By: Alex Jones..!
Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans...!
Aaron Dykes
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 add to 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 facto rule by “executive fiat.” Worse, such signing
statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow– or expand
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
Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill
begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States (see

Below is the signing statement issued by the White House in full:
Office of the Press Secretary
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
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.





View the TrailerIlluminati credentialsTHE CRF ROSTER..!



satan is A LIAR...!




Views: 16


You need to be a member of TCUnation to add comments!




© 2018   Created by Earl B.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service