Obama Says He Already Had the Power to Indefinitely Detain Citizens

04 Jan

         Obama has finally signed the NDAA bill(when he promised to veto it), which raises the executive branch to the level of total dictatorship. The only question now is if the President desires to be an authoritarian tyrant or keep some semblance of freedom. Possibly the most disturbing aspect of the final approval of this bill has to do with how the President reiterated what his problems with the bill is. Obama believes that once the Congress begins to define the powers which the President has it begins to regulate these powers. In fact through the Presidents signing statement and previous comments Obama believed he already had the power to have the military indefinitely detain American citizens. The biggest problem is now that this power is enacted through law it will be nearly impossible to withdraw a power such as this. It will now be highly unlikely but up to the courts and states to exercise their authority over unconstitutional laws. American values are truly deteriorating. 
     This fits perfectly within the need to lump all power into the heads of state or federal legislative bodies. This will allow for it to be easier for the sovereignty of the states and nations to be usurped, as is the plan for globalization (and already happening in Europe at a much accelerated pace). 

Obama says he doesn’t even need NDAA to indefinitely detain Americans

J. D. Heyes
Natural News
January 4, 2012
(NaturalNews) It’s called “Washingtonspeak,” and it’s different than the rest of the English language. President Obama used some of it last week when he agreed to sign the National Defense Authorization Act that allows, among other things, the military to detain American citizens indefinitely, to conduct secret kidnappings of suspected terror suspects (even if they are Americans living on American soil), and murder of same if said suspect is deemed a threat to national security. All without a trial. All without any deference to any other constitutional protection.
Very mindful of what the NDAA truly authorizes, Obama, in signing the legislation, said this: “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe.”
“My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”
The president went onto say that the provisions in question – specifically Sect. 1021, which he said merely “affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.” He describes the provision as “unnecessary.”
President Obama stated: “Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
In other words, the president is using Washingtonspeak to say he already had the authority to do what the NDAA law merely “codifies.”
Read more

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 4, 2012 in Uncategorized


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: