• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.


[...]


The president defended his action, writing that he signed the act, “chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/


Hope and Change. Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. A New Beginning. Vote for Change. Help Me Take Back America. Our Time for Change.

Mr. President, either you're lying about why you signed this bill, or you're a coward. Either you're happy the Presidency has a new tool to put in the chest, or you didn't have the guts to tell Congress to send you an authorization bill without that junk attached. Either Congress sent it to you knowing you'd be pleased to sign it despite all of your public bellyaching, or they knew they had you outgunned.

Either way, you're an embarrassment to the office and to the country. You sold us out. Go **** yourself.
 
Last edited:
I'm in complete agreement with that statement. Mirrors my feelings exactly.
 
The Bill does not allow the indefinite detention without trial/charge of any legal residents of the USA. This includes citizens, tourists, and folks with Green Cards & Permanent Residency status.
 
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(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.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident
..
e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.
..




bare in mind if this law somehow changed existing law, to now allow for the indefinite detention without trial/charge, of any legal residents of the USA, I too would be yelling bloody murder and probably call for a popular uprising.

but the fact is, this law changes nothing. No citizens of the USA nor legal residents of the USA, shall be detained indefinitely without charge/trial, due to this law or due to any current law.
 
Last edited:
The Bill does not allow the indefinite detention without trial/charge of any legal residents of the USA.

And this was why Obama had "reservations." Because there were restrictions on detaining someone unconstitutionally.
 
but the fact is, this law changes nothing. No citizens of the USA nor legal residents of the USA, shall be detained indefinitely without charge/trial, due to this law or due to any current law.


I am fully aware that the requirement for military detention does not impact citizens. That's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the option for the indefinite detention of citizens. It is a fact that the bill, every public defense of the bill, the President's statements about his reservations on the bill and the President's signing statement of the bill fail to specifically exclude the indefinite detention of citizens:

Signing Statement said:
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.”

Signing Statement said:
My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.

If the President really wanted to calm us down, he would've stated categorically that this law did not apply to American citizens on American soil, and if the authors had wanted to protect our rights they would've said the same explicitly in the bill. Instead, they just say "well, I'd NEVER" and state that the President's authority on the subject hasn't been expanded. Not words of comfort.

Then there's the words of the retired generals objecting to the NDAA:

“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”

Then there's the words of a wide variety of civil liberty advocates who are concerned that this law does, in fact, grant the Executive to arrest citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/


Hope and Change. Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. A New Beginning. Vote for Change. Help Me Take Back America. Our Time for Change.

Mr. President, either you're lying about why you signed this bill, or you're a coward. Either you're happy the Presidency has a new tool to put in the chest, or you didn't have the guts to tell Congress to send you an authorization bill without that junk attached. Either Congress sent it to you knowing you'd be pleased to sign it despite all of your public bellyaching, or they knew they had you outgunned.

Either way, you're an embarrassment to the office and to the country. You sold us out. Go **** yourself.

Scary how the President of the United States only function is to be nothing more than tool for the real people behind the scenes who really make the decisons.
 
...If the President really wanted to calm us down, he would've stated categorically that this law did not apply to American citizens on American soil,...

the bill already says that.

why should Obama try to ease the fears of those who have already made their minds about this bill, and likely would simply hand-wave away anything Obama says.

regardless of the facts, some folks WANT to believe that this bill creates a new ability for the military to detain American citizens & legal aliens indefinitely without charge/trial. this is what they WANT to believe, and so..they believe it.
 
Scary how the President of the United States only function is to be nothing more than tool for the real people behind the scenes who really make the decisons.

yes.....sounds like a REAL conspiracy!!

who are the true puppet-masters? The Illuminati? The New World Order?

;)
 
the bill already says that.

By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does not have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial. Don't show me the where it talks about excluding American citizens from mandatory military detention indefinitely, that's not what I'm talking about.

why should Obama try to ease the fears of those who have already made their minds about this bill, and likely would simply hand-wave away anything Obama says.

The point is that nobody involved in supporting this debacle has made any attempt to be explicit -- they've consistently used language that takes a position without taking a position.

this is what they WANT to believe, and so..they believe it.

How's that for self-diagnosis, folks? Let's give him a hand!
 
Scary how the President of the United States only function is to be nothing more than tool for the real people behind the scenes who really make the decisons.

I don't think the President is a puppet, I think he's doing what many of his predecessors have done -- amassing as much power for the office as he can.
 
I already did. I won't do it again.

The non-applicability to US citizens only applies to THE REQUIREMENT to detain them militarily. It is clear his reservations are about not having enough broad authority and flexibility.

that's not what his reservations are about.

Yeah it is. The Bill does not give him as much power as he wants. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

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.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States.

Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch.

I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests.

- President Barack Obama: Dick Cheney on Steroids
 
Last edited:
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(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.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident
..
e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.
..




bare in mind if this law somehow changed existing law, to now allow for the indefinite detention without trial/charge, of any legal residents of the USA, I too would be yelling bloody murder and probably call for a popular uprising.

but the fact is, this law changes nothing. No citizens of the USA nor legal residents of the USA, shall be detained indefinitely without charge/trial, due to this law or due to any current law.
I could care less if the person in question is a citizen, legal or illegal alien, or on a tourist visa or just another frothing terrorist from some forsaken hellhole. If the said person is trying to harm the country or it's citizens, the Bill of Rights should be narrowed to the maximum possible. While I have the greatest respect for the writer of the Constitution and the amendments, in their day they could have not foreseen the possibility of mass destruction nor juries that would free an OJ Simpson.
 
God damnit Obama.... Acting like Bush i see?
Just goes to show ya. Dems and Repubs are pretty much the same....
 
alright, well let us know when Obama starts indefinitely detaining American citizens or legal aliens on American soil, without charge or trial.

You're apathetic about unconstitutional laws until someone starts wielding them? I figured this was one of the things you would have hated Bush/Cheney for. I'm wrong? You fully supported all their government-growing, unconstitutional terrorism policies?
 
that's not what his reservations are about.

He has reservations, because the bill doesn't allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without charging them. Can't create a dictatorship without that.
 
Obama, since long before he was president, was never about civil liberties. Never claimed to be, never pretended to be, period. He is completely and unabashedly authoritarian. And I'm going to vote for him again because our alternatives are honestly that bad.
 
He has reservations, because the bill doesn't allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without charging them. Can't create a dictatorship without that.

If this bill doesn't allow for that, then how come every single Congressman who has defended it, the President and all the President's men have utterly failed to explicitly state that it doesn't? Why does the bill itself not state that? Why do they keep using the round-about language I cited in the OP?
 
Obama, since long before he was president, was never about civil liberties. Never claimed to be, never pretended to be, period. He is completely and unabashedly authoritarian. And I'm going to vote for him again because our alternatives are honestly that bad.
If, in your opinion Obama is the best we can do, then we are truly lost. I no longer live in America, nor do my closest relatives. Still, if opinions like yours turn out to hold sway then I have done myself and my son a favor. I just hope that the dumbing down of Obama's America does not spread to few areas of the western world not yet affected.
 
Obama, since long before he was president, was never about civil liberties. Never claimed to be, never pretended to be, period. He is completely and unabashedly authoritarian.....

and yet, he repealed DADT and refuses to enforce the DOMA.

ironic huh?
 
Back
Top Bottom