Comments on: Obama Signing Statement: The NDAA Doesn’t Apply To US Citizens

By: vince

vince — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:27:22 +0000

LOL, read my posts. Limited…I think not. If it is as you states then there was no need for the bill in the first place. This is out right tyranny.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:16:05 +0000

And certainly we can take Obama at his word! He would never, ever CONSIDER abusing the power of his office, trampling the rights of the American people or taking advantage of those who stand up to his thuggish ways.

The point is, congress has put extraordinary power in the hands of the most corrupt, America hating president in US history. And those who suggest the “Americans are exempt” language in this law is anything but meaningless should understand just how wrong they are.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Shiva (Moderator)

Shiva (Moderator) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:53:06 +0000

The patriot act gave any president the right to do what is in this bill. Obama neither changed it or did anything new here except to say his administration would not use it. Thats common knowledge. If he had veto’d it the congress would have over ridden his veto and passed this

What do you think? 0 0

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:21:05 +0000

The Act itself and Section 1032 most certain CAN apply to American citizens. Don’t fooled by Obama’s words and his signing statement which carries absolutely NO weight of law. Please read section 1032 carefully and you will find an exception which gives authority to the Sec of State, Sec of Defense and Director of National Intelligence. It is this (Para 4) which allows these three to IGNORE the “it doesn’t apply to American citizens” language so carefully thrown into the bill in order to con the American public. In the interest of National Security, as stated in Para 4, these 3 can indeed apply the law to American citizens and on American soil.

What do you think? 0 0

By: VINCE

VINCE — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:14:44 +0000

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Note that it states the “requirement”. Which means that they dont have to…doesnt mean they cant.

2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Note the language “any person who has committed a belligerent act” pretty vague.

These are the two main points of contention. If you read it carefully what it is saying is the president or the secretary of defense has the authority to detain, indefinately, any person that the deem as a threat to national security. So if you protest you could be deemed as belligerent. I mean anything you do could be deemed as belligerent. Then you have no right to a trial by jury. No lawyer. Nothing. Doesnt apply to U.S. citizens? Come on.

What do you think? 0 0