Obama Administration = treason....
Caught on tape, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells congress the current administration will decide if they want to ask for permission before going to war...our constitution states the authority to declare war lies with the congress. He continues by stating the administration will now receive its war authority from the United Nations, not the people they represent.
trea·son [tree-zuhn] noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereignty
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereignty
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Report on Al'Qaeda from a Syrian.
Our military is being deployed to the Middle East by the boat full, while we are promised they will be brought home. We support the troops by voting to bring them home.
Syrian Girl reports on the Middle East. Her videos are VERY informative and easy to follow, please check our her YouTube page BY CLICKING HERE.
United States T.S.A violation of our Civil Rights
January 6th, 2011
Lynne Kiesling
I have been a too-silent opponent of the Patriot Act’s authorization of invasive surveillance in the name of national security. One of the consequences of that authorization has been the growth of the Department of Homeland Security and, under it, the formation and growth of the TSA. Those of us who travel frequently have known the TSA as “Thousands Standing Around” for years, and have derided the TSA policies on shoes (the “shoe carnival”) and liquids that are the security equivalent of locking the barn after the horse is stolen.
The TSA’s push to increase the intrusiveness of their physical search of passengers for specific items has pushed beyond laughable inconvenience and inefficiency into literally physically invasive search that does not qualify as a reasonable search under the administrative search carve-out of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, as written, protects individuals from unreasonable government search and seizure of their person and property, and the TSA operates under the administrative search carve-out from it — basically, if you put your bags on the conveyor you are presumed to have consented to the search of your person and possessions. The TSA are trying to claim that the new backscatter x-ray full-body scanners, millimeter wave full body scanners, and aggressive, frisking-style pat-downs are a sufficiently reasonable search that they should be considered legal under administrative search.
The TSA’s position is wrong, and instead is an aggressive, authoritarian push that violates not just the dignity of individuals, but also our innate (i.e. NOT government-granted) civil and human rights. Their policies and procedures operate on the presumption that every single person that presents himself or herself at the airport to engage in a commercial transportation transaction is a potential terrorist. That presumption flies in the face of every concept of freedom and individual rights that is at the foundation of a free, dynamic, vibrant society.
They do so in the name of making us safer in the face of terrorist threats, but this is a false equivalence, and one where economic logic is important. Their invasive practices require lots of resources. Did you know that each of these scanners costs $175,000? How many FBI intelligence agents and explosive-sniffing K-9 teams could we train and employ with the millions of dollars that Congress has already authorized for the purchase of these scanners? The opportunity cost of these scanners is enormous. Enormous. And it puts us at more risk than we would face if we instead focused those resources on more effective tools, such as behaviorally-targeted intelligence gathering and explosive-detecting dogs.
But here’s where the political economy comes in. The companies who manufacture these technologies are active lobbyists, and have spread their lobbying dollars liberally among the heads of security-related committees and sub-committees in the 111th Congress, and those members of Congress have delivered millions of dollars in scanner contracts to these companies. If that’s the decision-making dynamic in Congress, what hope do the relatively cheap intelligence and dog options have in the face of well-funded x-ray and MMW scanner lobbyists?
These trampling of individual civil liberties have economic implications. Remember that airlines operate on razor-thin margins, and Herb Kelleher of Southwest famously observed that the last 5 or 6 passengers on a plane make a difference between profit and loss on that flight. It doesn’t take a large reduction in demand for air transportation (an inward shift in the demand curve) for the airlines to see that profit margin evaporate. For example, I used to be both Platinum on American and Premier on United, which meant I flew at least 75,000 miles annually. For 2011, because of the TSA, I am taking 1 flight at the end of January because I made a commitment before these policies were implemented, but after that, I will not fly. I have zero flights planned, and only two tentative trips to which I’ve committed for vacation in July and December. With razor-thin margins, it doesn’t take many frequent flyers who want to maintain their dignity and respect staying off of planes to turn profits to losses, at the hands (literally!) of the TSA.
If you have made some of these arguments yourself, you have probably heard the response that flying is not a right. That is wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that flight falls under the individual rights we have to free movement under the Constitution, and this right was reinforced formally in language in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. We do have the right to fly, and to fly without unreasonable search that strips us of our dignity.
Other economists have written about other more directly economic aspects of this important issue, thinking in terms of benefit-cost analysis. In November Art Carden wrote in Forbes that full frontal nudity doesn’t make us safer, and I strongly encourage you to read his analysis. In December Steve Horwitz made the substitution effect argument: if people substitute out of flying and into driving to avoid invasive TSA searches, those people are at much higher risk of accident and death:
To the degree that the new TSA procedures raise the psychic cost of flying, either by increasing the wait time at security and/or by making people very uncomfortable with see-through scanning or being fondled by a TSA agent, it will induce them to look for alternative methods of travel. For most people, that will be driving rather than flying. And the reality is that you are far more likely mile for mile to be killed in an automobile accident than in an airplane. The most dangerous part of air travel is driving to the airport. And if you consider not all of the risks of flying but only the risk of what the TSA procedures are supposed to prevent, namely the extraordinarily small chance of being killed in a terrorist attack on an airplane, it is even more likely that you will die in your car than on the plane.
Today the Electronic Privacy Information Center is hosting an event, The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security Procedures, with several excellent panels. If you care about such rights, and I obviously think you should, I encourage you to check out EPIC’s activity in this area (including their lawsuit against the TSA to gain an injunction against the use of scanners for primary screening), contact your airlines and hotels, and contact your members of Congress. Otherwise our Fourth Amendment rights, which are essential to a dynamic, thriving society, will continue to erode, and will erode at an increasing rate.
The TSA’s push to increase the intrusiveness of their physical search of passengers for specific items has pushed beyond laughable inconvenience and inefficiency into literally physically invasive search that does not qualify as a reasonable search under the administrative search carve-out of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, as written, protects individuals from unreasonable government search and seizure of their person and property, and the TSA operates under the administrative search carve-out from it — basically, if you put your bags on the conveyor you are presumed to have consented to the search of your person and possessions. The TSA are trying to claim that the new backscatter x-ray full-body scanners, millimeter wave full body scanners, and aggressive, frisking-style pat-downs are a sufficiently reasonable search that they should be considered legal under administrative search.
The TSA’s position is wrong, and instead is an aggressive, authoritarian push that violates not just the dignity of individuals, but also our innate (i.e. NOT government-granted) civil and human rights. Their policies and procedures operate on the presumption that every single person that presents himself or herself at the airport to engage in a commercial transportation transaction is a potential terrorist. That presumption flies in the face of every concept of freedom and individual rights that is at the foundation of a free, dynamic, vibrant society.
They do so in the name of making us safer in the face of terrorist threats, but this is a false equivalence, and one where economic logic is important. Their invasive practices require lots of resources. Did you know that each of these scanners costs $175,000? How many FBI intelligence agents and explosive-sniffing K-9 teams could we train and employ with the millions of dollars that Congress has already authorized for the purchase of these scanners? The opportunity cost of these scanners is enormous. Enormous. And it puts us at more risk than we would face if we instead focused those resources on more effective tools, such as behaviorally-targeted intelligence gathering and explosive-detecting dogs.
But here’s where the political economy comes in. The companies who manufacture these technologies are active lobbyists, and have spread their lobbying dollars liberally among the heads of security-related committees and sub-committees in the 111th Congress, and those members of Congress have delivered millions of dollars in scanner contracts to these companies. If that’s the decision-making dynamic in Congress, what hope do the relatively cheap intelligence and dog options have in the face of well-funded x-ray and MMW scanner lobbyists?
These trampling of individual civil liberties have economic implications. Remember that airlines operate on razor-thin margins, and Herb Kelleher of Southwest famously observed that the last 5 or 6 passengers on a plane make a difference between profit and loss on that flight. It doesn’t take a large reduction in demand for air transportation (an inward shift in the demand curve) for the airlines to see that profit margin evaporate. For example, I used to be both Platinum on American and Premier on United, which meant I flew at least 75,000 miles annually. For 2011, because of the TSA, I am taking 1 flight at the end of January because I made a commitment before these policies were implemented, but after that, I will not fly. I have zero flights planned, and only two tentative trips to which I’ve committed for vacation in July and December. With razor-thin margins, it doesn’t take many frequent flyers who want to maintain their dignity and respect staying off of planes to turn profits to losses, at the hands (literally!) of the TSA.
If you have made some of these arguments yourself, you have probably heard the response that flying is not a right. That is wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that flight falls under the individual rights we have to free movement under the Constitution, and this right was reinforced formally in language in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. We do have the right to fly, and to fly without unreasonable search that strips us of our dignity.
Other economists have written about other more directly economic aspects of this important issue, thinking in terms of benefit-cost analysis. In November Art Carden wrote in Forbes that full frontal nudity doesn’t make us safer, and I strongly encourage you to read his analysis. In December Steve Horwitz made the substitution effect argument: if people substitute out of flying and into driving to avoid invasive TSA searches, those people are at much higher risk of accident and death:
To the degree that the new TSA procedures raise the psychic cost of flying, either by increasing the wait time at security and/or by making people very uncomfortable with see-through scanning or being fondled by a TSA agent, it will induce them to look for alternative methods of travel. For most people, that will be driving rather than flying. And the reality is that you are far more likely mile for mile to be killed in an automobile accident than in an airplane. The most dangerous part of air travel is driving to the airport. And if you consider not all of the risks of flying but only the risk of what the TSA procedures are supposed to prevent, namely the extraordinarily small chance of being killed in a terrorist attack on an airplane, it is even more likely that you will die in your car than on the plane.
Today the Electronic Privacy Information Center is hosting an event, The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security Procedures, with several excellent panels. If you care about such rights, and I obviously think you should, I encourage you to check out EPIC’s activity in this area (including their lawsuit against the TSA to gain an injunction against the use of scanners for primary screening), contact your airlines and hotels, and contact your members of Congress. Otherwise our Fourth Amendment rights, which are essential to a dynamic, thriving society, will continue to erode, and will erode at an increasing rate.
10 examples of violation of fundamental rights
- Jason Vale – USA
In the mid 1980s, Jason Vale was diagnosed for the third time with terminal cancer, a cancer that has a 100% mortality rate. Although he used conventional methods of operations, radiation and chemotherapy the first two times, the third time he opted for basic diet changes and apricot seeds. Believing he could help others, he started to sell apricot seeds, which resulted in 5 years of jail time, albeit alive and cancer-free. He survived the 5 years’ imprisonment and went on to become the world champion arm wrestler.
- Tony Stephan, Truehope – Canada
Tony Stephan made the enormously emotional and difficult decision to take his child, suffering from bipolar disorder, off conventional medicine and enlist the help of micronutrients. He witnessed outstanding results, and similar outcomes are also being seen through research. Keen to share these exciting – and life changing – results, Stephan set up his own company, Truehope, supplying micronutrient supplement treatments for mental health sufferers. However, even with ever-growing amounts of positive research, Canadians have to go to extraordinary lengths to get their hands on Truehope’s EMpowerplus formula. In 2010, Truehope lost a court battle against Health Canada for, “False, misleading, and deceptive selling/advertising of [an] unapproved and improperly labelled drug product”. An appeal has been launched.
- Daniel Hauser – USA
13 year old Daniel Hauser was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in January 2009, and was recommended six rounds of chemotherapy. When he and his family decided against further chemotherapy after the first round, they were told that Daniel would be taken into custody as his parents were neglecting him medically. It was unclear how the chemotherapy would be administered after Daniel stated that he would, “Punch them and kick them” if they made him take it again. The family lost their fight, and although he was allowed to stay with his parents, they were told to get an updated X-ray and start treatment. After going on the run with his mother for a short while, Daniel’s chemotherapy recommenced. That this was under severe duress was obvious from the 19-day hunger strike the boy went on while in hospital. And is if this story wasn’t tragic enough, Daniel’s father died from a heart attack in 2011.
- Selfridges – UK
Upmarket UK store, Selfridges, has been accused this year (2012) of putting its customers at risk by stocking and selling raw milk. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) insists that raw milk is a threat to public safety and has put both the store and the farmer who produces the milk on notice, saying that they are both at risk of prosecution. At the moment, it’s legal to sell raw milk in the UK as long as it’s sold direct to the consumer and carries a warning on the label. However, the FSA is set to review this at their next meeting, so no doubt it’ll soon be unapproved for sale.
- Mandatory vaccinations – USA
Many US parents are concerned about the harsh mandatory vaccination schedule for babies, as they are required to have a whopping 26 shots before they are a year old. With research showing that mortality rates increase in children the more shots they have, parents have every right to worry – but no right to rebel. Many in the ‘healthcare professions’ are desperate to make vaccinations such as the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine compulsory for children, saying that non vaccinated children should be banned from schools. Adults are also at risk of mandatory vaccinations, as every year countries launch into a widespread panic over supposedly fatal flu pandemics – the answer to which, of course, is compulsory vaccination.
- Samantha Burton – USA
In her 25th week of pregnancy, Samantha Burton was forced against her will, under court order, to be hospitalized because she was showing signs of potential miscarriage. While in the hospital, doctors had ‘carte blanche’ to give her any procedure they wished, whether she gave her consent or not, and ultimately ‘their way’ was unsuccessful as she miscarried after 3 days. She sued the state of Florida for violating her constitutional rights and lost, the State claiming that they were merely maintaining the “status quo”.
- Allan Smith – New Zealand
Allan’s story ultimately comes with a happy ending but it was a close call. If his family hadn’t been so determined, the outcome may have been very different. Allan Smith’s family had been told that he should be allowed to die, as he had all but lost the battle with a serious case of swine flu. The hospital and specialists refused the family’s requests for him to be given intravenous vitamin C (IV C) until they enlisted the help of a lawyer. After receiving the IV C, he made a full recovery – 10 weeks quicker than rehab had expected. The hospital still won’t acknowledge that it was the IV C that had an effect on Allan’s health!
- Permitted sterilisation – Australia
A new law has been proposed in Australia whereby mentally ill children can be sterilized without their parents’ consent, if they themselves have given their consent. Doctors will also be allowed to carry out psycho-surgery and electro-convulsive therapy under the same conditions. The ridiculousness of this law is encapsulated in the term ‘mentally ill children’. If the child is ‘sound of mind’ enough to make this sort of decision, then surely there is no need for such horrific procedures? Some of you may remember the story of Maryanne Godboldo, who ended up in jail for refusing to give her daughter a dangerous anti psychotic drug. She felt she had no option but to end up in a 12-hour standoff with an armed SWAT team in order to protect her child.
- Jim Selim, Pan Pharmaceuticals – Australia
In 2003, complementary medicines manufacturer Pan Pharmaceuticals collapsed, causing millions of dollars worth of lost revenue among suppliers, pharmacies, health food shops and others reliant on their products. The collapse came after the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) suspended Pan's manufacturing licence and demanded a recall of all its products. Pan had already voluntarily withdrawn the one product the TGA had a problem with: a travel sickness product. After claiming the TGA had acted negligently and outside the limits of its statutory powers, founder Jim Selim was ultimately victorious. However, in spite of this, the federal government has never admitted any wrongdoing, and no TGA worker has been held accountable.
- Totnes Cancer Health Care Conference – UK
Just this month (March 2012), Trading Standards investigated the Totnes Cancer Health Care Conference, and urged the Town Council to withdraw their permission for use of their venue. Trading Standards claimed the conference was breaching legislation through its promotion of cancer treatment, and in particular because of the attendance of one of the speakers – a controversial Italian, Tullio Simoncini. Organiser Dr Stephen Hopwood made changes to his website as requested by Trading Standards, and also asked Simoncini to withdraw from the conference. Another venue was found, and Trading Standards were contacted to ask if the conference could proceed. Hopwood never heard anything back, so the conference went ahead. He has contacted them since the conference and still has had no communication.
Supreme Court Rules Government Violated Privacy Rights in GPS Tracking Case
Posted by Ateqah Khaki, ACLU (January 2012) at 12:29pm
In a major victory for privacy, today in U.S. v. Jones the Supreme Court unanimously held that, “The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.” The Court found that the government violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects American from unreasonable searches, when it placed a GPS device to Antoine Jones’s car and tracked his movements continuously for a month.
This case is particularly significant because it is the first time the Supreme Court has had to consider the constitutionality of location-tracking technology. While this case is specifically about whether police need a warrant to put a GPS tracking device on a person’s car, it is the closest the Court is likely to come anytime soon to addressing location tracking, and the decision could influence the law on cell phone tracking.
The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to find that the wealth of personal details gleaned from the 24/7 surveillance of GPS tracking rises to the level of private information that is covered by the Fourth Amendment. We’re very pleased to hear the Court recognized that 24-7 GPS tracking is so intrusive and should be prohibited under the Bill of Rights except when authorized by a court based on probable cause to believe that criminal activity is afoot.
To help ensure that the Supreme Court’s decision is enforced, contact Congress today and ask them to support pending bill that would protect Americans’ cell phone location data from being obtained by law enforcement without a warrant.
Additional Articles (click for link) :
Busted! Two New Fed GPS Trackers Found on SUV
Posted by Ateqah Khaki, ACLU (January 2012) at 12:29pm
In a major victory for privacy, today in U.S. v. Jones the Supreme Court unanimously held that, “The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.” The Court found that the government violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects American from unreasonable searches, when it placed a GPS device to Antoine Jones’s car and tracked his movements continuously for a month.
This case is particularly significant because it is the first time the Supreme Court has had to consider the constitutionality of location-tracking technology. While this case is specifically about whether police need a warrant to put a GPS tracking device on a person’s car, it is the closest the Court is likely to come anytime soon to addressing location tracking, and the decision could influence the law on cell phone tracking.
The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to find that the wealth of personal details gleaned from the 24/7 surveillance of GPS tracking rises to the level of private information that is covered by the Fourth Amendment. We’re very pleased to hear the Court recognized that 24-7 GPS tracking is so intrusive and should be prohibited under the Bill of Rights except when authorized by a court based on probable cause to believe that criminal activity is afoot.
To help ensure that the Supreme Court’s decision is enforced, contact Congress today and ask them to support pending bill that would protect Americans’ cell phone location data from being obtained by law enforcement without a warrant.
Additional Articles (click for link) :
Busted! Two New Fed GPS Trackers Found on SUV
3 PART NDAA DECEPTION - scroll for details on all 3
#1- Obama promises NEVER to use signing statements...
#1- Obama promises NEVER to use signing statements...
#2 - Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act on New Years Eve while the world wasn't watching...
President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law
Posted by Amanda Simon at 4:20pm
ACLU website
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.
The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.
We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.
Posted by Amanda Simon at 4:20pm
ACLU website
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.
The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.
We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.
#3 - HE ISSUES A SIGNING STATEMENT!
Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 1, 2012
As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to addto the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.
Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.
From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.
Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de factorule by “executive fiat.” Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow– or expand upon.
Further, Barack Obama has continued to backslide on his campaign promise not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law. RELATED (Feb. 2010): Obama Breaks Yet Another Key Campaign Promise on Executive Orders, Signing Statements
After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” while executive director of the Human Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States
Below is the signing statement issued by the White House in full:
————-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Obama Signs Martial Law Bill: NDAA Now Law
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor's Note: This phrase is nothing more than a legal-loophole clause referring to threats to veto prior versions, as the White House disputed not being given deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. 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 intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 1, 2012
As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to addto the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.
Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.
From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.
Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de factorule by “executive fiat.” Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow– or expand upon.
Further, Barack Obama has continued to backslide on his campaign promise not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law. RELATED (Feb. 2010): Obama Breaks Yet Another Key Campaign Promise on Executive Orders, Signing Statements
After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” while executive director of the Human Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States
Below is the signing statement issued by the White House in full:
————-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Obama Signs Martial Law Bill: NDAA Now Law
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor's Note: This phrase is nothing more than a legal-loophole clause referring to threats to veto prior versions, as the White House disputed not being given deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. 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 intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...
