits your agenda.
edit on 27-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)
Indefinite detention blocked
A federal court issued an order blocking the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA for American citizens after finding it unconstitutional. On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others, US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the NDAA 2012 violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. Issuing a preliminary injunction prevents the US government from enforcing section 1021 of the NDAA's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by US Congress.
Judge Forrest was requested by the Obama administration to undo her ruling. In a footnote of the request, the Administration claimed "The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit".
In an opinion and order filed June 6, 2012, Judge Forrest clarified her statement, saying that her injunction applies not just to the named plaintiffs in the suit, contrary to government's narrow interpretation. She wrote, “Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court — or by Congress...This order should eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order’s scope”. The detention provision is not blocked for any persons connected to the September 11 attacks.
States calling for ban on indefinite detention Nine states have introduced bills aiming to adjust or repeal the detainment provisions of the 2012 NDAA. Most recently Rhode Island passed a resolution calling on Congress to repeal Sections 1021 and 1022.
American and international reactions
Section 1021 and 1022 have been called a violation of constitutional principles and of the Bill of Rights. Internationally, the UK-based newspaper The Guardian has described the legislation as allowing indefinite detention "without trial [of] American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay;" Al Jazeera has written that the Act "gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely." The official Russian international radio broadcasting service Voice of Russia has been highly critical of the legislation, writing that under its authority "the US military will have the power to detain Americans suspected of involvement in terrorism without charge or trial and imprison them for an indefinite period of time;" it has furthermore written that "the most radical analysts are comparing the new law to the edicts of the 'Third Reich' or 'Muslim tyrannies.'" The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, and The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times and other news organizations.
Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
All it takes to be a natural born citizen is to have at least one parent born on US soil.
And that's his mother. She was born in Wichita, Kansas, spent her childhood there, then lived in Hawaii for a long time, enough to get her degrees.
So even if he was born in KENYA, HE STILL WOULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BY LAW!
Which is a fact that you birthers ignore.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Phoenix
The term natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. As a result it is up to the courts to interpret the meaning. The authoritative and leading precedent is Lynch v. Clarke. The decision of this case stated that anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen. The nationality of Obama's father has no bearing as Obama was born in Hawaii.
Originally posted by 1BornPatriot
Obama father is not a Kenyan - I believe several researchers are attempting to gather DNA to prove this theory.
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.
Originally posted by Phoenix
I'm just curious here, why do you people defend this impostor to the hilt when its so very obvious his history is dubious at best and full of holes and unaswered questions. I really am curious about that aspect. Seems no matter whats in question some here have to defend the indefensible.
Really would like a plausible answer to that and not pablum. What is it about this guy that makes you that way. The curiosity stems from knowing full well were the situation in reverse the bum would have been run out of office at tip of pitchfork, why is Obama different - explain!edit on 27-6-2012 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)edit on 27-6-2012 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)