"A declaration of WAR against the American People"

[Ed Jewett]

Did someone post the YouTube with Carl Levin pointing out that it was Obama who specifically requested the right of unrestricted detention of US citizens?

[Peter Lemkin]

This is fully an act of war against the American people and its Constitution by the government. I think a formal movement to impeach president Obama should commence. How this constitutes the promise of "Change" that got Obama elected is beyond bizarre. Time to depose the soccer mom republic and re-install the orginal democracy that is being betrayed by this outrageous act.



There's no talking past this...

Well, 'ya gotta admit it is change....just change for the worse.......and O' Bomb Ya fooled a whole new generation of voters* and many older ones into believing his 'change you can belive in' was going to be toward the good...he even defined his goals....just never kept a one and even out-Bushed Bush on many. Very sad. The guy is bright, articulate, charismatic BUT just another puppet of the dark forces behind the curtains of power, sadly.

In my mind, Obama can never really recover from what he has done [or in many cases not done]; there is one thing however that can save just a shred of his legacy....and that is to VETO this legislation and condemn it in the strongest terms when doing so. I won't hold my breath. We have to put his feet to the fire and fast!

*Many of these new voters who felt and feel double-crossed were the core of the Occupy Movement.

[Peter Lemkin]

ACLU just released statement they have heard from O-Bomb-Ya's advisors that they [advisors] have urged O-Bamb-Ya to not Veto the bill...in which case the USA is ****ed! Apparently, the rumor has it NO PARTS will be deleted with signing statements....we may well get the whole pile 'o shit! I don't see how with the unPatriot Act and now this we can undo the police state short of a complete revolution. They'll have us in camps before we can say 'Hell No!"

[Albert Doyle]

What again was the serious need for this Constitution-destroying bill?

[Peter Lemkin]

What again was the serious need for this Constitution-destroying bill?

....wasn't much left of the 'ol Constitution anyway.....

How about organizing a funeral dirge for America!? New Orleans style.....

No time....rumor has it Obama will sign it TODAY~! Bye America....its been.....well, its 'been'......

[Peter Lemkin]

Happy Bill of Rights Day! Obama may celebrate by signing the NDAA military funding bill that destroys your rights
December 15, 2011

The House has passed H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. It now goes to Obama for his signature and he has dropped his veto threat. It passed 283-136 with 15 non-votes. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul did not vote.

The controversial detainee provisions section 1031 has been moved to section 1021. Read the entire bill text here. Here is the final language from section 1021.
SEC. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(a) In general.Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 10740; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered persons.A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

© Disposition under law of war.The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 11184)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction.Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(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.

(f) Requirement for briefings of Congress.The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be "covered persons" for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

[Albert Doyle]

All those alleged threats were already covered under the existing bureaucracies and laws. Everything there was well within the pre-existing FBI purview. This new legal structure hasn't been scrutinized to see if it is either necessary or how badly it damages Constitutional integrity. This act is being forced on the American people by the same people who just recently committed unpunished war crimes and lied to the American people. You have to be f***ing kidding me that these people are being allowed to make their next move, not against a foreign nation, but against America itself! If we look at everything that occurred under the War On Terror it was easily handle-able within our previously existing system. The violators could have been tried by normal means. The system that took its place is fatally too costly to American democracy. The Nazis and Soviets were a much bigger threat to America than a cult of Islamic terrorists. Since that Al Qaeda threat is now mostly disarmed what in God's name is the need for this anti-democratic act under a president who was supposed to represent those who opposed it? It is very clear that this act is not intended for arab terrorists but for a self-serving labeling of anybody who criticizes this new military government as a threat deserving military-type control. What is fairly obvious is that this new corrupted American government and its backers need this kind of system to defend their anti-democratic practices.



I think we need a new name for America since it no longer deserves the old one. I was thinking of something that more adequately describes it now like "Satania" or "The Great American Tea Company". National Socialism was already taken...

[Ed Jewett]

I already have used "the evilarchy", but some work on the Great Atlantic purveyor idea is in order. Perhaps of death, heroin, destruction, grief, chaos... something along those lines.

[Keith Millea]

All those alleged threats were already covered under the existing bureaucracies and laws. Everything there was well within the pre-existing FBI purview. This new legal structure hasn't been scrutinized to see if it is either necessary or how badly it damages Constitutional integrity. This act is being forced on the American people by the same people who just recently committed unpunished war crimes and lied to the American people. You have to be f***ing kidding me that these people are being allowed to make their next move, not against a foreign nation, but against America itself! If we look at everything that occurred under the War On Terror it was easily handle-able within our previously existing system. The violators could have been tried by normal means. The system that took its place is fatally too costly to American democracy. The Nazis and Soviets were a much bigger threat to America than a cult of Islamic terrorists. Since that Al Qaeda threat is now mostly disarmed what in God's name is the need for this anti-democratic act under a president who was supposed to represent those who opposed it? It is very clear that this act is not intended for arab terrorists but for a self-serving labeling of anybody who criticizes this new military government as a threat deserving military-type control. What is fairly obvious is that this new corrupted American government and its backers need this kind of system to defend their anti-democratic practices.

Great post Albert!

[Albert Doyle]

Great post Albert!

This is f*****g war!