While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

[Derek]

<span style="font-style: italic">Derek,

Well, the deed is done.

It is now being reported that President Obama has signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, which codifies the possible indefinite detention of Americans without due process.

By definition, Martial Law is the suspension of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for military rule.

At least we saw it coming...

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/6208.html </span>

President Barack Obama faced a civil liberties backlash today after he signed a law that will allow terror suspects to be held indefinitely - even raising the prospects of U.S. citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

The controversial move, revealed last night, effectively extends the laws of the battlefield to American soil.

The move shows a clear hardening of Mr Obama’s anti-terror policies, and a major shift from the liberal stance that helped him sweep into power three years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...o=feeds-newsxml


<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 11pt">I feel sorry for him. I bet he never thought being president would be like this.</span></span>

[Derek]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded





And er, what are these, somewhere in Georgia?

[blugiant]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shre

fram wat mii readinn, itt seem dat dem dem tink ave da powa fe detain indefinitely beefour. da immediate detention bill was de legal written codification aff dat powa. diss iss da scaree part de reason y mixxed race man objected to da bill wass cah itt restricted imm powa fe indefinite military detain merikkans. da underlieinn pint iss dat imm ave de powa fe indefinite detain merrikkans butt imm restricted fram military indefinite detention

yu rite diss shredd da constitution. 5th 6th 8th

[Cultcha]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">



And er, what are these, somewhere in Georgia? </div></div>

Well I know where you are going but another thing that comes to mind is that they sort of look like the containers you see entering the loading bay at WalMart. All full of clothing direct from the ship that carried them across the Pacific from China.

[Derek]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KF_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I know where you are going but another thing that comes to mind is that they sort of look like the containers you see entering the loading bay at WalMart. All full of clothing direct from the ship that carried them across the Pacific from China. </div></div>


JUST IN CASE 'Occupy' expands, gets out of hand, and Martial Law has to reveal its true colours...

[kia027]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

the bill is not yet signed.

[Blackstar*]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

Pres. Obama will sign the bill now that it has broadened his authority to detain at will.

[MsPeaches]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded


Greetings from Ghana!

Obama will sign the Bill.
I figure he miscalculateed before his run for President and never realized to what extent he would be just a pawn in somebody else's chess game.
He probably meant well, but the guy is powerless.
Remember the 4 days he was supposed to spend in meetings with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the beginning of his term?
Remeber that one day at a time they turned into 9?
I figure that's when they got to him.
Game over:
The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is now a totalitarian Police State.
Zieg Heil!!

[Cultcha]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

WASHINGTON --<span style="font-weight: bold"> Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.</span>

The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto.

He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president. Congress also clarified that civilian law enforcement agencies -- such as the FBI -- would still have authority to investigate terrorism and added a provision that asserts nothing in the detention measures changes current law regarding U.S. citizens.

Still, the signing on New Year's Eve as few people were paying attention angered civil liberties advocates, who argue that the law for the first time spells out certain measures that have not actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, including the possibility of detaining citizens in military custody without trial for as long as there is a war on terror.

&quot;President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

&quot;The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield,&quot; Romero added. &quot;The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress or internationally.”

The administration was especially sensitive about the law and about reaction to the president signing it. In addition to enacting the measure while few people were paying attention -- and many opponents still had hopes the president would veto the bill -- the White House added a signing statement specifying that the Obama administration would not detain Americans without trial. The White House also sent out a notice to its online community highlighting Obama's complaints with the law, in a tacit admission that many of the president's more ardent supporters despise the detention provisions.

&quot;I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,&quot; Obama said in the signing statement.

Presidents issue such statements when they feel a law conflicts with the executive's constitutional powers. Obama criticized them during the Bush administration, but has found the practice useful on a handful of occasions.

In this case, Obama argued that the changes Congress made to the bill affirm only authorities that the Bush and Obama administrations have already claimed in fighting terrorism. But he noted that the codification of those powers in law was unnecessary and perhaps harmful. And he insisted he would not use the powers to detain citizens without trial.

&quot;I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,&quot; Obama wrote. &quot;Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My administration will interpret section 1021 [of the bill] in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.&quot;

Civil liberties advocates like Romero pointed out that once the provisions are law, however, they will be available to a President Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or any future president, who could choose to use the powers granted more aggressively.

&quot;We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,&quot; said Romero. &quot;Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today.&quot;

Because of the provisions specifying that the new legislation does not change current law, the new law leaves the authority it grants open to interpretation and to the possibility -- albeit in very difficult circumstances -- of someone challenging a detention through the courts.

&quot;Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority,&quot; Romero said. &quot;But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created, because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA's detention authority.&quot;

Obama also said he will not abide by the law's requirement to detain terror suspects using the military.

&quot;I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat,&quot; Obama said. &quot;While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.&quot;

Finally, he rejected a number of other provisions, saying the White House is concerned they interfere with the president's constitutional powers and ability to fight terrorism.

&quot;My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office,&quot; Obama warned.

[kia027]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

signed on the 31st as opposed to the 18th

[R_C]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

--------------------&gt; Straight to the Supreme Court.

An American citizen, born in the USA (Yasser Hamdi), was already held at Guantanamo without trial. He was shipped to Saudi Arabia where he &quot;agreed&quot; to renounce his citizenship.

Two other citizens, that we know of (John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla), have also been held by the military without trial before.

[Blackstar*]

Re: While Americans shopped, Constitution was shredded

<span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Obama's U-Turn on Guantanamo Seals
fate of lone Briton</span></span>
After 10 years, Shaker Aamer can see no hope of release as US President reneges on 2009 pledge
Paul Cahalan
Sunday, 1 January 2012

The family of the last Briton held in Guantanamo Bay, the extra-judicial US interrogation
centre on Cuba, have spoken this weekend of their decade of torment as President Barack
Obama appears set to perform &quot;the biggest U-turn of his presidency&quot; by keeping the prison
open and signing indefinite detention without trial into law.

The family of Shaker Aamer - speaking as the 10th anniversary of the prison next week is
expected to prompt worldwide protests - said his unlawful imprisonment had destroyed him
and his family.

As a US presidential election year begins, President Obama is expected to renege on a
2009 promise to shut Guantanamo. Instead, he appears to be planning to keep it open
permanently.

Mr Aamer, who has four children with his British wife, the youngest of whom he has never
met, was captured by the US in Afghanistan in December 2001 and claims he was tortured
before and during his time in Guantanamo. He said he was helping to build a school when
he was seized; the US said he was fighting with al-Qa'ida.

Despite never being charged with any offence and being cleared by a military commission
in 2007, Mr Aamer, now 45, remains locked up and with little prospect of returning home
soon to his family in London.

&quot;In the 10 years Shaker has been there he has become old,&quot; Saeed Siddique, his father-inlaw,
said yesterday. &quot;His hair has turned white and he is very ill.

&quot;His children are growing now and it is difficult for them. The youngest one is nine and has
never met his dad. He doesn't know why, and he tells his mum, 'My father doesn't love me
because he never sees me'.&quot;

Mr Siddique, 69, added: &quot;Since Shaker has gone, my daughter has become very ill. She has
been treated for depression and hearing voices. When she is very bad, I have to look after
her and the children for weeks. It is very hard for her and all the children.

&quot;When he was captured, Shaker offered to let my daughter divorce him, but she said, 'No,
I will wait for you'. She is still waiting.&quot; More...