Thread: The NDAA Martial Law is now in effect. You no longer have civil liberties.

the MIC is going to make there money and so are the rest of the large firms because all of their days are numbered and it's why large US firms are trying to spread as far and wide as possible. we have used up most of our natural resources here in the US, the only thing left to exploit is human capital.

Reports out of the IMF and World Bank state that by 2014 or so China is going to pass the US in having the largest economy. as the decades go by the developing countries are going to start earning the lions share of the world GDP, this means India, Africa, etc. currently it's about 80/20 with the industrialized countries like the US, UK, etc. earning the most. eventually it will be about 35/65. how much do you think labor is going to be getting out of that 35% between the US, UK and EU?

in 100 years the superpowers will be India, China, etc. and the US will just be another "country". our resources are gone, we are falling behind in technology, the dollar is being replaced as the sole reserve currency, etc. all of these changes in the US laws, etc. are happening for a reason, and it has nothing at all to do with terrorism. that is simply another ruse to distract the sheep.

Damn and i have no guns or rifles

Originally Posted by Ichigo

Damn and i have no guns or rifles

Buy while you can. Take out a loan, sell a kid or kidney.

freedom and liberty slowly being destroyed....

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/veto-national-defense-authorization-act-2012-several-provisions-bill-pose-threat-civil-liberties/GLfhBn6D

White House Says It?s Unconstitutional To Strike Down The NDAA

Abby Rogers

Business Insider
September 17, 2012

The Obama administration had some harsh words Friday after a federal judge appointed by Obama said the government doesn?t have a right to indefinitely detain anyone even remotely associated with terrorist groups.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest permanently blocked the government from enforcing the National Defense Authorization Act, claiming it was too vague and would have a ?chilling effect? on free speech.

And now the Department of Justice is calling Forrest?s ruling ?unprecedented,? arguing that the government has long had the authority to detain anyone it deems a threat to the county, The Wall Street Journal?s Law

? White House Says It?s Unconstitutional To Strike Down The NDAA Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................

December 31, 2011 5:12 PM

Obama signs defense bill, with "reservations"

HONOLULU -- Two days before the deadline, President Obama signed a defense spending bill into law - while admitting he has "serious reservations with certain provisions" related to how suspected terrorists are held and questioned.

In a written statement, Mr. Obama makes clear he objects to sections in the National Defense Authorization Act that "regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

Despite his objections, Mr. Obama says he signed the measure, known by its initials NDAA, because it authorizes needed funding to defend the nation, support the military and renew "vital national security programs."

Among the provisions to which the president objects is a grant of permission for the indefinite military detention of terror suspects by the military.

Mr. Obama said he didn't ask for such authority and doesn't want it.

"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."

Mr. Obama says his administration will interpret that provision "in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

Further, Mr. Obama bluntly rejects authorization in the bill requiring military custody for some foreign detainees captured on a field of battle.

In his statement, Mr. Obama calls that provision "ill-conceived" and says it will "do nothing to improve the security of the United States."

Mr. Obama says he rejects "any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat."

He says he signed the bill in the belief he can circumvent this and other provisions to which he objects.

That very much includes provisions that forbid the government from transferring detainees from the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the U.S.

Mr. Obama had made it a top campaign pledge to shut down the prison, known as Gitmo, believing that it gave al Qaeda and other terror groups a rallying cry with which to recruit supporters to use against the United States.

But Congress continues to block his decision to close Gitmo and move the terror suspects held there to a maximum security facility in Illinois.

Another provision would block the government from transferring Gitmo detainees to other countries.

Mr. Obama uses his "signing statement" to serve notice on Congress that in the event the provisions on detainees at Guantanamo breach his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief, "my administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict." That's a fancy, highly-legalistic way of saying - he'll do things the way he thinks is right.

Overall, the measure affirms and supports Mr. Obama's policy decision on Iraq and Afghanistan - and that's why he is signing the measure into law. - after originally issuing a veto threat because of the aforementioned difficulties.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama was critical of President George W. Bush for using "signing statements" as a way of seeking to circumvent the will of Congress. Mr. Obama said at the time that Pres Bush should have vetoed the bills and insisted on getting them re-written and re-enacted to his likening.

As he discovered since taking office, that's not always possible.

A signing statement has no force of law. If Mr. Obama violates any of the provisions in the bill, Congress could challenge the White House in court, which would have the final say in any dispute.

Obama signs defense bill, with "reservations" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News




So Obama was against the indefinite detention provision when he singed the bill now he's for it? looks like another flip flop. this guy has no core values or is a lying piece of shit. probably both. just like the health care bill. he sold it to American as a penalty when all along it was a tax which is what they argued in court. fucking politicians...