NDAA Bill Signed - WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum

loyolabenson · 12-31-2011, 06:15 PM

Obama signs defense bill despite ‘serious reservations’ over handling of terror suspects - The Washington Post

Happy New Year

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

music4mic · 12-31-2011, 06:22 PM

“Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

right

He also said he has great reservations about signing it into law. But does it anyway...hmm.

JakeStratham · 12-31-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loyolabenson

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

First, talk is cheap. Pols lie. He lies.

Second, his administration may be shown the door soon, and certainly in a few years. Not only is his talk cheap, but it is meaningless.

minsco · 12-31-2011, 06:31 PM

Obama more liek "oh bomb us." mirite?

allcelldeals · 12-31-2011, 06:33 PM

The signing statement has ab-so-fucking-lutely no legal weight at all. Fuck Him!

Deliguy · 12-31-2011, 06:44 PM

megatabbers · 12-31-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deliguy

Oh, the irony!

Yuckystuff · 12-31-2011, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deliguy

This.

I didn't think I'd ever see a President as bad as Bush. Guess I didn't have to wait long.

loyolabenson · 12-31-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minsco

Obama more liek "oh bomb us." mirite?

urrite

Pseudo Nym · 12-31-2011, 07:31 PM

Did anyone bother to read the article? Feels awful knee-jerky around here.

From TFA:

Quote:

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

Not that I care to waste time defending the Obama admin or this bill, but let's be honest at least.

allcelldeals · 12-31-2011, 07:32 PM

I'm sure it's no accident that he signed it on New Year's Eve while everyone is preoccupied with getting fucked up.

loyolabenson · 12-31-2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo Nym

Did anyone bother to read the article? Feels awful knee-jerky around here.

From TFA:
Not that I care to waste time defending the Obama admin or this bill, but let's be honest at least.

I have an open mind to anything. Let's be honest, we have to actually see the bill and what amendments were added before we come to conclusions on either side of the fence.

Pseudo Nym · 12-31-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loyolabenson

I have an open mind to anything. Let's be honest, we have to actually see the bill and what amendments were added before we come to conclusions on either side of the fence.

Help yourself. It's a little long, though. The part that seems to have people riled up is section 1021, which is short enough to quote in full:

Quote:

Originally Posted by H.R. 1540

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

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

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

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

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

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

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

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

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

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

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

lukep · 01-01-2012, 02:02 AM

Something else this very bill did was place many further sanctions on Iran...

Worse yet, Obama signed this bill at about the same time Iran begged to get everyone back to the bargaining table on their nuclear talks.

Awfully co-inky-dinky, wouldn't you say?

Here's how I see it going down...

A. US puts troops all around Iran and pressures them from every angle.
B. Iran holds military drills and proclaims that if we have any further sanctions, they'll close the strait of Hormuz.
C. US Military says we'll combat them if they try.
D. Iran, feeling like we called their bluff, says: "Hey, come back and talk more, it's cool, no really!"
E. Without any time to lose, Obama signs the only bill on his desk that really does call their bluff and puts the sanctions on Iran.

Now Iran has to close the strait. If they don't they look like cowards and liars. If they do they start war against us while we've got them surrounded.

Dudes, this is it. Place your bets.

kingfish · 01-01-2012, 03:33 AM

I'm still trying to decide if he's a worse president than Nixon. He's working real hard at it now and getting pretty close.

Kiopa_Matt · 01-01-2012, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo Nym

Did anyone bother to read the article? Feels awful knee-jerky around here.

From TFA:
Not that I care to waste time defending the Obama admin or this bill, but let's be honest at least.

They dropped the REQUIREMENT for terrorism suspects to be held by the military, not the authorization allowing the military to indefinitely hold US citizens without trial. Well, not indefinitely, but just until the end of hostilities, so until say 2080 or so.

That's the worst part. Obama didn't even care about the whole indefinite detention without trial thing. He only cared about being able to overrule the new law, and be able to choose whether the person is to be prosecuted under military or civilian law.

Pseudo Nym · 01-01-2012, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt

They dropped the REQUIREMENT for terrorism suspects to be held by the military, not the authorization allowing the military to indefinitely hold US citizens without trial.

So but this bill doesn't seem to change anything with regard to US citizens? It's explicitly stated in subsection(e) from section 1021:

Quote:

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

There seems to be some debate over whether indefinite detention of US citizens is already lawful (under the AUMF), but the version of the NDAA that was just passed doesn't appear to change anything in that regard either way.

I'm happy to be wrong, but please source your claims.

d_diggler · 01-01-2012, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukep

Something else this very bill did was place many further sanctions on Iran...

Worse yet, Obama signed this bill at about the same time Iran begged to get everyone back to the bargaining table on their nuclear talks.

Awfully co-inky-dinky, wouldn't you say?

Here's how I see it going down...

A. US puts troops all around Iran and pressures them from every angle.
B. Iran holds military drills and proclaims that if we have any further sanctions, they'll close the strait of Hormuz.
C. US Military says we'll combat them if they try.
D. Iran, feeling like we called their bluff, says: "Hey, come back and talk more, it's cool, no really!"
E. Without any time to lose, Obama signs the only bill on his desk that really does call their bluff and puts the sanctions on Iran.

Now Iran has to close the strait. If they don't they look like cowards and liars. If they do they start war against us while we've got them surrounded.

Dudes, this is it. Place your bets.

It'll depend if the EU carries through with banning oil imports. The UK's position is clear but many of the other member states are on long term credit agreements with Iran and so not keen on the deal. (cough cough umm Greece).

This won't happen unless Nukes are praded down the high street of Tehran, trust me. Even if the EU wasn't gutless thanks to the fine economic position the EU governments have created they won't risk oil prices making the situation worse - infact Iran will probably always have a customer even without China.

Trust me principles will be out the window.

The other aspect which makes this interesting (if thats the right terminology) is the massive internal struggle going on in Iran itself. Iran isn't as good as China when it comes to suppression of dissent.

Sharia law and a dictator I'm sure are a great political system, but there seems to be a slight bit of unrest in the area and I'd bet a good percentage of the Iranian people (from my experience) are smart enough to know who's really fucking them over here.

Deliguy · 01-01-2012, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deliguy

Haha after I made that meme I hit the submit to reddit button. Got 2 upvotes. 2 hours later someone resubmits it and got frontpaged.
Reddit fags

Yuckystuff · 01-01-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deliguy

Haha after I made that meme I hit the submit to reddit button. Got 2 upvotes. 2 hours later someone resubmits it and got frontpaged.
Reddit fags

Reddit is like Internet high school, nothing but a popularity contest. You must not be one of the cool kids.

Lyova · 01-01-2012, 12:48 PM

Just so everyone knows, Obama said that his administration will not use the law against any law-abiding U.S. citizen. He will simply command people to not enforce it against any U.S. citizen that is law abiding.

hellblazer · 01-01-2012, 01:00 PM

You dumbfucks realize the only reason that language is in the bill in the first place is because Obama PRESSURED Congress to put it in there, right??? The signing statement means nothing, it has zero legislative weight, Obama's Cartel wanted the power to indefinitely detain American citizens, now it's law, here's a throwaway signing statement saying we'll never use the power WE DEMANDED in the first place!!

lukep · 01-01-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d_diggler

It'll depend if the EU carries through with banning oil imports.

So the US didn't have the power alone to place any sanctions on Iran? Nothing at all?

From: BBC News - Iran President Ahmadinejad condemns US banking sanctions

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC

The sanctions - which cut off from the US financial system foreign firms that do business with the central bank - are part of a defence bill signed by President Barack Obama on Saturday.

They will take hold after a warning period of up to six months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyova

Just so everyone knows, Obama said that his administration will not use the law against any law-abiding U.S. citizen. He will simply command people to not enforce it against any U.S. citizen that is law abiding.

SEOisEVIL I presume? STFU.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer

You dumbfucks realize the only reason that language is in the bill in the first place is because Obama PRESSURED Congress to put it in there, right???

Welcome back, Hellboy!

I honestly missed you, you old crackpot... SEOisEVIL's level of trolling made me appreciate your level of trolling all the more.

AdWordscissorh& · 01-01-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyova

Just so everyone knows, Obama said that his administration will not use the law against any law-abiding U.S. citizen. He will simply command people to not enforce it against any U.S. citizen that is law abiding.

d_diggler · 01-01-2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukep

So the US didn't have the power alone to place any sanctions on Iran? Nothing at all?

From: BBC News - Iran President Ahmadinejad condemns US banking sanctions

Did someone say the US didn't have the power to place sanctions on their own?

The US isn't an important market to Iran, the EU is...

Iran won't be so bold as to block oil tankers just because the US placed another sanction on them.

lukep · 01-01-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d_diggler

Iran won't be so bold as to block oil tankers just because the US placed another sanction on them.

I can't find it ATM, but recently Iran threatened to shut down the strait of hormuz if ANY more sanctions were placed on them or their central bank.

I'd say this fits the bill, although I don't see Iran doing anything about it yet to try and keep their promise. Guess I won't be surprised if they wiggle out of it like the little bitches they are...

d_diggler · 01-01-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukep

I can't find it ATM, but recently Iran threatened to shut down the strait of hormuz if ANY more sanctions were placed on them or their central bank.

I'd say this fits the bill, although I don't see Iran doing anything about it yet to try and keep their promise. Guess I won't be surprised if they wiggle out of it like the little bitches they are...

Well that was kind of my point - bridges with the US are burned, doesn't matter who set fire to them now (or at least I don't want to get into that argument)... But Iran losing its oil trade with the EU in my opinion would be unacceptable to them economically.

I'd guess both the EU and Iran would be desperate to sit down at the nuclear negotiation table again as neither can afford to actually go through with their threats.

loyolabenson · 01-01-2012, 06:14 PM

» Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

pinchyfingers · 01-01-2012, 06:43 PM

The bill also does this:

Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military | CNSnews.com

“If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal – whether a government animal or a non-government animal – is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code? I think that’s in question,” Maginnis told CNSNews.com.

Andrey · 01-03-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinchyfingers

The bill also does this:

Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military | CNSnews.com

“If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal – whether a government animal or a non-government animal – is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code? I think that’s in question,” Maginnis told CNSNews.com.

The elites of this world are fucked in the head.

12-31-2011, 06:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
loyolabenson make monies Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,372 iTrader: 10 / 100%	NDAA Bill Signed Obama signs defense bill despite ‘serious reservations’ over handling of terror suspects - The Washington Post Happy New Year “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

12-31-2011, 06:31 PM	#4 (permalink)
minsco Senior Señor Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: merka Posts: 201 iTrader: 1 / 100%	Obama more liek "oh bomb us." mirite? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ smoke was blown

12-31-2011, 06:33 PM	#5 (permalink)
allcelldeals Pittsburgh Pimpin' Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 326 iTrader: 12 / 100%	The signing statement has ab-so-fucking-lutely no legal weight at all. Fuck Him! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ Shabinkle Bitches!

12-31-2011, 06:44 PM	#6 (permalink)
Deliguy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 4,942 iTrader: 11 / 100%	Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________

12-31-2011, 07:32 PM	#11 (permalink)
allcelldeals Pittsburgh Pimpin' Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 326 iTrader: 12 / 100%	I'm sure it's no accident that he signed it on New Year's Eve while everyone is preoccupied with getting fucked up. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ Shabinkle Bitches!

01-01-2012, 03:33 AM	#15 (permalink)
kingfish Champion of Awesome Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,501 iTrader: 9 / 100%	I'm still trying to decide if he's a worse president than Nixon. He's working real hard at it now and getting pretty close. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________

01-01-2012, 12:48 PM	#21 (permalink)
Lyova Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 135 iTrader: 0 / 0%	Just so everyone knows, Obama said that his administration will not use the law against any law-abiding U.S. citizen. He will simply command people to not enforce it against any U.S. citizen that is law abiding. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

01-01-2012, 01:00 PM	#22 (permalink)
hellblazer Agent 44 Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,346 iTrader: 8 / 100%	You dumbfucks realize the only reason that language is in the bill in the first place is because Obama PRESSURED Congress to put it in there, right??? The signing statement means nothing, it has zero legislative weight, Obama's Cartel wanted the power to indefinitely detain American citizens, now it's law, here's a throwaway signing statement saying we'll never use the power WE DEMANDED in the first place!! (D) Carl Levin on NDAA 'Obama Admin insisted on the contents' - YouTube Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ "What can I do for you, Pa? Let me do something for you!" "Be a champ. Like I never was."

01-01-2012, 06:14 PM	#28 (permalink)
loyolabenson make monies Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,372 iTrader: 10 / 100%	» Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

01-01-2012, 06:43 PM	#29 (permalink)
pinchyfingers Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Live, Without A DJ Posts: 135 iTrader: 1 / 100%	The bill also does this: Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military \| CNSnews.com “If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal – whether a government animal or a non-government animal – is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code? I think that’s in question,” Maginnis told CNSNews.com. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode