Obama Expresses Objections to Indefinite Detention of US Citizens While Signing Defense Bill …(But It Was His Administration That Insisted the Language Was Included in Bill)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, January 2, 2012, 1:26 AM
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act on Saturday, but not without expressing his objections to the funding bill’s provisions on the treatment of suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens.
Obama expressed “serious reservations” about the bill but argued in a signing statement released Saturday that it does not fundamentally change executive power.
The administration does not intend to interpret one provision as granting the military authority to detain Americans indefinitely, Obama said in the statement. It also opposes sections of the bill that block the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. soil for any purpose and that restrict the government’s ability to transfer detainees to other countries.
But… It was his administration that insisted that the language be included in the bill.
From the video: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
Specifically, the section that Obama asked to be reworded was Section 1031 of the NDAA FY2012, which says that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” could be held indefinitely.
Hat Tip Maria
ADVERTISEMENT
`
Craig commented:
My God! I thought you would never talk about that. It’s been all over the Net for so long now.
Molon Labe commented:
Craig’s dream realized. The junior fascists are so happy that their fuhrer has signed this into law!
Resist by any and all means possible.
jhump commented:
Craigstain, you never answered my question regarding the ice cream flavor which best represented Ron Paul’s Middle East foreign policy position.
nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan perot carter commented:
Willard Mitt Romney and Ricky Santorum will save you !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa89gmjUTyk
jhump commented:
All the kewl kidz r talking bout it! CSPAN, ever heard of it, twink! Tell ur mom she’s out of condoms(look at what happened last time she neglected that inventory).
dunce commented:
The legal definition of a belligerent act is a country or group that is recognized as making war. George Bush said we are not at war with islam but were at war with terror. Terror is not a group or a country. This administration said the taliban is not our enemy per se, what ever that means. What is the legal status of al queda? If you ask them they are allahs soldiers. If you ask janet napolitano who is our enemy she would likely say sheriff Joe Arpaio and his arrests of illegal aliens are belligerent acts. Can our govt. please identify the enemy, is it children and blue haired grandmothers at our airports?
squeaky commented:
probably just setting the stage so that whatever outcome he’ll be right – being the egotist that he is…egotist: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
n. A conceited, boastful person. A selfish, self-centered person. egotistic e ‘ go·tis ‘ tic or e ‘ go·tis ‘ ti·cal adj. egotistically e ‘ go·tis ‘ ti·cal·ly adv.
he approved the remainder of the 2009 budget [rejected by Bush] while claiming objections. he could have rejected the 2nd half of tarp. he can’t just vote present anymore so he just has to angle a vote in such a way that allows him to declare victory no matter the outcome. as he signs it, he’s on record for objections. he referred to the 2009 spending budget as “Bush’s budget” while ignoring his own complicity. labeling “Bush’s budget” got him off the hook.
tennismom commented:
A ‘belligerent act’ might be holding up a sign that says ‘Impeach Obama!’ or saying to a TSA agent doing a random search, ‘You are violating my Constitutional Rights’ or making an internet post such as this one. The application of the law is open to interprretation & Obummer’s promise not to use it to detain citizens is meaningless . . . as is most of what He says.
The law legalizing indefinite detainment of American citizens should be repealed.
Obama should be impeached.
dba...vagabond trader commented:
Calculated dissembling so whatever or whomever he applies it to will fit. Not a peep out of the go along to get along crowd. Traitors all.
joeyc commented:
Does this mean that we can hold Obama and his illegal family members in Gitmo for an indefinite period of time also? Obama is “Jihad in the white house”!!!!
RedBeard commented:
I really hate to rely on Levin for anything, but if he is correct, then Obama has much for which he must answer.
As for congressional complicity, I wonder how many members of Congress voted for the revised language without even knowing about the change, and how many understood the change and knowingly went along. Ignorance is no excuse at all, but I suppose it’s better than willfully aiding and abetting this stuff.
jhump commented:
If congressidiots can disavow their vote for Iraq, why can’t they do it for this? There are any number of excuses any congressperson can claim, first and foremost, ignorance. I’d call it feigning stupidty, but look at craigie-poo. He drinks his in big gulps while bathing in it.
clarityrising commented:
Just putting in place the tools for tyrrany when they might need it later to shut people like us up.
The All Real Numbers Symbol commented:
“Ignorance is no excuse at all, but I suppose it’s better than willfully aiding and abetting this stuff.”
In this case #12, I have to disagree. It is the job of our elected officials to know exactly what they’re passing in the bills they vote for. Especially in this freedom-destroying bill, ignorance is not an excuse.
Obama and his cabinet must be impeached.
Every member of congress who voted ‘yes’ to this abomination must be impeached.
If this country survives the dictatorship of Obama it will be a miracle.
Kissmygrits commented:
Our elected leaders who voted for this monstrosity will claim that they didn’t like that part but overall it is a good bill because it has funding for the military, and it was the best they could do. The constitution was thrown under the bus, again, by the very people who took an oath to uphold it.
chris commented:
This is what happens when we vote idiots into office that have no interest in following the Constitution. It’s scary and pathetic.
Our republic government is in exile. Those in office now should, by and large, be at the least thrown out if not impeached and thrown in jail for what amounts to treason.
Half the population have no interest in doing anything about our demise. The other half, that are true liberty loving patriots, will eventually have to take back our country as the Founders envisioned would be necessary one day.
Sasja commented:
Craig is right about one thing. This has been “out there” for quite a while. Everyone must have been focused on the OWS nonsense and posting on blogs to communicate with their elected officials in Washington. I’m not saying it would have done any good, but if you don’t raise a stink about these issues, and often, then it’s definite nothing will change.
If you have a problem with your elected officials, I suggest you do the research in your state to see what can be done to get them removed. And good luck with that.
`