Barack Obama 2011

[ktlight]

FYI:
"Obama Wants to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill Because It Would Hold the U.S. to the Geneva Convention

I – like everyone else – am horrified by the Senate’s passage of legislation that would allow for indefinite detention of Americans.

And at first, I – like many others – assumed that Obama’s threat to veto the bill might be a good thing. But the truth is much more disturbing.

As former Wall Street Street editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts correctly notes:

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. As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”

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. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing "extraordinary renditions" to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the manoeuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa..._20111117.pdf)

The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”

In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.

Those who see hope in Obama’s threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.

Police State Started Years Ago

Even if Obama’s threatened veto was for more noble purposes, the fact is that it would not change anything, because the U.S. government claimed the power to indefinitely detain and assassinate American citizens years ago.

For example, law school professor and National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn pointed out in 2006:

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, “unlawful enemy combatants.”

Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush’s list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an “unlawful enemy combatant” and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

Glenn Greenwald and Fire Dog Lake’s Emptywheel have also documented that the White House has believed for many years that it possessed the power to indefinitely detain Americans. See this http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/cong...umf/singleton/.

source to read more
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...t-liberty.html

[Calz]

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

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)

Posted by JohnBlues (here)
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 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:

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

[jackovesk]

Obama (Doesn't Know) His Own Birth Date..!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2wF_n-gn-Yo

PS - Its all just too hard for poor (Barry) to keep the (Lie) going..!

[percival tyro]

I noticed On his OBAMA logo, that the sun was setting inside the "O". Hmmmm.

[Seikou-Kishi]

Lol this is hilarious! I like to think anybody behind such schemes couldn't possibly be so haphazard unless they intended to be.

I was going to download this and spread it around... until the bit about the time warp...

Posted by percival tyro (here)
I noticed On his OBAMA logo, that the sun was setting inside the "O". Hmmmm.

That's just an indication of the place from which the sun shines ;-)

[Eric J (Viking)]

I wonder whats going on behind the scenes here ... ? interesting that he's slating Fox news and Trump and co...!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

viking

[CeltMan]

Well, Obama has just gone up in my estimation! well played sir, and a sense of humour to boot!

[Ilie Pandia]

This was already posted here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...S-Donald-Trump

[Corncrake]

Thanks Viking that was good - don't know who wrote the script but it was very funny!

[ExomatrixTV]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xuFu-XyC1iw

Explain why you requested Citizens included in NDAA 1031 imprisonment without trial, as confirmed on C-SPAN

TO THE ADMINISTRATION: Do NOT stray by discussing 1032 or 1031(e) in your response. Explain to us, "Why did you request citizens included in NDAA 1031 imprisonment without trial, confirmed by Chairman Levin's C-SPAN quote below?"


We deserve to know why Obama's administration REQUESTED that NDAA 1031 imprisonment without trial apply to citizens, confirmed by Levin on CSPAN. Here are Chairman Levin's words:


"[T]he language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the Administration asked us to remove the language, which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section" Why?!


~sign the petition for an Official Response: http://whitehouse.gov/D0B

[GlassSteagallfan]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=k-a2dNaDj-M

https://youtube.com/watch?v=k-a2dNaDj-M

Behind the Targetting of Hillary: Obama, Gorbachev and Susan Rice

December 11, 2011 • 9:36AM

Qualified sources in Washington and Moscow have provided new details about just how President Obama, in collusion with some of the worst enemies of Russia, set up Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and set back U.S.-Russian relations and ongoing war avoidance efforts. The incident provides one more unavoidable piece of evidence that President Obama is criminally insane and an agent of the British Empire faction promoting world war, and must be removed from office immediately.

According to the sources, in the weeks leading into the recent Russian Duma elections, former Soviet President and British agent Mikhail Gorbachev was in phone contact with President Obama, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and National Democracy Institute (NDI) Chair Madeleine Albright. Within hours of the Duma election results being announced, Gorbachev denounced the results and demanded new elections, triggering an international feeding frenzy against Putin and United Russia. Through USAID and private European and American foundations, millions of dollars had been poured into Russia to promote the opposition (USAID program director Sean Carroll had come to the agency from the Club of Madrid, an organization of former heads of state in which Gorbachev plays a leading role).

Next, President Obama ordered Secretary of State Clinton to issue a harsh condemnation of the Russian elections—before she had any opportunity to speak with her counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Naturally, the Russians responded with a criticism of Clinton for jumping the gun and issuing statements before any of the election monitors had even filed their reports.

President Obama then reportedly contacted Secretary Clinton a second time, chastising her for being too soft, and demanding an even more outrageous statement from her.

The clear intent was to break a level of trust and candor that had been carefully developed by Secretary Clinton with Lavrov and other Russian leaders over the past three years. Fortunately, the LaRouche statement "Was It Hillary's Error?" had been released and widely circulated internationally, thus undermining the British scheme to break one key U.S.-Russian war avoidance channel.

Obama's personal ties to Gorbachev go back at least to March 20, 2009, when President Obama "walked in" on a scheduled meeting between Gorbachev and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House. On July 7, 2009, during his visit to Moscow, President Obama again met with Gorbachev face-to-face and sought his input into a major speech he was scheduled to give at a Moscow university.

In May 2010, Gorbachev launched yet-another front group, the New Policy Forum, based in Luxembourg, with both George Shultz and Lord Robert Skidelsky (biographer of John Maynard Keynes and Sir Oswald Mosley) on the board.

Link:http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20728

[spiritguide]

The plot thickens....

[risveglio]

This is from Justin Amash and is what you should make clear not to accept from your congressman.

PLEASE READ: Members of Congress who want to grant the President power to indefinitely detain American citizens, without charge or trial, likely will make two false claims about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

(1) They will say that you have nothing to worry about because Sec. 1031 asserts that it does not "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens."

RESPONSE: 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.

(2) 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."

RESPONSE: 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.

[toad]

This is a long article so I will just post the first lil bit and the source to the rest;

Obama fearing a revolution against him by the states, has moved swiftly by nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in multiple states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina – to name a few. The Governors of the Great States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia still have under their Command-and-Control the State Defense Forces to go against U.S. Federal forces should the need arise. Also important to note: There are NO U.S. laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State’s Defense Forces. This dilemma occurred during the Civil War with many “citizen soldiers” choosing to serve their states instead of the Federal Government.

Obama is angered by the several State Governors who have reestablished “State Defense Forces.” These forces are described as: “State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.”

Mr. Obama is fearful of these State Defense Forces, in that he does not have control of said forces, and with the U.S. Military stretched to near breaking from multiple deployments and theatre actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, these State military forces would be under the direct command and authority of the Governors in which states have said forces. In essence, the Governors would have “de facto control” of the United States.

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/09...ederal-forces/

[spiritguide]

The article is from Sept. 2010, any recent chatter about this?

[Unified Serenity]

Hmmm, interesting. Thanksf or the date update spiritguide. Maybe laying groundwork for the future, just like advertising for internment camp employees.

[DNA]

This would get real interesting if the states were to take control of the underground nukes in their districts.

[DreamsInDigital]

Why don't they just impeach the Foolish Mortal President and be done with it? There are enough votes in place for this to happen already.

[alienHunter]

Interesting, a few years ago a crackpot Russian seer, predicted the breakdown of the United States into 5 independent factions. If there is any truth to this stuff which I doubt to my bones, The crackpot could have been correct! In fact, I think he predicated his vision on one of Billy Meier's contact expositions...I don't remember the exact number.

[sygh]

Posted by alienHunter (here)
Interesting, a few years ago a crackpot Russian seer, predicted the breakdown of the United States into 5 independent factions. If there is any truth to this stuff which I doubt to my bones, The crackpot could have been correct! In fact, I think he predicated his vision on one of Billy Meier's contact expositions...I don't remember the exact number.

I recall seeing a map of the U.S. broken up into trade zones. Sort of like how Europe uses 230V @ 50 Hz to run their electrical gagets, and the U.S. uses 220 @ 60Hz. I know this was based on fact because at that point, and for a short time, one couldn't buy a DVD in say, California, and expect it to run on a DVD player in Florida. My mother-in-law RV'ed extensively and I heard her complain about this very thing. I don't know how long that lasted before it was seen as a complete and total flop.