Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Real Reason Obama Wants to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 5:17 p.m. EST by nucleus (3291)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It's not because it will deprive citizens of their constitutional rights and protections under law.


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY S. 1867 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests.


What limit? Military prisoners are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits - among other things - torture.

"Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

To spell it out, this legislation would PREVENT torture and other abuses of those accused of terrorism. It would also violate the Posse Comitatus Act, but the administration makes no mention of that.

30 Comments

30 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

DOUBLESPEAK:

1) would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.

2) We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals;

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

I was wondering who was going to catch that.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I agree

government should be transparent

[-] 1 points by jaqjaq (1) 2 years ago

THANK YOU so much for posting this! You are absolutely right on target, and this is just another example of the terrifying agendas as well as the Orwellian doublespeak/newspeak pervading politics in the world today. Far from opposing this horrific legislation because it's so extraordinarily contrary to rule of law and justice as it has evolved in our society (not to mention the Posse Comitatus Act), the Obummer crew oppose 1867 because classifying any US citizens as enemy combatants makes them subject to Geneva Convention rules, which of course forbid torture and the like. So Obummer just wants to be able to torture, maim and just murder anyone he chooses, including US citizens, -- which could very easily include OWS protesters -- without being subject to Geneva Convention rules OR the justice system (flawed though it may be). SWEET!

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

What the hell does all this stuff mean anyway? Hell, give those people some rice and some goat down there in Cuba, and throw in a pork sandwich every now and then with some barbecue sauce and everything is ok.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 2 years ago

I just read S.B. 1867 and the section about detaining Americans. This just in:

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 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Read "Subtitle D—Detainee Matters"

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

— The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) 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.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 2 years ago

That is the wrong paragraph 1. The Paragraph 1 that that statement is referring to is:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Believe what you like. The government would NEVER do anything to infringe upon the rights of citizens.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 2 years ago

Of course they would, I'm just pointing out that it is still up to interpretation. Law is written ambiguously on purpose. But sometimes it is written to the advantage of the people. Though this new Act is perhaps the worst that Congress has ever passed, there is still some hope. I suggest printing out a copy of sections 1031-1033 and keeping it on your person in case anything comes up, you can refer someone directly to the law.

Yes, the gov't might be able to kidnap us and make us disappear, but this is something that gov'ts have been doing all around the world for quite some time now. Why should here be any different now?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Referring to a law isn't going to help you at all. having the money necessary to challenge a law all the way up to the Supreme Court might but probably won't, at least if you are a citizen.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 2 years ago

I have heard of occasions where people having a law on hand has kept them from getting arrested. But also, I just read a clause in the War Powers Resolution Act (which is connected to the National Defense Authorization Act through the Authorization for the Use of U.S. Military), which requires all subsequent Acts dealing with the Authorization of the Use of Force, must state that the act is intended to "constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution."

Meaning, this section of the Act is null and void according to the U.S's own laws.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

It amazes me that so few seem to comprehend, and are aware, that very few know any more about our nation's ConstitutionS, than Obama.

I've listened closely and I've not caught him lying about it. However, I've not caught him telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Bottom line, "we the people" do not have ANY rights under the Corporate Constitution, we've all given implied consent to waive our rights as assured by our first and organic Constitution and accept them as "privileges" from the State.

It's all hidden in plain sight although the reality is a bit more than most people seem willing to accept, regardless of how obvious and logical, the truth actually is.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-473131

As much or more than you ever wanted to know on the subject.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

What a joke of a bill this is. What a shame. What a disgrace.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Very few in America are as well studied of both Constitutions as Obama. I can only deduce he is very well aware this law would not infringe on any rights of the second Constitution as, all "rights" implied therein, are actually legally administered, by the State, to citizens, as privileges.

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Folks, don't forget that if this bill passes in the House with 2/3 the vote (and because it passed in the Senate with well over 2/3 the vote) then Congress could override a presidential veto. So it is imperative that we call our Congressmen and women (in the House). Flood their phone lines and make it clear that you do not want them to vote on this bill.

Also, please check out this article that came out in the Business Insider about how the Pentagon is giving police forces nationwide military hardware. Everyone we are entering scary territory. Anyway, here is the article. http://www.businessinsider.com/program-1033-military-equipment-police-2011-12 Look up the 1033 program.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Hear, hear!

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

I know that I come off as an alarmist on this forum, but there is so much messed up b.s. going on my head is spinning. I just can't get over it.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

You do NOT come off as an alarmist at all. You're one of the best, one of the most clear-headed people posting and commenting on this forum. Keep up the good work!

[-] 2 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Thank you for your kind words. I tell you we have to watch our Congress like a hawk. I just can't believe the bills floating around that are dangerous to our freedoms.

Here is info on the S. 1867. The House will be reconciling the differences and putting it into a similar bill passed by them a while back then off to the White House. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540 Please call your Congressmen and women. We got to stop this.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

If Obama gets smart vetoing this Bill can be his reelection ticket depending on how he plays this out in the press. It shows that he truly is a populace president that is watching out for the rights of the American People and a protector of the various agencies involved. I don't know if he is smart enough to play this game but I will put it out there.

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

A veto would have the APPEARANCE of the president watching out for the rights of the American People. But that is not the reason for the veto - it would prohibit torture of terrorism detainees.

The House voted 322 to 96 (without the McCain Levin amendment). The Senate voted 93 to 7. The numbers indicate that a presidential veto can easily be overridden, assuming the house supports the senate amendment.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

Wait a minute when the hell did the house vote on this bill? This bill was voted on on last thursday by the Senate and was on it's way to the house. Your tell me the house voted on this bill in one day?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

The house version didn't have the amendment inserted by the Senate. Now it goes to reconciliation.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

Yeah that is what I got as well. Time to hound Congress.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Time to unleash the hounds upon Congress.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

For once I have your back nucleus. I posted this up a couple weeks ago to let people know. Our freedom and rights are slowly being chipped away. I wonder if there is a provision in it exempting Congress from the law?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

When it comes right down to it, laws are just window dressing. They have no trouble ignoring them.

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

Oh goody. There's a chance I won't get tortured...

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

THANK YOU for this enlightening post, "nucleus"!!!

And may I add that this kind of post vividly demonstrates the IMMENSE POTENTIAL of this forum... if only the Mod Team would apply its own rules against TROLLING!

And, dear trolls, don't give us the tired B.S. about "freedom of speech"... THIS is a sample of a post which has been on this forum for over an hour:

"Let's call a spade a spade; you all are bunch of pole smoking assholes. How is your OWS project going? What a bunch of fucking assholes" - http://occupywallst.org/forum/known-trolls-rantcasey-tiosse-jart-sisterray-zendo/"

THAT is the kind of "freedom of speech" that the trolls are clamoring for. A majority of the serious users on this forum are SICK of this TROLL INFESTATION, but the Mod Team chooses to look the other way...

A recent protest by "Jaqueline" reaped a whopping 265 comments in less than 2 days: "Why aren't the OWS moderated against this Right Wing Garbage?"

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-arent-the-ows-moderated-against-this-right-win/

Is anyone listening up there? WHEN will the Mod Team respond and CLEAN UP this site???