Jan 25 - Obama signs NDAA 2013 without objecting to indefinite detention of Americans

President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 on Wednesday, giving his stamp of approval to a Pentagon spending bill that will keep Guantanamo Bay open and make indefinite detention for US citizens as likely as ever.

The president inked his name to the 2013 NDAA on Wednesday evening to little fanfare, and accompanied his signature with a statement condemning a fair number of provisions contained in a bill that he nevertheless endorsed.

The NDAA, an otherwise mundane annual bill that lays out the use of funds for the Department of Defense, has come under attack during the Obama administration for the introduction of a provision last year that allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism. Under the 2012 NDAA’s Sec. 1021, Pres. Obama agreed to give the military the power to arrest and hold Americans without the writ of habeas corpus, although he promised with that year’s signing statement that his administration would not abuse that privilege.

In response to the controversial indefinite detention provision from last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced an amendment in December 2012 that would have forbid the government from using military force to indefinitely detain Americans without trial under the 2013 NDAA. Although that provision, dubbed the “Feinstein Amendment,” passed the Senate unanimously, a select panel of lawmakers led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) stripped it from the final version of the NDAA two week later before it could clear Congress. In exchange, Congress added a provision, Sec. 1029, that claims to ensure that “any person inside the United States” is allowed their constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, but supporters of the Feinstein Amendment say that the swapped wording does nothing to erase the indefinite detention provision from the previous year.

“Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus – the right to be presented before a judge – is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said after the Feinstein Amendment was removed.

“Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury,” Sen. Paul added.

Although the Pres. Obama rejected the indefinite detention clause when signing the 2012 NDAA, a statement issued late Wednesday from the White House failed to touch on the military’s detainment abilities. On the other hand, Pres. Obama did voice his opposition to a number of provisions included in the latest bill, particularly ones that will essentially render his promise of closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison impossible.

Despite repeated pleas that Gitmo will be closed on his watch, Pres. Obama failed to do as much during his first term in the White House. Thanks to a provision in the 2013 NDAA, the Pentagon will be unable to use funds to transfer detainees out of that facility and to other sights, ensuring they will remain at the top-secret military prison for the time being.

“Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the president the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by one,” Pres. Obama writes.

Congress, claims the president, designed sections of the new defense bill “in order to foreclose my ability to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.”

“I continue to believe that operating the facility weakens our national security by wasting resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and strengthening our enemies,” he says.

Elsewhere, the president claims that certain provisions in the act threaten to interview with his “constitutional duty to supervise the executive branch” of the United States.

Before the 2013 NDAA was finalized, it was reported by the White House that Pres. Obama would veto the legislation over the provisions involving Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, the White House originally said the president would veto the 2012 NDAA over the indefinite detention provisions, although he signed it regardless “with reservations” on December 31 of that year.

Since authorizing the 2012 NDAA, the president has been challenged in federal court by a team of plaintiffs who say that the indefinite detention clause is unconstitutional. US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA violated the US Constitution and granted a permanent injunction on the Obama administration from using that provision, but the White House successfully fought to appeal that decision.

Commenting on the latest signing, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero says, "President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day.”

“His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended,” adds Romero. "He also has jeopardized his ability to close Guantanamo during his presidency. Scores of men who have already been held for nearly 11 years without being charged with a crime--including more than 80 who have been cleared for transfer--may very well be imprisoned unfairly for yet another year. The president should use whatever discretion he has in the law to order many of the detainees transferred home, and finally step up next year to close Guantanamo and bring a definite end to indefinite detention."

Obama signs NDAA 2013 without objecting to indefinite detention of Americans — RT

Guy is a !!ing clown, and his promises and words are nothing but jokes, and lies.

not surprising. continuing what bush started

but but but. you see all those calling people "tin foiled" dissappear real quick

Just because it doesn't happen right away, doesn't mean it's not happening right before our eyes. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama declares a state of emergency in 2016 forcing a 3rd term for himself.

[pic]

More ammo for the "Obama = Bush Pt. 2" crowd.

Yall tin foiled ppl are worried about the wrong thing. Why are you focusing on Gitmo when they're trying to make it legal for drones to fly everywhere. They already passed legislation to open up the air space. But you tin foil people won't complain about til 2015 when it's too late.

[pic]

gitmo?

[pic]

at it again i see

It IS possible to be concerned about more than 1 thing.

Gitmo is just a perfect example of the bull!! NObama been feeding everybody.

But there's a lot of !! to be concerned about. And yes, domestic use of drones is on that list. !!in mayor of NY tryin' to get 'em to monitor protests [pic]

If you guys were concerned about, you would be busy stopping the implementation of it. Instead you guys wait to complain about after it happens.

my thing is this, ya'll constantly whining about your guns and this !! is going on, meanwhile they, in actual fact, are not trying to take the guns [pic]

Gotta love that "change"

While they plan policies like this without much discussion.

This is the reason why we have the 2nd Amendment.

our lives with be "interesting" going forward, is all i can say

Another side to the story for people who care to make informed decisions

[pic]

	[pic]		[pic]
		This past week, President Obama signed the NDAA of 2013, with an accompanying signing statement. While the previous Congress failed to pass the VAWA, a jobs bill for Vets (or for that matter any jobs bills); they did manage to pass the NDAA 2013. The House Armed Service Committee passed it on May 10, 2012 by a vote of 56-5. The House passed the Bill (with amendments) on May 18th, 2012 by a vote of 299-120. The Senate passed it with a vote of 98-0 on December 4th. When a bill has constitutionally dubious or otherwise problematic provisions, the President may issue a signing statement to provide clarity and voice his objections. The statement also explains how he intends to implement the law, in a manner that would be compliant with the constitution. As Sarah Jones explained, A signing statement is something of a public pronouncement a president might make about a bill they are signing into law. They have been used to clarify their positions or elaborate dissent. In modern times, they are used to direct executive agencies to interpret the law according to the President’s interpretation of the Constitution. (my emphasis) Simply put, the NDAA determines which agencies are responsible for defense, provides funds to those agencies and contains instructions on how to utilize those funds. It is renewed annually. This year’s version of the NDAA raises some, but not all of the same issues and concerns that last year’s version did. It also gave rise to similar attacks on the President for signing the bill. As was the case in the 2012 version of the NDAA, some suggest year’s version of the NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of American Citizens. Let’s begin with some basic facts about the writ of habeas corpus. In short, habeas corpus is a protection against unlawful detention. Individuals can file a petition seeking a writ. If the custodian cannot provide adequate legal justification for detention, the court can order the petitioner’s release. The only branch of government that has authority to suspend habeas corpus is Congress. When the right is suspended, Congress is the best way to restore it. In other words, the President does not have independent authority to suspend habeas corpus. At best, he can instruct agencies to address the issue in a manner consistent with his interpretation of the constitution, as he did with his 2012 signing statement. In an effort to address the controversies last year, Senators Diane Feinstein and Mike Lee proposed an amendment that seemed to satisfy critics on both sides of the political spectrum in the Senate and passed by a vote of 67-29. Here is the text An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention. While the amendment seemed to satisfy Senators, it was not without its detractors. As Mother Jones said at the time: The way the amendment reads now, a foreign visitor like Umar Abdulmutallab—the Nigerian who tried to explode a b0mb in his underpants on a flight to Detroit several years ago—could still be subject to indefinite military detention. When asked to explain the restriction, Feinstein offered a constitutionally unsatisfying but politically realistic explanation – because that’s what will pass. Subsequently the Feinstein/Lee Amendment was removed, reportedly at the request of Senator John McCain and replaced with the Gohmert Amendment which contained the following language in an effort to provide protections to any person inside the United States. Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or est@blished by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws. The Gohmert Amendment is section 1031 in the final version of the bill, signed by the president. The problem with this solution, according to critics, is that while it preserves habeas corpus protections, that question is already settled by the Supreme Court. Moreover, according to critics, like Amnesty International, the new provision doesn’t appear to guarantee the right to a fair trial. But on its face, the Gohmert amendment contradicts that criticism. To paraphrase, “Nothing in . . . the [NDAA] . . . shall be construed . . . to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or est@blished by or under Article III.” Rand Paul withdrew his support for the NDAA after the Feinstein Amendment was removed because: Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus – the right to be presented before a judge – is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole. There are some problems with Paul’s objection beginning with the fact that habeas corpus is not limited to the beginning of due process. Petitioners can file for a writ of habeas corpus in several instances including failure to provide a speedy trial or hearing. It’s also worth noting the complicated relationship between habeas corpus and the right to due process, as discussed in a law review article on this topic. In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion suggests that respecting the right to habeas corpus opens the door to respecting other rights: The plurality concluded that “Congress envisioned that habeas petitioners would have some opportunity to present and rebut facts and that courts in cases like this retain some ability to vary the ways in which they do so as mandated by due process. Similarly, the Article 3 section of the NDAA says, in short, that all other rights as determined by the judiciary are also protected. All this is aside from due process rights that would be vindicated on appeal. Since the courts recognize that the right to habeas corpus inexorably leads to due process, and since the NDAA explicitly protects all other constitutional rights, all rights in criminal proceedings are protected. The president’s signing statement does not contain any objections or comments pertaining to section 1031 because it is, in fact, consistent with the constitution. The second criticism of the President’s decision to sign the NDAA 2013 lies in the fact that it precludes appropriation of funds to transfer people from Guantanamo Bay. Without funds to transfer people, Guantanamo Bay cannot be closed. As was the case in 2012, the President’s signing statement contains objections to Section 1027, which precludes the possibility of transferring prisoners from Guantanamo to the United States, be it for trial or any other purpose. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which substitutes the Congress’s blanket political determination for careful and fact-based determinations, made by counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, of when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees. I would like to see Gitmo closed. I’m disappointed that closure is unlikely in the near future. At the same time, the President doesn’t have a magic wand nor does he have dictatorial powers. It is impossible to close Gitmo without having some place to send the people who are detained there. Such transfers be it in the United States (or for that matter anywhere else) will cost money. Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to appropriate funds. The President does not. It isn’t for lack of effort on the President’s part, or for that matter on the DOJ’s part. The DOJ sought to have KSM transferred to New York for trial in civilian court. To put it mildly, there was bipartisan congressional opposition to this move to the point that Congress introduced a bill to preclude KSM’s transfer to New York City for Trial. As reported by ABC in 2011, Mohammed was to have been tried in New York City, but city officials strongly objected to the move and Congress refused to appropriate funds to house Guantanamo inmates on mainland United States and to provide funds for a trial of extraordinary expense. For the very same reasons, the President cannot close Gitmo without Congressional support. We see the same problem with section 1025, which limits the military’s authority to transfer third country nationals held in Parwan, Afghanistan. Section 1025 threatens to upend that tradition, and could interfere with my ability as Commander in Chief to make time-sensitive determinations about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of hostilities. Under certain circumstances, the section could violate constitutional separation of powers principles. If section 1025 operates in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement it to avoid the constitutional conflict. (my emphasis) The relationship between Congress’s unwillingness to appropriate funds and the interplay with presidential powers under the constitution is further reflected in other sections of the bill. Under the same logic that applies to closing Guantanamo, the lack of funding appropriations by Congress also restricts an ability to transfer prisoners to third countries. If people can’t be transferred to the United States without Congressional support and they can’t be transferred to third countries without Congressional support; the President can’t close Guntanamo Bay without Congressional support. In short, there are many reasons to find the NDAA 2013 both objectionable and inconsistent with the constitution. While the NDAA 2012 raised legitimate concerns about the indefinite detention of Americans, the same cannot be said of NDAA 2013. As noted above, there were two proposals to address this problem. Notwithstanding the political realities, critics of the Feinstein/Lee amendment rightly pointed to the fact that while the amendment protected against unlawful detention, that protection was under inclusive in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitution. The Gohmert amendment rectified that problem. It’s very easy to criticize the President on the question of Guantanamo Bay. The fact remains that he cannot close Guantanamo Bay without support from Congress; that fact would not have changed had he opted to exercise his veto. Vetoing the NDAA would have created several other problems, including the absence of funding for national defense. Even if Obama had exercised his veto, Congress may very well have overridden it, meaning the NDAA would have become law as is. Perhaps Congress would not have overridden the veto and that would mean starting over. But there is no[..]urance that another bill would have been less objectionable on the same issues. Sometimes presidents have to be grown-ups and sign bills they don’t like, simply because the possibility for improvement is limited by the children in Congress.
	[pic]		[pic]

[pic]

^^^ [pic]

Politics

Say one thing to get fans.


Do what they've always done.

I still don't understand this whole "do something about it" rant these dudes rely on.. It's not a matter of you OR me doing something as a single person, it takes a mass consciousness or people acting TOGETHER to make a change. I understand theres some off the wall theories out there, but many arent far from the truth. If people would wake up and at LEAST question what they're being fed, these agendas just may not play out so smoothly. [pic]

[pic] nicca we been on that subject yrs ago..check info wars..we been about that drone life. usually the !! we talk about usually becomes true..like police states etc..