Goodbye Bill of Rights, Obama Signs NDAA

Dec 15, 2011 | Posted by: defyr | Full story: www.unelected.org

To no one's surprise, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act last night immediately after the House of Representatives passed it on a vote of 283-136. A This deplorable act of treason only serves to cement the fact that Obama is a serial liar who has no respect for the basic rights of American citizens.
Comments
1 - 20 of 1,403 Comments Last updated Jul 18, 2013
First Prev
of 71
Next Last
Curtis Lowe

Cibolo, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Good! Now let's lock up those darkies and throw away the key!

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Explaining to a 5-Year Old Why the Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/explai...

You Don’t HAVE to Lock up Joey For The Rest Of His Life Because He Called You A Mean Name, But You CAN Lock Him Away And Throw Away The Key And Then Falsely Accuse Him Of Being a Suspected Bad Guy If It Would Make You Happy

In response to my essay documenting that the indefinite detention bill does apply to American citizens on U.S. soil, a commentator posted:

Can somebody explain to me like I am 5, why [one of the bill's provisions - which discusses U.S. citizens] does not protect citizens?

Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand …

The bill says that the military must indefinitely detain anyone SUSPECTED of helping bad guys.

One provision says that the mandatory (“must”) indefinite detention doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens … but the government CAN indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen it feels like without trial, without presenting evidence, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen.

This would destroy our Constitutional rights to trial, to face our accuser and to consult with an attorney.

Indeed, it would destroy rights created in England in 1215.

In other words, it’s like saying “you don’t HAVE to lock up Joey for the rest of his life because he called you a mean name, but you CAN lock him away and throw away the key and then falsely accuse him of being a suspected terrorist if it would make you happy”.

Get it?

That is why Congressman Justin Amash wrote:

Senators McCain and Levin have teamed up to promote one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime, S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill would permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President. It is destructive of our Constitution.

… A few commenters have suggested that the dangerous provisions in S 1867 (discussed in my previous post) do not apply to American citizens because of this language in Sec. 1032:“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.

Amash subsequently wrote:

Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.

***

They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032:“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.

The ACLU notes:

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
tom

Hayfield, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

6

3

1

What a horrible bill..................EVIL.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

7

7

2

Coincidentally, On this day 12-15 in history:

Dec 15, 1791:
The Bill of Rights becomes law

How fitting that Obama signs the NDAA bill on the same day? Thus shredding the Bill of Rights and taking our right away from us.

Since: Nov 11

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Stalin needed to change a few things too.
TedsLiver

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Obama is watching all of you!
Right Wing Nutjobs

Reading, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

9

7

5

ROFLMAO!!!! Right wing nutjobs are such ridiculous, IGNORANT, lying, scummy, ANTI-AMERICAN m o r ons.

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

5

5

4

With a vote of 88 to 12 in favor in the Senate, Obama had little choice but to sign the bill, because a veto would have been overridden.
Also, in the house, 227 republicans voted for it while only 6 voted against it. Democrats voted 95 for it, 90 against it. Again, Obama couldn't veto what would have been overridden.

Here's a little civics lesson for those that want to blame Obama. A 2/3 vote of the Senate and House can override a Presidential veto. The Senate voted 88% in favor, far more than the 66% needed to override a veto, and the House voted 75% in favor, again, far more than the 66% needed to override a veto.

A veto by Obama would have been easily overridden, so a veto would have only been a statement in futility.
tom

Hayfield, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Yea I was shocked how many GOP voted for this evil unconstitutional bill. Remember at voting time any who voted for this bill must be voted out.

Since: Jan 07

Old Forge, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

7

7

6

I've posted opinions on this site for several years. I've used the same pseudonym all of this time and don't feel that any of my opinions justify calling for a national emergency. However, after reading "Kahoki's" explanation, I would not be surprised to look out my front window to see a SWAT team assembling, with weapons trained on my vicious guard dog, an elderly Peke.

I am not a "techie" but know enough to be aware that my posts can be traced to the two computers I use. I have always considered this and other such forums to be outlets for people to vent their feelings about various current events. Most likely, this legislation will inhibit citizens from exercising their freedom of speech as posters do on this site. Will we live in fear of saying or doing the officially defined "wrong" thing?

According to my pocket Constitution, we are protected from unlawful search and siezure. The debatable term is "unlawful." How simple it is for Congress to redefine what is lawful and what is not, and then attack citizens based upon this revision. I was alarmed when the "Patriot Act" was made the law of the land. I am even more alarmed now. Perhaps the only up side of this is that I may one day meet some of the people who post on this site, once we are all rounded up. And I am not going anywhere without my dog.

Since: Dec 10

Ron Paul 2012

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Hey geniuses this has overwhelming bi-partisan support!! Repubs and Dems can go rot in hell over this bill, get a clue! This passes the senate 93-7, 48 Dems and 45 repubs. This isn't a left right issue, it's a constitutional rights issue!
tom

Hayfield, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

6

3

3

Aaron Kent wrote:
Hey geniuses this has overwhelming bi-partisan support!! Repubs and Dems can go rot in hell over this bill, get a clue! This passes the senate 93-7, 48 Dems and 45 repubs. This isn't a left right issue, it's a constitutional rights issue!
Yea it is unconstitutional and evil.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:
With a vote of 88 to 12 in favor in the Senate, Obama had little choice but to sign the bill, because a veto would have been overridden.
Also, in the house, 227 republicans voted for it while only 6 voted against it. Democrats voted 95 for it, 90 against it. Again, Obama couldn't veto what would have been overridden.
Here's a little civics lesson for those that want to blame Obama. A 2/3 vote of the Senate and House can override a Presidential veto. The Senate voted 88% in favor, far more than the 66% needed to override a veto, and the House voted 75% in favor, again, far more than the 66% needed to override a veto.
A veto by Obama would have been easily overridden, so a veto would have only been a statement in futility.
The numbers I found were slightly different. Dems 93 for 93 against. That leaves 190 repubs for and 63 against.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

7

4

1

we still do have the right to vote...

i suggest exercising it with some thought and understanding.
Obama 2012

Mooresville, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

9

9

7

What the hell is wrong with you idiots? The NDAA was absolutely needed!

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

5

4

4

Here we go again. President Obama signs a bill written by Republicans, with overwhelming Republican support, and the first thing the Republicans do is critisize him for signing it.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Obama 2012 wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you idiots? The NDAA was absolutely needed!
I don't agree with that. Big chunks of it should be thrown out. If in the future an emergency arises we can always pass what we need to deal with it at that time. This thing should never be S.O.P.. It was sold as a temporary measure to deal with a crisis. The war may go on but the crisis is over. I am disappointed in President Obama and every Democrat that sided with the bill. The Republicans did exactly what I expected them to do. Push the bill through and then critisize the President for signing it.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

5

4

3

So, Thugs, still think Obama's a "liberal?"

LOL

I'll keep posting until you agree with this truth.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Caribou Barbie wrote:
So, Thugs, still think Obama's a "liberal?"
LOL
I'll keep posting until you agree with this truth.
Who you voting for in November? The Republican in office or the Republican running against him.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Dec 15, 2011
 

Judged:

5

4

2

LoLBama wrote:
<quoted text>
Who you voting for in November? The Republican in office or the Republican running against him.
The Republican in office.

No FDR style candidate running this time, next time there will be.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 71
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••