British Spy Obama/Soetoro signs illegal NDAA for NATO extermination of Americans

[Nailer]

Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 - 2012)
H.R.1540
All Congressional Actions with Amendments

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01540:@@@S

[JT Coyoté]

Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 - 2012)
H.R.1540
All Congressional Actions with Amendments

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01540:@@@S

Everything the Congress is considering has now been concentrated into H.R.1540. Section 1031 is still there, right above sec.1032; it's section number has been replaced in the index with the title, "Subtitle D--Detainee Matters"... fricken bastards!

JTCoyoté

"Government is not reason; it is
not eloquence; it is force! Like
fire, it is a dangerous servant
and a fearful master."
~George Washington

[NMTO]

I believe that switched section 1031 with 1021 or 22. 

[JT Coyoté]

I believe that switched section 1031 with 1021 or 22.  

No... when you click on Subtitle D--Detainee Matters right above Sec. 1032 in the index, it takes you to...

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

It is still there, they just changed the name in the index so it is harder to find.

Go here... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1540: click on the latest version of HR-1540 which is at the bottom of the list... scroll down to section 1032 then click on the item above it... Subtitle D--Detainee Matters and read it for yourself.

JTCoyoté

"Every corner of this land knows firearms, and
more than 99 ^9/10 percent of them by their silence
indicate they are in safe and sane hands."
~George Washington -- Address to the Second Session
of the First United States Congress, January 7, 1790, printed
in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790..

[Catalina]

No surprises here when they passed this outright illegal bill. I've been a loner believing that the form of government we have has been an illusion for quite sometime. Now, it has revealed itself! The bigger question is, who will die for liberty?

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933


The Ghost From Valley Forge


I had a dream the other night I didn’t understand,
A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand.
His clothes were torn, and dirty, as he stood there by my bed,
He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low he said:

We fought a revolution to secure our liberty,
We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny.
For future generations, this legacy we gave,
In this, the land of the free, and home of the brave.

The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you’d always keep,
But tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep.
Your freedom gone-your courage lost-you’re no more than a slave,
In this, the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun,
Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one.
On the land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent,
Although you have no choice in choosing how the money’s spent.

Your children must attend a school that doesn’t educate,
Your moral values can’t be taught, according to the state.
You read about the current “news” in a very biased press,
You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the IRS.

Your money is no longer made of silver and gold,
You trade your wealth for paper, so life can be controlled.
You pay for the crimes that make our Nation turn from God to shame.
You’ve taken Satan’s number, as you’ve traded in your name.

You’ve given government control to those who do you harm,
So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm.
And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail,
Harass your fellow countryman while corrupted courts prevail.

Your public servants don’t uphold the solemn oath they’re sworn,
Your daughters visit doctors so children won’t be born.
Your leaders ship artillery, and guns to foreign shores,
And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people’s wars.

Can you regain your Freedom for which we fought, and died?
Or don’t you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?
Are there no more values for which you’ll fight to save?
Or do you wish your children live in fear, and be a slave?

Sons of the Republic, arise, and take a stand!
Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
Preserve our Republic, and each God-given right!
And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!

As I woke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came,
His words were true, we are not free, and we have ourselves to blame.
For even now as tyrants trample each God-given right,
We only watch, and tremble—too afraid to stand and fight.
If he stood by your bedside in a dream while you’re asleep,
And wonder what remains of your right he fought to keep.
What would be your answer if he called out from the grave?
Is this still the land of the free, and home of the brave?

[Catalina]

You know things are deteriorating fast when the Guardian picked up on this story. Quote from article: "It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.

"The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

[Jacob Law]

here is some info I found.




FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 932
 
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
 
      H R 1540      RECORDED VOTE      14-Dec-2011      6:58 PM       QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Conference Report       BILL TITLE: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Posted Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
 

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a $662-billion defense bill that contains a provision regarding the handling of certain terror suspects.
 
By a margin of 283 to 136, lawmakers Wednesday approved the measure after the White House dropped a veto threat over the provision.  The bill is expected to pass the Senate and then go to President Barack Obama for his signature.  Lawmakers had said revisions were made to the detainee provision in an effort to avoid the threatened veto.
 
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/12/14/house-lawmakers-p...


The White House announced Wednesday afternoon that it would not, after all, veto the pending defense bill over its controversial new terror detainee provisions. From the Associated Press:
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/5-quick-thought...

http://nyu.libguides.com/content.php?pid=143160&sid=1282736

thanks I was looking for that link

[Constitutionary]

What we need to do now is go to our state governments and lobby for them not to sign onto this by exercising their 10th Amendment Rights.

THIS NDAA IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL AND THE STATES NEED STEP UP RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY !!!

[Constitutionary]

Oh no the XENOCRAT, with the FAKE Birth Certificate, is engaging in traitorous acts against the US Constitution and the republic.

Is anyone really surprised ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Georgiacopguy]

Oh no the XENOCRAT, with the FAKE Birth Certificate, is engaging in traitorous acts against the US Constitution and the republic.

Is anyone really surprised ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

LoL @ Xenocrat... that's great...I like that.

[Constitutionary]

Restriction 'un-American'

The barrier to foreign-born citizens becoming president stems from fears that the Founding Fathers had during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. They were concerned that subversive enemies could force the fledgling republic back to foreign monarchical rule. Delegates didn't want the United States to suffer the same fate as Poland, which in 1772 had been partitioned among Austria, Prussia and Russia after agents of those countries bribed Polish nobles to elect a disloyal king.

[Jordan]

Retired generals speak out against NDAA

IN his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week.

This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counterterrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.

Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.

A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut Guantánamo, not extend it.

Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html

[Nailer]

I found this posted on another forum, it rings true.

AMERICANS: Freedom isn't free, and the tab has long been due. Many of you didn't bring this on yourself, but you're charged with paying the debt of liberty for those whom came before you, and those to follow.

[Nailer]

By DONNA CASSATA | AP – 12 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Congress has cleared a $662 billion defense bill and will send the measure to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The Senate voted 86-13 for the sweeping bill on Thursday. The bill would authorize money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department. The House had voted 283-136 for the measure Wednesday night.

The legislation is $27 billion less than Obama wanted for the Pentagon and other accounts.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-congress-clears-662-billion-defense-bill-213727175.html

[Nailer]

http://www.dagammo.com/shop/?main_page=index&cPath=2

stock up on ammo folks , you will need it.  made by disabled military vets

[larsonstdoc]

By DONNA CASSATA | AP – 12 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Congress has cleared a $662 billion defense bill and will send the measure to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The Senate voted 86-13 for the sweeping bill on Thursday. The bill would authorize money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department. The House had voted 283-136 for the measure Wednesday night.

The legislation is $27 billion less than Obama wanted for the Pentagon and other accounts.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-congress-clears-662-billion-defense-bill-213727175.html

  $350 MILLION A DAY IN AFGHANISTAN!  OR $128 BILLION PER YEAR!

 

[Nailer]

Although President Barack Obama had originally insisted that he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin revealed recently that the bill in its current wording was drafted after the current administration asked for changes.
 
Already making its way through the House and Senate, the Act in its current wording will allow for Americans suspected of any “belligerent” act to be detained in Guantanamo Bay-style military prisons indefinitely for any alleged crimes without trial. With it now being revealed that the president put forth suggestions to draft the latest version of the legislation, Levin told the press Monday night, "I just can't imagine that the president would veto this bill.”
 
"I very strongly believe this should satisfy the administration and hope it will,” added Levin.
 
Outside of the independent media, opposition to NDAA has remained almost nonexistent, with the mainstream neglecting to discuss the colossal implications the bill would have if it is signed into law. Speaking to radio host Alex Jones on Tuesday, however, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul finally became one of the first main figures to attack the act.
 
“This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law,” said Paul. The congressman from Texas also appeared flabbergasted that the bill managed to escape discussion in any of the recent GOP debates, despite its provisions being detrimental to the US Constitution and the freedom of every man, woman and child in America.
 
http://rt.com/usa/news/defense-ron-paul-detention-745/print/?mid=55367

[larsonstdoc]

Although President Barack Obama had originally insisted that he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin revealed recently that the bill in its current wording was drafted after the current administration asked for changes.
 
Already making its way through the House and Senate, the Act in its current wording will allow for Americans suspected of any “belligerent” act to be detained in Guantanamo Bay-style military prisons indefinitely for any alleged crimes without trial. With it now being revealed that the president put forth suggestions to draft the latest version of the legislation, Levin told the press Monday night, "I just can't imagine that the president would veto this bill.”
 
 "I very strongly believe this should satisfy the administration and hope it will,” added Levin.
 
Outside of the independent media, opposition to NDAA has remained almost nonexistent, with the mainstream neglecting to discuss the colossal implications the bill would have if it is signed into law. Speaking to radio host Alex Jones on Tuesday, however, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul finally became one of the first main figures to attack the act.
 
“This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law,” said Paul. The congressman from Texas also appeared flabbergasted that the bill managed to escape discussion in any of the recent GOP debates, despite its provisions being detrimental to the US Constitution and the freedom of every man, woman and child in America.
 
http://rt.com/usa/news/defense-ron-paul-detention-745/print/?mid=55367

  THANKS LEVIN, YOU TRAITOR.  Thanks for licking Obama's shoes.

 

[Nailer]

GO RON PAUL YESSSS!!

“Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security,” Paul said during a presidential debate earlier this election season. “I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.”

[Nailer]

14 United State Governors : Prepare State Militia Defenses, To Be Ready Against Obama’s Rogue Federal Forces!

  It's good to know that in some states we may not have to fight Washington to. Go to the link below.
 

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/09/16/14-united-state-governors-r...

[Nailer]

this is great..LOL.

 

http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/obama-drill.jpg

[larsonstdoc]

14 United State Governors : Prepare State Militia Defenses, To Be Ready Against Obama’s Rogue Federal Forces!

  It's good to know that in some states we may not have to fight Washington to. Go to the link below.
 

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/09/16/14-united-state-governors-r...

  From the article---this is great news!


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.

[Nailer]

So is obammy going to sign it before he goes on christmas vacation the 17th?

[Nailer]

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
 
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
 
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
 
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
 
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:
 


The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
 
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bil...

[JT Coyoté]

He will robo-sign it... unconstitutional, just like the bill he is signing...

JTCoyoté

"The man who reads nothing at
all is better educated than the man
who reads nothing but newspapers."
~Thomas Jefferson

[Nailer]

He will robo-sign it... unconstitutional, just like the bill he is signing...

JTCoyoté

"The man who reads nothing at
all is better educated than the man
who reads nothing but newspapers."
~Thomas Jefferson

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december152011/defense-bill-tk.php 
report is he signed it last night.

Say Good Bye to the America You Knew, Obama Signed the Defense Bill
Tim King Salem-News.com
It is slightly mellowed, but the rights of Americans have been radically compromised by the new defense bill.


America's corporate president signs the defense bill that he said initially he would veto.
 
(SALEM) - Critical attention has been focused on the National Defense Authorization Act; a controversial provision allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Obama eluded to being willing to veto the bill, but instead, after revisions, he did the unthinkable, signing it into law, and as a result we no longer have our civil rights or the ability to challenge our government without fear of this reprisal.

The $662 billion package does include a pay raise for the military, however overdue that already may be, there is no question that was used as a tool to gain passage of this sweeping legislation that will result in Americans disappearing like the people in the Middle east sent to Guantanamo Bay.

Make no mistake in understanding this, Obama has effectively declared the first step in the implementation of martial law. It is all a response to the Occupy movement which openly challenges the corruption of the U.S. federal government and its corporate and banking support web.

[Jordan]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (Rep-SC) told his colleagues, “I hope you believe America is part of the battlefield.”


Exactly 220 years to the date after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Senate today voted 86 to 13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, allowing the indefinite detention and torture of Americans.

After a back-and-forth in recent days between both the Senate and House yielded intense criticism from Americans attempting to hold onto their Constitutional rights, NDAA FY2012 is now on its way to the White House, where yesterday the Obama administration revealed that the president would not veto the legislation, cancelling out a warning he offered less than a month earlier.

Obama has finally brought about change to America, but it’s nothing to be hopeful about.

Speaking before the Senate this afternoon, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Rep-SC) told his colleagues, “I hope you believe America is part of the battlefield.” The United States is at war, he insisted, and anyone alleged to be in opposition to the US government’s game will now be subjected to military-style detention indefinitely.

As RT reported earlier, one provision in NDAA FY2012 will allow for the reinstatement of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” essentially making waterboarding and forms of psychological torture a very possible reality for anyone America deems to be a threat, including its own citizens who, prior to the ruling, had the US Constitution on their side.

Among the corporations which have lobbied in support of NDAA FY2012 are several military contractors, including Honeywell and Bluewater Defense, who together have received millions of dollars in Pentagon guarantees this year alone.

In his remarks Thursday afternoon, Senator Graham attacked America’s current legal system, critiquing it for allowing suspected terrorists to be treated as “common criminals.”

“We think al-Qaeda operatives, citizens or not, are not common criminals. We think they are crazy people,” he said.

“If you’re an American citizen and you want to help…destroy your own country, here is what’s coming your way,” cautioned the senator. The threat he went on to impose involved indefinite military detention for everyone.

“What this legislation does,” lectured Levin, “says from the Congress’ point-of-view, that we expressly authorize the indefinite detention” of someone deemed a threat. “We recognize the authority of this president and every other president to hold an enemy combatant indefinitely, whether they are captured home or abroad, because that only makes sense.”

Under the Act, those suspected of “belligerent” crimes can be subjected to the treatment. Graham tried to calm fears by insisting that suspected criminals will all be allowed a day in federal court, but made it clear that as long as a judge deems someone a suspect in a crime, that indefinite detention can begin without the help of any legal counsel for the defense.

“How long can you hold them? As long as it takes to make us safe,” said Graham.

The senator added that, “when you join the enemy…we aren’t worried about how we’re going to prosecute you right away.” Because of this, Miranda Rights should not be read to suspected criminals and additionally the right to an attorney is also suspended under the act.

In his closing marks, Graham ironically recited that in respect to “civil liberties and the American way of life,” US citizens must fight. “If we don’t fight for it, we’re going to lose it.”

Before the Senate came to their final vote today, Sen. Levin asked that a remark from the White House yesterday insisting that the president’s aides will no longer recommend a veto be added to the record.

Opposition in the Senate was thin but existent today. Senator Mark Udall (Dem-CO) cautioned lawmakers that these provisions will “deny American citizens their due process rights,” and thus not only “make us less safe, but would serve as an unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties.”

“If we start labeling our citizens as enemies of the United States without any due process, I think we will have done serious damage” to the Constitution, he added, before also calling the legislation politically expedient.

Despite his reservations, Senator Udall reluctantly stated that he was voting in favor, noting that America’s military depends on a quick passing of the act. Still, he said of the dangerous provisions to the act that will allow for the indefinite detention, “I remain unconvinced of their benefit.”

“Now we may be jeopardizing entire cases by adding new layers of bureaucracy and questionable legal processes,” added Udall. He said the legislation will present “numerous constitutional questions” and will go against a counterterrorism community he described as “already nimble.”

“For those of you who join me in voicing opposition to the detention provisions, I want to thank you,” said Udall.

“Though I intend to vote for the final passing of the bill…I want to make clear that I do not fully support this bill. I sincerely believe that this debate is not over and there is much work to do.”

Udall waved a copy of the US Constitution from the Senate floor before his colleagues as he made his closing remarks, reminding them that they all took an oath to uphold it. In the first ten amendments, collectively called the Bill of Rights, the Constitution grants Americans freedoms against searches, arrests and seizure without a probable cause. That legislation would have turned 220 years old today, had Congress not crushed it on the Senate floor.

http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/

[Jordan]

"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony" - The Matrix

[stymo1]

Udall says he's against it but voted for it anyway. How typical is that?? Traitors, every last one who voted for that illegal unconstitutional Act which even if signed into law IS NULL AND VOID BEFORE THE INK TOUCHES THE PAPER!!! Wake up and spread that news across the land. Udall and all the likes of him can go suck it!!

[Freeski]

Think about it: 100% of their income comes from us!!! WE fund it all! Are we really that dumbed down?

[stymo1]

“We think al-Qaeda operatives, citizens or not, are not common criminals. We think they are crazy people,” he said.

Well asshole, it takes a crook to know one, and the apple didn't fall to far from the tree. Like father like son.

[Nailer]

Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NW-e7z7S6VI#!

[Nailer]

So, Has Obama signed the Bill or Not??  That is the Mystery on this as some sites report he has and other sites say he will sign it.

The Intel Hub
Shepard Ambellas
December 15, 2011

The White House is ‘signing off’ on a bill that will officially end America (freedom) as we know it — The military will now potentially be able to detain foreign and domestic “terror suspects” at will.

The Obama administration announced it’s full support on Wednesday
http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/14/obama-...in-ground/

[Nailer]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43272

Explaining he reasons behind NDAA 2012

Preparing for martial law
Doug Hagmann Friday, December 16, 2011

Was the timing merely serendipitous or is something else at play? Yesterday was the “birthday” of the United States Bill of Rights, which our forefathers ratified exactly 220 years ago. The same people who believe the constitution is a living, breathing document just put it on a respirator, metaphorically speaking, by passing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). Obama has declared his intent to sign the legislation, despite initial indications from the White House of a veto (more on that dog-and-pony show later in this writing)

Information from intelligence sources: Follow the money

Within the last five weeks, I’ve been in contact with highly placed sources, their staffers and associates who work inside of the beltway. I’ve also engaged in dialogue with top security officials, all who state that this legislation is not about the security of our nation, but the ultimate control of the American people. According to these sources, the administration and congress are anticipating an apocalyptic scenario in the not-too-distant future.

While all eyes are on some type of unspeakable nuclear, biological or chemical event at the hands of “homegrown terrorists,” the real event is already in progress, although America has not yet experienced the full fallout from what is taking place. The terrorists are indeed homegrown actors, and they are engaged in actively destroying the United States, but not with bullets or bombs. Bullets and bombs are effective, but do not have the long-term capacity to effect every citizen from shore to shore. Additionally, such non-state terrorists don’t have the capacity to so effectively infiltrate the administration, the majority of congress, as well as the various regulatory agencies that exist in the U.S.

Driven not by a third world theology, the true terrorists are those whose god is greed, power and control, and who have effectively destroyed our monetary and economic system. For years they have been facilitated by all three branches of the American government, although they have been empowered by this administration in particular. Perhaps that’s why we have a man in the Oval Office who lacks the bona-fides of his predecessors, and why those in power refuse to address the lack of due diligence in that venue.

[Freeski]

So, Has Obama signed the Bill or Not??  That is the Mystery on this as some sites report he has and other sites say he will sign it.

How does one find out for sure? I couldn't find any status on the White House website.

[Nailer]

How does one find out for sure? I couldn't find any status on the White House website.

same here, I looked but being a weekend I don't know when they update, Thom gov.org library

[stymo1]

BUMP

The trolls don't want you to see this thread.

[stymo1]

I'm not sure exactly how this legal concept works technically, but this is the basis I think for any illegal law passed was never a law in the first place.


It's one of them and by direct interpretation in this case it upholds at the county level the 9th and 10th Amendment specifically, and the Constitution as the foundation law of precedent enabling all lawful statute at any level... The first big one to reign in the federal power which is to say to interpret the bounds of the federal power as enumerated and finite, is Marbury vs Madison.

"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate
them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and
consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act
of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is
consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental
principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the
further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it,
notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it
effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule
as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what
was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity
too gross to be insisted on.

[. . .] the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the
principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law
repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other
departments, are bound by that instrument." ~Justice John Marshall
-- Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S 137, 1803

In other words, any law that declares the People as the enemy is on it's face unconstitutional, and treasonous to the greatest degree...

Wake Up! START SCREAMING FOR THEIR HIDES!

"All laws which are repugnant
to the Constitution are null
and void."
~U.S. Supreme Court
Marbury v. Madison,
2Cranch 5 U.S. (1803)

Coyoté

"The right of civilians in a free society to possess "military-looking," or even
actual military weapons, is essential if a monopoly of force is not to reside in
the hands of government, where modern history shows the potential for far
greater abuses and crimes exists than are possible for any deranged individual."
Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. Reports 154 (1840)
cited in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Bumped because this thread needs read as many times as it takes to sink in.

[stymo1]

Bump

[Nailer]

most men in America today are afraid of breaking a fingernail and would rather pick out curtains for the living room than defend their country or the Bill Of Rights.The 18-24yr old men would rather play video games all day or just sit around a get stoned.

It makes me so mad that very few are willing to defend their rights, unless they get arrested then they scream about their rights..

oh the officer violated your rights? Well tough $hit kid  as you never made any sacrifices to defend you rights so they were abolished.  Judge says : I hereby sentence the defendant to death and ,,Defendant screams: WHAAAT FOR STEALING A BOX OF TWINKIS ??

Judge: sorry you broke the Federal law of H.R.1540 supplying a known terrorist  with food. the Death sentence is to be carried out in one hour.