By Mark Hosenball
REUTERS
Aug 1, 2012
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence "finding," broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad's armed opponents - a shift that intensified following last month's failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.
But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad's opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.
Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.
The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment...
(click here to read the full article on REUTERS)
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
'You can be arrested for criticizing Obama,' so says North Carolina teacher to students...oh but Romney is fair game though
Teacher tells student he could be ARRESTED for criticising Obama (but says Romney is fair game)
DailyMail
May 20, 2012
A teacher told a student in her classroom that he could be arrested for saying something bad about Barack Obama.
The social studies teacher at North Rowan High School in Spencer, North Carolina told the student he could go to jail for speaking negatively about the President - but that it was fine to criticise Mitt Romney.
Video captured the intense debate between the two as the teacher demanded that Mr Obama be respected, while the student insisted he had a right to share his own opinions...
Published on May 14, 2012 by rossache19
http://youtu.be/vjpWaESn_9g
(click here to read the full article)
FAIR USE STATEMENT: This video may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making this material available in an effort to advance understanding of , political, religion, human rights, economic, and social justice issues, etc
Copyright Disclaimer [Rubaiat`s Blog]:
The use of incidental copyrighted material is covered under 'Fair Use' (Copyright Act, 1976) Title 17 U.S.C Section 107, with particular emphasis on such use for educational and non-profit purposes. Under Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act (1976), allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act-
In Aug 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California, ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
[View the blog`s full Fair Use Copyright Disclaimer at the end of the homepage]
- North Carolina teacher said student couldn't 'disrespect' President in her classroom
- She said 'arrests have been made for speaking poorly of George W. Bush' but Mitt Romney gibes were fine
- When student said he had a right to say what he wanted, teacher replied, 'Not about him you don't'
DailyMail
May 20, 2012
A teacher told a student in her classroom that he could be arrested for saying something bad about Barack Obama.The social studies teacher at North Rowan High School in Spencer, North Carolina told the student he could go to jail for speaking negatively about the President - but that it was fine to criticise Mitt Romney.
Video captured the intense debate between the two as the teacher demanded that Mr Obama be respected, while the student insisted he had a right to share his own opinions...
Published on May 14, 2012 by rossache19
http://youtu.be/vjpWaESn_9g
(click here to read the full article)
FAIR USE STATEMENT: This video may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making this material available in an effort to advance understanding of , political, religion, human rights, economic, and social justice issues, etc
Digital Millennium Copyright Act-
In Aug 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California, ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
[View the blog`s full Fair Use Copyright Disclaimer at the end of the homepage]
Obama snubs Zardari at NATO summit for increasing transit fees for U.S. military supply trucks but has no problems killing scores of Pakistani`s via drone strikes
Obama snubs Asif Ali Zardari at NATO
Brad Norington
The Australian
May 21, 2012
Barack Obama has snubbed Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari despite inviting him to a NATO summit in Chicago, as a bitter dispute rages over supply routes that could disrupt the planned US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The US President refused to meet Mr Zardari yesterday in the midst of Pakistan’s refusal to compromise over increasing the fee for trucks to pass through its territory to Afghanistan from $US250 ($253) to $US5000.
[The fact that Zardari had to settle for a meeting with Clinton rather than the president is in itself a snub.]
Pakistan closed its borders and then demanded the huge price rise for moving US supply trucks through its territory after US air strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November.
(click here to read more)
The Australian
May 21, 2012
 |
| Asif Ali Zardari has met the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, at the Nato summit but Obama will not sit down with Pakistan's president. Photograph: Bob Strong/Reuters |
The US President refused to meet Mr Zardari yesterday in the midst of Pakistan’s refusal to compromise over increasing the fee for trucks to pass through its territory to Afghanistan from $US250 ($253) to $US5000.
[The fact that Zardari had to settle for a meeting with Clinton rather than the president is in itself a snub.]
Pakistan closed its borders and then demanded the huge price rise for moving US supply trucks through its territory after US air strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November.
(click here to read more)
Friday, April 6, 2012
President Obama: Rise of the Petty Dictator (Infowars)
Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
April 3, 2012
Many a constitutional scholar were left with their jaws hanging near their ankles following Obama’s press conference on the White House lawn yesterday, where he railed against Supreme Court, describing their potential to overturn his Obamacare as that of an “Unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constitutional and passed law.”
According to the President, it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his health care law. His preemptive strike against the Supreme Court should worry more people than opponents of Obamacare.
What is most amazing is that this statement comes from someone who purports to have taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. One might come to conclusion that Obama had someone else take his law exams, not least because the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn such legislation hasn’t been “unprecedented” since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Even more disturbing than his individual display of legislative incompetency, or the chief executive’s own summary ignorance of history, is an inability to grasp the over arching concept of separation of powers, also known as “checks and balances”, which is the keystone of an American constitutional republic. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether any branch of government should rule over another, but James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, did hint that “it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
This would probably be a good opportunity to remind the 44th President and his White House cadre that a separation of powers exists and is outlined in the United States Constitution which describes the relationship between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
Simply put, these three branches of government are kept distinct from one another to prevent an abuse of power by either branch. To counter-balance this danger, federal legislative courts were founded and designed to adjudicate on questions of the public’s rights as determined by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In short, the Constitutional provisions are there so that citizens may determine their own destiny – as opposed to a destiny dictated by a despot in the White House, or a corrupted Congress and Senate.
Why a petty dictator? If the President were a proper dictator he would simply begin his purge and declare himslef ‘President for Life’. But this power-grab is more subtle. This President is using dizzying legalese and covert manipulation in order to further weaken the fundamental law of the land – our Constitution, a document which is God given and ultimately serves to protect citizens’ indivual rights.
Obama’s harrowing comment yesterday allude to just that – what critics of Obamacare cite as a federalized power-grab, whereby Washington would dictate to each American citizen what- and which type of healthcare insurance policy he or she must purchase annually according to a federal mandate.
In the President’s case, his own record of executive abuse of power has come in the form of his endless signing statements and non-democratic executive orders...
(click here to read the full article)
Infowars.com
April 3, 2012
According to the President, it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his health care law. His preemptive strike against the Supreme Court should worry more people than opponents of Obamacare.
What is most amazing is that this statement comes from someone who purports to have taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. One might come to conclusion that Obama had someone else take his law exams, not least because the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn such legislation hasn’t been “unprecedented” since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Even more disturbing than his individual display of legislative incompetency, or the chief executive’s own summary ignorance of history, is an inability to grasp the over arching concept of separation of powers, also known as “checks and balances”, which is the keystone of an American constitutional republic. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether any branch of government should rule over another, but James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, did hint that “it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
This would probably be a good opportunity to remind the 44th President and his White House cadre that a separation of powers exists and is outlined in the United States Constitution which describes the relationship between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
Simply put, these three branches of government are kept distinct from one another to prevent an abuse of power by either branch. To counter-balance this danger, federal legislative courts were founded and designed to adjudicate on questions of the public’s rights as determined by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In short, the Constitutional provisions are there so that citizens may determine their own destiny – as opposed to a destiny dictated by a despot in the White House, or a corrupted Congress and Senate.
Why a petty dictator? If the President were a proper dictator he would simply begin his purge and declare himslef ‘President for Life’. But this power-grab is more subtle. This President is using dizzying legalese and covert manipulation in order to further weaken the fundamental law of the land – our Constitution, a document which is God given and ultimately serves to protect citizens’ indivual rights.
Obama’s harrowing comment yesterday allude to just that – what critics of Obamacare cite as a federalized power-grab, whereby Washington would dictate to each American citizen what- and which type of healthcare insurance policy he or she must purchase annually according to a federal mandate.
In the President’s case, his own record of executive abuse of power has come in the form of his endless signing statements and non-democratic executive orders...
(click here to read the full article)
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Sheriff Arpaio: Obama’s Documents Are Amateur Phonies (Infowars)
Obama’s Records Are Missing + Mike Zullo, Jerome Corsi Full Interviews.
Infowars.com
March 31, 2012
The Obama records which have not been released include; Passport records, Obama kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records/schedules (said to be lost), Medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, Adoption records and of course the long-form Certificate of Live Birth.
State Representative Carl Seel, who introduced the bill, was joined by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, State Senator Lori Klein, and others in support of the bill. Important new information was revealed during the news conference including a request by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the current head of the Selective Service Board to investigate the criminal forgery committed in the case of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration. In addtion, Carl Seel reveals some of the resistance that other Republicans are creating to stop the bill from even heading to a vote.
The bill will require Barack Obama, or any candidate seeking to be on the Arizona ballot, to certify eligibility for the office they are seeking. This will essentially require Barack Obama to certify his eligibility if he wants to be on the ballot this year in Arizona. This could potentially be a game-changing piece of legislation.
March 31, 2012
The Obama records which have not been released include; Passport records, Obama kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records/schedules (said to be lost), Medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, Adoption records and of course the long-form Certificate of Live Birth.
State Representative Carl Seel, who introduced the bill, was joined by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, State Senator Lori Klein, and others in support of the bill. Important new information was revealed during the news conference including a request by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the current head of the Selective Service Board to investigate the criminal forgery committed in the case of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration. In addtion, Carl Seel reveals some of the resistance that other Republicans are creating to stop the bill from even heading to a vote.
The bill will require Barack Obama, or any candidate seeking to be on the Arizona ballot, to certify eligibility for the office they are seeking. This will essentially require Barack Obama to certify his eligibility if he wants to be on the ballot this year in Arizona. This could potentially be a game-changing piece of legislation.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Arizona Sheriff Arpaio releases his report on President Obama`s birth certificate
Maricopa County, Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio released his report today about President Obama's eligibility and questions about his background. His report is essentially saying the president`s birth certificate is a "computer-generated forgery."
Sheriff Arpaio: Obama birth certificate a ‘forgery’
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Thursday, March 1, 2012
PHOENIX — Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Thursday he suspects the birth certificate President Obama released last year is a “computer-generated forgery” — and also raised questions about the authenticity of the president’s Selective Service card.
“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.”
Questions over Mr. Obama’s birth certificate have been a political sideshow for the last four years, and have persisted despite repeated denials by the White House, and despite the release of evidence he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. That evidence included both a certificate of live birth released during the 2008 campaign and the long-form certificate last year.
Fact-check organizations have concluded the certificates are authentic, and Mr. Obama has joked about those who questioned his birth. At last year’s White House Correspondents Association Dinner, soon after releasing his long-form certificate, he mocked Donald Trump, who had said his own investigators were looking into the matter.
Now Sheriff Arpaio, who first built his national profile by creating tent cities for jail inmates and later by taking a tough stance on illegal immigration, could reignite questions among those who continue to believe Mr. Obama was born outside the U.S., and therefore is ineligible to be president under the Constitution’s provision that the officeholder be a natural-born citizen.
Sheriff Arpaio said at least two crimes could have been committed in his view through the forgery. He repeatedly said he is not questioning whether Mr. Obama was born in the U.S., but instead is challenging the authenticity of the documents themselves.
He released a 10-page report detailing what his investigators said were “inconsistencies” in the text characters of the birth certificate image the White House released, and also questioned details of the computer file itself.
Some of those claims had earlier been raised on the Internet as well, and both the White House and independent fact-checkers have dismissed those questions, saying the computer file is consistent with the version of events the White House has detailed.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
It released the long-form certificate last year after repeated questions were raised by conservative activists and conspiracy-theory websites questioning the authenticity of the short-form certificate Mr. Obama released during the 2008 campaign.
The Justice Department has accused Sheriff Arpaio of civil rights abuses within his department, but he said he began his investigation before that — in August 2011, after tea party members from Surprise, Ariz., a town within Maricopa County, signed a petition challenging the certificate.
Sheriff Arpaio detailed former law enforcement officers who constitute what he called his “cold case posse” to do the investigation. He said no taxpayer dollars were spent.
He was joined in his press conference by Jerome Corsi, an author who has been critical of Mr. Obama. He was also one of those who took a critical look at Sen. John Kerry’s military service during his 2004 presidential bid.
Mr. Corsi made headlines when he traveled to Kenya, saying he wanted to track down where he thought Mr. Obama was really born.
Sheriff Arpaio said he went into the investigation with an open mind, and would have been happy to clear Mr. Obama.
His investigators said the computer file released by the White House appears to have been created on a computer, rather than having been originally made on paper and then scanned.
The investigators said they have identified “a person of interest” in the birth certificate.
Sheriff Arpaio’s chief investigator on the project said there are so many questions that he couldn’t have cleared Mr. Obama to be an employee of Maricopa County.
Pursuing questions over the birth certificate has been a thorny issue for the GOP. State lawmakers in several places, including Arizona, have pursued laws that would have imposed checks on any presidential candidate’s qualifications to get on their state ballots.
One such proposal in Arizona, which became known as the “birther” bill, was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer last year.
Additional Reading:
Ariz. Sheriff Arpaio: Obama Birth Certificate 'Computer Generated Forgery' (NPR NewsBlog)
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Thursday, March 1, 2012
 |
| Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio Credit:AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin |
“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.”
Questions over Mr. Obama’s birth certificate have been a political sideshow for the last four years, and have persisted despite repeated denials by the White House, and despite the release of evidence he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. That evidence included both a certificate of live birth released during the 2008 campaign and the long-form certificate last year.
Fact-check organizations have concluded the certificates are authentic, and Mr. Obama has joked about those who questioned his birth. At last year’s White House Correspondents Association Dinner, soon after releasing his long-form certificate, he mocked Donald Trump, who had said his own investigators were looking into the matter.
Now Sheriff Arpaio, who first built his national profile by creating tent cities for jail inmates and later by taking a tough stance on illegal immigration, could reignite questions among those who continue to believe Mr. Obama was born outside the U.S., and therefore is ineligible to be president under the Constitution’s provision that the officeholder be a natural-born citizen.
Sheriff Arpaio said at least two crimes could have been committed in his view through the forgery. He repeatedly said he is not questioning whether Mr. Obama was born in the U.S., but instead is challenging the authenticity of the documents themselves.
He released a 10-page report detailing what his investigators said were “inconsistencies” in the text characters of the birth certificate image the White House released, and also questioned details of the computer file itself.
Some of those claims had earlier been raised on the Internet as well, and both the White House and independent fact-checkers have dismissed those questions, saying the computer file is consistent with the version of events the White House has detailed.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
It released the long-form certificate last year after repeated questions were raised by conservative activists and conspiracy-theory websites questioning the authenticity of the short-form certificate Mr. Obama released during the 2008 campaign.
The Justice Department has accused Sheriff Arpaio of civil rights abuses within his department, but he said he began his investigation before that — in August 2011, after tea party members from Surprise, Ariz., a town within Maricopa County, signed a petition challenging the certificate.
Sheriff Arpaio detailed former law enforcement officers who constitute what he called his “cold case posse” to do the investigation. He said no taxpayer dollars were spent.
He was joined in his press conference by Jerome Corsi, an author who has been critical of Mr. Obama. He was also one of those who took a critical look at Sen. John Kerry’s military service during his 2004 presidential bid.
Mr. Corsi made headlines when he traveled to Kenya, saying he wanted to track down where he thought Mr. Obama was really born.
Sheriff Arpaio said he went into the investigation with an open mind, and would have been happy to clear Mr. Obama.
His investigators said the computer file released by the White House appears to have been created on a computer, rather than having been originally made on paper and then scanned.
The investigators said they have identified “a person of interest” in the birth certificate.
Sheriff Arpaio’s chief investigator on the project said there are so many questions that he couldn’t have cleared Mr. Obama to be an employee of Maricopa County.
Pursuing questions over the birth certificate has been a thorny issue for the GOP. State lawmakers in several places, including Arizona, have pursued laws that would have imposed checks on any presidential candidate’s qualifications to get on their state ballots.
One such proposal in Arizona, which became known as the “birther” bill, was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer last year.
Additional Reading:
Ariz. Sheriff Arpaio: Obama Birth Certificate 'Computer Generated Forgery' (NPR NewsBlog)
Friday, February 10, 2012
Obama Signed Executive Order Declaring War On Iran!!!
Obama Signs Executive Order On Iran
Collapse Network
Thursday, 09 February 2012 18:54
On February 5, 2012, President Obama invoked the NDAA, which authorizes the use of military force, and issues an executive order declaring the “threat” of Iran a National Emergency. The video below shows this issuance of President Obama executive order which declares Iran’s threat to cut off oil supplies a national emergency.
The executive order directs all government agencies to respond immediately to the threat. It further invokes the authority of the 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which gives the President the power to launch military action against any nation without the approval of Congress. Ironically, the State of Emergency order also accuses the Iranian central bank of deceptive banking practices.
See video of Executive Order being read by the Reading Clerk of the House, citing section 1245 of the NDAA:
Uploaded by MOXNEWSd0tCOM on Feb 7, 2012
February 06, 2012 C-SPAN
http://MOXNews.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23uQr7TIMo&feature=player_embedded
Read the 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) here - A MUST READ for all citizens of the U.S.!!!
Additional Info:
Pressure Israel, not Iran. Iran has an arsenal of 200-300 nukes. by M. Cohn, GlobalResearch.ca
Collapse Network
Thursday, 09 February 2012 18:54
The executive order directs all government agencies to respond immediately to the threat. It further invokes the authority of the 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which gives the President the power to launch military action against any nation without the approval of Congress. Ironically, the State of Emergency order also accuses the Iranian central bank of deceptive banking practices.
See video of Executive Order being read by the Reading Clerk of the House, citing section 1245 of the NDAA:
Uploaded by MOXNEWSd0tCOM on Feb 7, 2012
February 06, 2012 C-SPAN
http://MOXNews.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23uQr7TIMo&feature=player_embedded
Read the 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) here - A MUST READ for all citizens of the U.S.!!!
Pressure Israel, not Iran. Iran has an arsenal of 200-300 nukes. by M. Cohn, GlobalResearch.ca
THE 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)
credit: Sodahead
With all the recent talk and debate about the 2012 NDAA signed into law by President Obama - citing how harmful it is to individual right and liberties to the citizens of America that totally disregards the U.S. Constitution, so exactly what is the 2012 NDAA and how harmful is it if any?Why the NDAA is Unconstitutional
by Brian J. Trautman
CounterPunch.org
JANUARY 18, 2012
Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA of 2012, however, is unlike any previous ones. This year’s legislation contains highly controversial provisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.
This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.” The law affirms the executive branch’s authority granted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and broadens the definition and scope of “covered persons.” But because the “war on terror” is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.
One popular myth surrounding this law (which has been marketed well by the White House and the mainstream media) is that it does not pertain to U.S. persons (citizens and resident aliens). While the law does not explicitly target U.S. persons, it neither excludes nor protects them. Section 1022 of the law covers U.S. persons. The section allows for open-ended executive judgment with regard to the handling of U.S. persons. In other words, the detention of U.S persons is optional, rather than a requirement as it is for non-U.S. persons. Jonathan Turley, legal scholar and professor at George Washington University, explains that “the provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.”
Regardless of whether or not this law is interpreted as applying to U.S. persons, by specifically targeting foreign nationals, the NDAA violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people be treated the same under the law. Therefore, any way you slice it, this law is unconstitutional.
Accompanying the President’s signature was a signing statement which was intended to clarify some of his perspectives on the NDAA’s most controversial language. The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.” However, what is important to keep in mind here is that the statement refers only to what this administration pledges, not to the intentions or requirements of future administrations. As television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow put it in recent segment, “you now live in a country where, technically at least, the military has a legal role to play in civilian law enforcement.” Dr. Maddow pointed that while this may or may not be invoked during the present administration, “thanks to this bill…if this president changes his mind or some other president in the future does want to arrest Americans and lock them up in military custody forever without trial, our government statutorily now claims that as its right.”
Although more than two-thirds of the House voted in favor of the NDAA, not every member was on board with it. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) remarked that “what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution.” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) described this bill as a threat to “the inalienable due process rights afforded to every American citizen under the Constitution.”
The NDAA’s draconian detention provisions have received most of the attention, effectively overshadowing the fact that this legislation continues a trend of spending vast sums of taxpayer money on so-called “defense” objectives. According to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of only 13 members of the Senate to vote against the NDAA, “the bill continues to authorize heavy spending on defense despite the end of the 9-year-old war in Iraq. Ironically, the Senate vote came on the same day when Defense Secretary Panetta was in Baghdad officially declaring that our military mission there has ended and that virtually all of the combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year. At a time when we have tripled defense spending since 1997 and spend more today on defense than the rest of the world combined.”
The executive branch has acquired greater authoritarian and unaccountable power under this law which disaffirms justice as a fundamental human right. It brings the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition home. Tom Parker of Amnesty International USA argues that the NDAA “provides a framework for ‘normalizing’ indefinite detention and making Guantanamo a permanent feature of American life.” What democracy and civil liberties we did enjoy in this country before the NDAA of 2012 became law have been severely weakened, and our nation’s moral and legal credibility in the world, which has been gradually declining since the so-called “war on terror” was declared by President Bush, has been diminished further.
The NDAA of 2012 increases the United States’ worldwide detention authority. In doing so it further entrenches a culture of war in American society. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “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… 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.”
As difficult as it might be to have any faith left in the Congress, there is hope on the horizon for overturning at least the portion of the law that threatens U.S. persons. The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, H.R. 3702, authored by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) and Martin Heinrich (D- NM) and currently co-sponsored by 32 House members, including the ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary committees, clarifies existing U.S. law and states unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens or lawful U.S. residents. It ensures that U.S. citizens and permanent residents on American soil are protected. The bill amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971, clarifying that a congressional authorization for the use of military force – such as that in the NDAA which included the detainee provisions – does not authorize the indefinite detention without charge or trial of U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. H.R. 3702 is companion legislation to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, S. 2003.
Since 2001, the Patriot Act, the AUMF, and now the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 have eroded many of our most valued constitutional rights. Our nation is moving away from government “of the people, by the people, for the people” and toward a totalitarian state. The late historian, Howard Zinn observed, “Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country [America], for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home. It serves the same purpose, serving to create hysteria.”
It is up to the American people to stop this fear-mongering and this unfettered growth of the military industrial complex. How? Americans can begin by actively dissenting against laws that violate their Constitution and their conscience. Dr. Zinn believed very strongly that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
If the Constitution is to be defended against those who aspire to destroy it, all Americans have a duty to themselves and their country to stand up and demand progressive change toward a culture of peace and justice. One of the most effective ways to do this is by engaging in methods of nonviolent direct action, as demonstrated by the Occupy Wall Street movement. As more Americans embrace these methods and the Occupy movement grows stronger, Washington will be forced to end its campaign of militarizing law enforcement and American society or risk being voted out of office. Only then can the freedoms and civil liberties the people are promised in the Constitution be restored.
Brian J. Trautman is a military veteran and an instructor of peace and world order studies at Berkshire Community College located in Pittsfield, MA. He is an active member of Veterans for Peace and Berkshire Citizens for Peace and Justice.
Article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/18/why-the-ndaa-is-unconstitutional/
Read:
ACLU trashes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
I guess President Obama `aint telling us the WHOLE truth on the Afghan War
Is it a surprise, really?
'Obama fools citizens over Afghan war’
Press TV
February 7, 2012
An interview with Paul Martin, political director of Peace Action:
An outstanding political activist says that despite US President Barrack Obama declaring success in the war on Afghanistan, the US government has lost control of the country.
United States Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has warned that the mission in Afghanistan is a failure.
The top US military official has also accused Washington of misleading the American people about its war in the Asian country.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Paul Martin, political director of Peace Action, to further discuss the issue.
The following is a transcription of the interview (click here for interview video).
Press TV: Your take by these latest statements being made by a military man himself, saying that the war has been a failure - your take. And thanks so much for being with us.
Martin: Thanks for having me. It’s not surprising, we’ve known for quite some time, but the Pentagon uses its information services, really, as propaganda to spread the information that they want to spread and to portray things in the light that they want to spread them.
So, when they say things are going successful in Afghanistan, they also said that about Iraq, it’s not surprising that when reporters or others who can have inside information actually find out the facts.
The facts are, such as in Afghanistan, that things aren’t going as well. We do not have control of various parts of Afghanistan. The Afghanistan forces cannot control parts of Afghanistan as our government would like to say, and the strategy is failing.
The only strategy left is a political strategy which means bring the troops out of Afghanistan, and talking to the Taliban and finding some sort of peace process.
Press TV: Of course, Mr. Martin, this has been going on a long time as far as the Afghan war and the Taliban or the militants, actually, getting greater and greater control over the areas. How significant is it, though, that this is a high ranking military official saying this? And at this point in time, during an election year, isn’t it significant?
Martin: Yes, I think so. The Obama administration has been saying that their strategy has been successful and that’s why they’re planning on pulling 33,000 troops out by the end of September.
But it’s clear that the strategy has not been successful and probably part of reasons of pulling the troops out is because this is not a strategy that seems to work.
It is very noteworthy that it’s not only a high ranking military official but it’s a currently serving military official. Colonel Davis is still in the military, he’s actually based in the Pentagon.
So, it’s noteworthy that he took the time to spread this information through various media outlets before finally telling his commanders that he was going to do so.
GMA/JR
Must Read:
Truth, lies and Afghanistan: How military leaders have let us down
By Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis - AFJ
Press TV
February 7, 2012
An interview with Paul Martin, political director of Peace Action:
An outstanding political activist says that despite US President Barrack Obama declaring success in the war on Afghanistan, the US government has lost control of the country.
United States Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has warned that the mission in Afghanistan is a failure.
The top US military official has also accused Washington of misleading the American people about its war in the Asian country.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Paul Martin, political director of Peace Action, to further discuss the issue.
The following is a transcription of the interview (click here for interview video).
Press TV: Your take by these latest statements being made by a military man himself, saying that the war has been a failure - your take. And thanks so much for being with us.
Martin: Thanks for having me. It’s not surprising, we’ve known for quite some time, but the Pentagon uses its information services, really, as propaganda to spread the information that they want to spread and to portray things in the light that they want to spread them.
So, when they say things are going successful in Afghanistan, they also said that about Iraq, it’s not surprising that when reporters or others who can have inside information actually find out the facts.
The facts are, such as in Afghanistan, that things aren’t going as well. We do not have control of various parts of Afghanistan. The Afghanistan forces cannot control parts of Afghanistan as our government would like to say, and the strategy is failing.
The only strategy left is a political strategy which means bring the troops out of Afghanistan, and talking to the Taliban and finding some sort of peace process.
Press TV: Of course, Mr. Martin, this has been going on a long time as far as the Afghan war and the Taliban or the militants, actually, getting greater and greater control over the areas. How significant is it, though, that this is a high ranking military official saying this? And at this point in time, during an election year, isn’t it significant?
Martin: Yes, I think so. The Obama administration has been saying that their strategy has been successful and that’s why they’re planning on pulling 33,000 troops out by the end of September.
But it’s clear that the strategy has not been successful and probably part of reasons of pulling the troops out is because this is not a strategy that seems to work.
It is very noteworthy that it’s not only a high ranking military official but it’s a currently serving military official. Colonel Davis is still in the military, he’s actually based in the Pentagon.
So, it’s noteworthy that he took the time to spread this information through various media outlets before finally telling his commanders that he was going to do so.
GMA/JR
Must Read:
By Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis - AFJ
Monday, January 16, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
We can`t afford to wage two wars simultaneously, welcome to reality and the new Obama doctrine
image: ny daily news/PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS/AP
President Obama speaks during a news briefing Thursday.President plans to cut half a million troops and says US can't afford to wage two wars at once
RUPERT CORNWELL
FRIDAY 06 JANUARY 2012
The Independent
The mighty American military machine that has for so long secured the country's status as the world's only superpower will have to be drastically reduced, Barack Obama warned yesterday as he set out a radical but more modest new set of priorities for the Pentagon over the next decade.
After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that defined the first decade of the 21st century, Mr Obama's blueprint for the military's future acknowledged that America will no longer have the resources to conduct two such major operations simultaneously.
Instead, the US military will lose up to half a million troops and will focus on countering terrorism and meeting the new challenges of an emergent Asia dominated by China. America, the President said, was "turning the page on a decade of war" and now faced "a moment of transition". The country's armed forces would in future be leaner but, Mr Obama pointedly warned both friends and foes, sufficient to preserve US military superiority over any rival – "agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats".
...The "Obama Doctrine" reflects three basic realities. First, the long post-9/11 wars are finally drawing to a close. The last US troops have already left Iraq, while American combat forces are due to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014 (though a limited number may stay on as trainers and advisers).
Second, and as the President stressed in a major speech during his recent visit to Australia, America's national interest is increasingly bound up with Asia, the world's economic powerhouse, and where many countries are keen for a greater US commitment as a counterweight to China.
Third, and most important, are the domestic financial facts of life, at a moment when government spending on every front is under pressure. For years the Pentagon has been exempt - but no longer, as efforts multiply to rein in soaring federal budget deficits.
At $662bn, Pentagon spending for fiscal 2013 will exceed the next 10 largest national defence budgets on the planet combined. Even so, that sum is $27bn less than what President Obama wanted, and $43bn less than the 2012 budget.
(click here to read the full article)
image source: the independent
Monday, July 25, 2011
Brave Libyan girl`s message to Presidents Obama & Sarkozy
Video property of & uploaded by 123VivaDjazair
"The Libyan People are screaming but world leaders are deaf to their calls, not only do Libyans
have to endure daily bombardment, the apathy of the politicians, the deaths and destruction,
but they also have to come up face to face with with a cruel international media that is only
serving world banking Mafia and , multinational oil companies. THIS MEDIA BLACKOUT IS A CRIME AGAINST MILLIONS OF LIBYANS who are marching and demonstrating Every day across the country.
have to endure daily bombardment, the apathy of the politicians, the deaths and destruction,
but they also have to come up face to face with with a cruel international media that is only
serving world banking Mafia and , multinational oil companies. THIS MEDIA BLACKOUT IS A CRIME AGAINST MILLIONS OF LIBYANS who are marching and demonstrating Every day across the country.
Here is the voice of one Libyan girl that will echo most Libyans perceptions about western leaders who are actively siding with terrorist rebels who have displaced tens of thousands of people, killed and tortured civilians on a massive scale. I hope this girl's call will reach the many of you because I feel as if the whole of Libya was talking through her." -123VivaDjazair
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Susan Lindauer: How Obama Got It (All) Wrong on Libya
Not So Fast Mr. President, How Obama Got it All Wrong on Libya and How to Fix It
See New Videos of War Crimes and Victims Families on www.obamaslibya.com
by: Susan Lindauer
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
In the U.S. battle with Libya, Americans are witnessing the consequence of gutting U.S. Intelligence during the Iraqi War, when President Bush drove out CIA officers and Assets who criticized his War policy. In my case, I got slapped with the Patriot Act and thrown in prison on a Texas Military Base, while Republican leaders reinvented the entire story of my work on 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. It was not pretty.
The consequences for intelligence gathering and policymaking are not pretty, either. Last week President Obama demonstrated the most stunning ignorance by declaring that Libya—of all countries— has some link to terrorism. Obama was trying to justify NATO's War against Gadhaffi's government. However his argument exposed whopping gaps in the intelligence base that his Administration has been drawing from.
This time it's not Obama's fault. When Assets got forced out by Bush and Cheney, a lot of deep knowledge got shoved out the door with us.
The good news is that those intelligence gaps can be filled quickly, and we can throw the brakes on this Libyan War at once—just like our French allies are doing at this very moment. Really it's a no-brainer.
Gadhaffi Has No Ties to Terrorism
Forget last week's histrionics. Gadhaffi burst forth in hyperbole rallying hundreds of thousands of Libyan supporters in Green Square, threatening to take his fight with NATO into Europe. But there's no saber behind that rattling. After three months of NATO bombings that have struck Libyan homes, Tripoli's famed Nassar University, the National Museum, businesses, hotels and restaurants, it was Gadhaffi's way of demanding how Europe would like it if the tables were reversed.
Gadhaffi's got no ties to terrorism. Way back in 1995, Gadhaffi became the first leader in the world to report Osama bin Laden to Interpol. Egypt posted the first arrest warrant for Bin Laden in 1996. But Libya was the very first to warn about Bin Laden's agenda. I know for a fact that Osama and Gadhaffi hated each other because Gadhaffi supports...
Watch RT`s exclusive interview with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi in Tripoli (July 1, 2011) - With the war in Libya at the focal point of international relations, RT's gained access to Colonel Gaddafi's son in NATO-targeted Tripoli. Saif al-Islam thinks his country's wanted for its riches, but says the people won't let Libya fall under foreign control.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The Seeds Being Sown for WW III?
June 17, 2011
In this critically important update, Alex warns that the international banking cartel is using Obama and the US military to start World War III. The controllers of the New World Order believe they can achieve their one world government by destabilizing every country in the the Middle East and northern Africa and draw Russia and China into crisis to create a world-wide catastrophe. Once this event occurs, and the world is brought to the brink of total obliteration, the global banking cartel plans to move in with their final phase: a one world government and eugenics agenda.
Alex urges his listeners to get the word out about this point in history. We are right now in the beginning stages of world war three. If this situation escalates, it can result in the worst world war that mankind has ever suffered.
Gen. Hamid Gul: Israel/India running US foreign policy (6/15/2011) -TheAlexJonesChannel:
Thursday, June 16, 2011
U.S. Invasion of Libya Set for October
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
June 15, 2011
Infowars.com
June 15, 2011
Infowars.com has received alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas confirming plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October.
The source stated that additional Special Forces are headed to Libya in July, with the 1st Calvary Division (heavy armor) and III Corps deploying in late October and early November. Initial numbers are estimated at 12,000 active forces and another 15,000 in support, totaling nearly 30,000 troops.
This information was confirmed by numerous calls and e-mails from other military personnel, some indicating large troop deployment as early as September. Among these supporting sources is a British S.A.S. officer confirming that U.S. Army Rangers are already in Libya. The chatter differs in the details, but the overall convergence is clear– that a full-on war is emerging this fall as Gaddafi continues to evade attempts to remove him from power.
A caller identified as “Specialist H” working for mortuary affairs under USCENTCOM revealed...
(courtesy of InfoWars.com)
Alex talks with Colonel 6 about reports sent by members of the military to Infowars.com regarding an October ground invasion of Libya
www.prisonplanet.com
www.infowars.com
www.prisonplanet.tv
Friday, May 20, 2011
More and More Truth to the Birther`s Claim?
Did the birther movement have it right into saying President Obama is ineligible for office because he wasn`t born on U.S. soil and his birth certificates are fake?
During an interview with a Denver radio station this morning, author Jerome Corsi said he was about to release bombshell evidence that proved the alleged Obama birth certificate released last month was a composite of three different birth certificates from other individuals born at the same hospital.
"I'm going to be telling the entire world about this scandal over the next few weeks," Corsi said in a separate interview. "This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison."
As the video below explains, another aspect of the birth certificate pointing to forgery is the fact that the electronic PDF document released by the White House clearly shows evidence of 'kerning' -- where parts of letters overlap each other for a pleasing visual effect -- this is produced by modern computers and was not possible on 1960′s typewriters.
As Corsi explains in the interview, the amateur nature of the botched birth certificate is likely because Obama had to use people within his inner circle to produce the document, he could not hire a professional company to do so because of the danger that someone would blow the whistle.
In a related development, Joseph Farah, the publisher of Corsi's book, Where's the Birth Certificate?, is considering suing Esquire Magazine for putting out a hoax article claiming that he ordered the book be recalled and was refunding customers who had purchased it.
"Obviously if it was intended as a parody, it was not very well executed, and quite honestly I can tell you that I believe there's some very real damage done by this article, and I'm exploring our legal options right now," Farah said. "I think there are potentially some issues like restraint of trade and possibly libel, I think most people looked at that article and believed I actually said those words, that is a real problem for Esquire."
The fact that the establishment is putting out fake reports in an effort to derail the popularity of the book is another indication about how scared the system is of this information getting to a wider audience. This is an obvious ploy to sabotage the book by fooling retailers and disrupting the supply chain.
Like Corsi, Farah says that he is "100 percent certain" that the long form birth certificate released by Obama last month is a "fraudulent, bogus document."
"We feel like Woodward and Bernstein in the early days of Watergate when nobody was reporting the story, and finally the New York Times came along," Farah told Talking Points Memo
I never embraced the birther issue but its always good to question issues of importance and government. As more and more inconsistencies in the story were put out, it made you scratch your head. Then when President Obama released recently his 'long-form' birth certificate, it did not quell the questions as people out of the woodwork came out and said there were major inconsistencies in it as being a forged and photo-shopped.
Read and view the following videos courtesy of Alex Jones Tv, PrisonPlanet.com and InfoWars.com
Jerome Corsi to Release Evidence Proving Obama Certificate a Fraudulent Composite - Alex Jones
During an interview with a Denver radio station this morning, author Jerome Corsi said he was about to release bombshell evidence that proved the alleged Obama birth certificate released last month was a composite of three different birth certificates from other individuals born at the same hospital.
"I'm going to be telling the entire world about this scandal over the next few weeks," Corsi said in a separate interview. "This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison."
As the video below explains, another aspect of the birth certificate pointing to forgery is the fact that the electronic PDF document released by the White House clearly shows evidence of 'kerning' -- where parts of letters overlap each other for a pleasing visual effect -- this is produced by modern computers and was not possible on 1960′s typewriters.
As Corsi explains in the interview, the amateur nature of the botched birth certificate is likely because Obama had to use people within his inner circle to produce the document, he could not hire a professional company to do so because of the danger that someone would blow the whistle.
In a related development, Joseph Farah, the publisher of Corsi's book, Where's the Birth Certificate?, is considering suing Esquire Magazine for putting out a hoax article claiming that he ordered the book be recalled and was refunding customers who had purchased it.
"Obviously if it was intended as a parody, it was not very well executed, and quite honestly I can tell you that I believe there's some very real damage done by this article, and I'm exploring our legal options right now," Farah said. "I think there are potentially some issues like restraint of trade and possibly libel, I think most people looked at that article and believed I actually said those words, that is a real problem for Esquire."
The fact that the establishment is putting out fake reports in an effort to derail the popularity of the book is another indication about how scared the system is of this information getting to a wider audience. This is an obvious ploy to sabotage the book by fooling retailers and disrupting the supply chain.
Like Corsi, Farah says that he is "100 percent certain" that the long form birth certificate released by Obama last month is a "fraudulent, bogus document."
"We feel like Woodward and Bernstein in the early days of Watergate when nobody was reporting the story, and finally the New York Times came along," Farah told Talking Points Memo
Jerome Corsi: White House Running Scared Over Latest Discovery of Obama`s True Origins
Alex talks with author and investigative journalist Jerome Corsi about the Obama birth certificate fiasco. Corsi is the author of Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, now available at the Infowars Store. In the book, Corsi assembles evidence that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the office of the presidency and has spent millions of dollars in legal fees to avoid providing the American people with something as simple as a long-form birth certificate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)