Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Obama signs Martial Law into effect


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 dolphinbomb

dolphinbomb
  • YAAAAAAYYYYY

  • 3758 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 11:21 AM

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“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 D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “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. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

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

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.


http://www.aclu.org/...ention-bill-law

<simon>
Discuss.
</simon>

#2 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:28 PM

If you wanted to be like simon, you would have spelled it "Amerikkka"

Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually, I kinda feel bad for reading this and moving on rather quietly. But I can tell from the pageviews that I'm not alone in that.

As far as the article goes, I'm frankly surprised this is the first I'm hearing of this. I try to stay abreast of national and international affairs and yet I'm clueless. Right now my main question is why this didn't have the HUGE campaign against implementation that the turn off the internet bill had. I guess we care more about our virtual freedoms than our physical ones :(

#3 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:43 PM

Over reaction to a law that probably won't be used that much.

#4 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:47 PM

Over reaction to a law that probably won't be used that much.

:/ If the president is concerned by the power of a law, so much so that he issues a signing statement, we probably should be too.

#5 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:54 PM

Over reaction to a law that probably won't be used that much.


This is the same president promised to close Guantanamo bay, and promised to reduce the power of the government and its ability to hold people without charges. He promised transparency and to make it so the government has to go through the court system to hold someone.

This action is the reverse of everything he promised.

#6 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:59 PM

I don't see how any of that is relevant to my point.
Besides, it's not just Obama. It's the Democrat party.

I told everyone this four years ago "Obama won't change a thing, get the republicans in to sort your economy out"

Someone give me a medal.

#7 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 January 2012 - 02:01 PM

:/ If the president is concerned by the power of a law, so much so that he issues a signing statement, we probably should be too.


It's not like it's any different to what currently happens anyway, you've already got people in prison for years without trial.

#8 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 January 2012 - 03:00 PM

It's not like it's any different to what currently happens anyway, you've already got people in prison for years without trial.

Don't blame me. I didn't vote to suspend habeas corpus. Besides, the Patriot Act was signed in by a republican. Who knew that the dems could do the same thing so publicly? The ACLU is usually their prime supporter, besides minority groups.

I don't see how any of that is relevant to my point.
Besides, it's not just Obama. It's the Democrat party.

I told everyone this four years ago "Obama won't change a thing, get the republicans in to sort your economy out"

Someone give me a medal.

Get the republicans in? Who do you think was in charge before Obama? Who do you think currently controls the house of representatives? Bah.

If anyone is going to fix the system, it won't be someone from the main parties. Britain is climbing out of the recession thanks in large part (IMO) to an historic coalition government - LibDems and Conservatives. At least you guys have that third party that's large enough to be seated separately in parliament. Even if we elect an independent, they still have to caucus with one of the two major parties to have any chance of getting committee appointments, which is where the real power of Congress lies.

#9 dolphinbomb

dolphinbomb
  • YAAAAAAYYYYY

  • 3758 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 04:02 AM

I don't see how any of that is relevant to my point.
Besides, it's not just Obama. It's the Democrat party.

I told everyone this four years ago "Obama won't change a thing, get the republicans in to sort your economy out"

Someone give me a medal.


Party Politics is dead, especially where the USA is concerned. Any distinction between Republican and Democrat has been effectively neutralized, especially since there aren't any limits to how much corporations can donate to political interests anymore.

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.

#10 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 January 2012 - 05:45 AM

Party Politics is dead, especially where the USA is concerned. Any distinction between Republican and Democrat has been effectively neutralized, especially since there aren't any limits to how much corporations can donate to political interests anymore.

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.


I think the past four years have shown us that there is definitely still a distinction between these parties; however, the distinction lies less in their political mindset and more in the dedication to make each other look bad. Our environment of objection has stalled progress and caused the current administration to falter. I will be surprised if Obama gets elected for another term. How we ever thought we would get anything done with a congress of a different party from the president is beyond me. Reactionary voting FTW


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users