Alex on C2c talking about National Defense Aurthorization Act

[Calz]

In the first half hour, Alex Jones talked about the National Defense Authorization Act, a piece of legislation that recently passed both houses of Congress and may have dire effects on civil liberties. He warned that, if the act is implemented, "it is truly an end of our Republic" and cited an ACLU study of the bill which called it "the most unconstitutional legislation in modern history." Facets of the bill which particularly trouble Jones are that it allows for the end of posse comitatus, which bars the military from domestic operations, and that it gives the Pentagon the right to secretly arrest Americans and hold them without a trial.


9IwJ0zPhW7E


iMzyU4lW8Ck

[RMorgan]

I´m starting to think that this National Defense Authorization Act is a scam to catapult Obama´s reputation and popularity. The whole USA is against it and, if Obama votes against it, he´ll become a liberty hero...

Well...It´s a possibility.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Calz]

I´m starting to think that this National Defense Authorization Act is a scam to catapult Obama´s reputation and popularity. The whole USA is against it and, if Obama votes against it, he´ll become a liberty hero...

Well...It´s a possibility.

Cheers,

Raf.


Not necessarily ... at least not according to this:



Thanks for a very important thread ... some supplementary material ...






A veto by Obama may not be a good thing after a closer look, from what I'm reading it appears that the Administration are not against the the detaining of "terrorists" with un-due process per se, but rather which agency/group makes the decision. A fellow Avalonian, mountain_jim (with thanks!), in another thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?36226-Ben-Fulford-Pentagon-Agencies-Militia-on-Brink-of-Violence-Against-Obama-Co./page2) quoted a blog from Glenn Greenwald, which I will paste a snippet of here (emphasis added by me!)


Just to underscore what is — and is not — motivating the Obama administration’s objections to this bill, Sen. Levin has disclosed, as Dave Kopel documents, that “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power,” on the ground it would unduly restrict the decision-making of Executive Branch officials. In other words, Obama officials wanted the flexibility to militarily detain even U.S. citizens if they were so inclined, and are angry that this bill purports to limit their actions.

That, manifestly, is what is driving their objections here: not a defense of due process, but a demand that Congress not interfere with their war.

Another writer @ Infowars - Dr Paul Roberts, appears to be saying the same thing in his article (http://www.infowars.com/misreading-the-fight-over-military-detention-obama-regime-has-no-constitutional-scruples/):


However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens.The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war.
...
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas.


Thanks for posting this.

Very important to know.

Infighting for control over the useless eaters ... how heart warming :tsk: