3 Jan

Obama: I can so hold you indefinitely without trial if I want [Reader Post]

                                       

In his latest signing statement Obama said:

“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.”

Now why would he even need to say that were it not possible?

Does his signing statement make you feel safer? It ought not. After all, it was Obama who said unequivocally that he would not use signing statements to “get his way.”

YouTube Preview Image

Obviously it is now possible for Obama to hold any American he deems a potential terrorist indefinitely without trial.

And who can be declared a terrorist? Among the possibilities are these:

People or groups who:

* Provide identification that is inconsistent or suspect or demand identity “privacy”
* Insist on paying with cash or uses credit card(s) in different names
* Make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, radical theology, vague or cryptic warnings that suggests or appear to endorse the use of violence in support of a cause
* Demonstrate interest in uses that do not seem consistent with the intended use of the item being purchased
* Possess little knowledge of intended purchase items
* Make bulk purchases of items to include:
-Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers
-Meals Ready to Eat
-Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks
-High capacity magazines
-Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles

I am not comforted by Obama’s assurance that he would not detain an American indefinitely. Not one bit, especially given the bona fide idiots who are in charge of the Department of Injustice and Homeland Insecurity. And considering this- my brother-in-law and I formed a partnership to buy and rent a condo at a ski resort. We were notified that we had subsequently been placed on a terrorist watch list.

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Constitution, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Law, Liberal Idiots, Police Authority, Politics, POWER GRAB!, propaganda bureau, War On Terror, WtF? and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 11:37 am
| 806 views

31 Responses to Obama: I can so hold you indefinitely without trial if I want [Reader Post]

  1. MichiganJen says: 1

    And the hundreds of new FEMA camps being set up by the government is where you’ll be detained indefinitely without a trial or due process.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_should_raise_eyebrows.html

    ReplyReply
  2. Ivan says: 2

    100% unconstitutional.

    Don’t worry, it will be ruled so.

    ReplyReply
  3. MataHarley says: 3

    drj in OP: Now why would he even need to say that were it not possible?

    Of course it’s possible, drj. Nor is this anything new, much as you and some of the media attempt to redress it as an anti-Obama political talking point. Just isn’t going to fly because of realities.

    Johnny Walker Lindh, American citizen, was captured with the Taliban after being flushed out of caves by the Northern Alliance, held without charges, and interrogated, for about two months in Afghanistan before they finally made charges and flew him back for trial. He was sentenced to 20 years. He was with the jihadists pre-Sept 11th, stayed post that attack, and captured in Afghanistan about a month after Sept 11th.

    Jose Padilla is another US citizen that was first detained in spring of 2002 for a few months on a “material witness” warrant, then held as an enemy combatant. He then filed for habeas corpus in the Rumsfeld v Padilla lawsuit, and the 4th Circuit said absolutely he could be held.

    That went all the way to SCOTUS, with the burning question, “Does Congress’s “Authorization for use of Military Force” authorize the President to detain a United States citizen based on a determination that he is an enemy combatant, or is that power precluded by the Non-Detention Act?”

    Finally, in 2006, SCOTUS issued an opinion… but not on the merits of the case (aka the main question above). Instead they dodged the bullet and the majority opined (5-4) that the lawsuit was improperly filed. Hence, no real definitive SCOTUS opinion on the main question, is infinite detention of a US citizen as an enemy combatant, legal. However the 4th Circuit opinion that says yes still stands as the highest ruling on that.

    Padilla stayed in custody and wasn’t indicted until early 2007, about five years after original detainment and after sundry court challenges first for habeas corpus, then to get moved from military custody to the federal courts. At that point, his Miami trial was “speedy”, and he was convicted and sentenced to over 17 years in prison.

    Now you can argue whether you believe it’s correct for the military to detain those suspected of waging war, associating with those waging war, or aiding those waging war – i.e. enemy combatants – against the US without formal charges.

    But you can’t even begin to portray this as an “Obama” thing and expect to maintain any credibility in light of history.

    In fact, if this is the direction you want to go, you should be praising Obama, getting ready to cast your next ballot for him in Nov. The more broad definition of an enemy combatant – created and enacted by a Republican Congress and POTUS – under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 explicitly defines members of the Taliban, al Qaeda and associated forces as unlawful enemy combatants. But one of Obama’s first acts as the WH temporary denizen was to have his Justice Dept withdraw the enemy combatant definition for Gitmo detainees (and any future detainees), reverting only to international references for a guideline. This was, of course, supposed to prep the way to the impossible… closing Gitmo while quietly hanging on to his own, quieter Gitmo in Bagram. Of course, that airbase is short lived, and it will be interesting to see what happens to all those bad guys. Wordsmith made a recent cyber trip back to Bagram with a post just a couple of months ago, in fact.

    When Obama strips that more liberal definition for Gitmo detainees, he has also stripped it for Americans who are cavorting with the terrorists as well… making it *far* more difficult to detain anyone at all, regardless of nationality. So instead of getting in a huff over what Bush has been doing for years (and I agree with his doing it, and of Obama’s continuation of many of those policies), why aren’t you happy that Obama has actually eliminated that “enemy combatant” category and making it much tougher to keep the bad guys locked up… even if they are psuedo Americans… that are conspiring and aiding our enemies?

    I’ve tried to point out quite a few times that ya’ll are getting your knickers in a twist about the misrepresentation of the enacted Defense Appropriations Act. which does nothing different than before but extend the original AUMF language from just al Qaeda/Taliban to the global jihad network and ever morphing affiliates. US citizens who fit that terrorist “enemy combatant” … er, bad guy according to international standards… category will not be treated differently.

    But the criteria to detain anyone who is a US citizen will be under a much larger microscope than the foreign enemy combatants, just as Lindh and Padilla were in their time.

    Of course I did get a grin about you worrying about whether Obama detains them anyway, drj. I was sorta under the impression you believed Obama didn’t care much about that pesky step of detainment, and just sent out an execution squad instead…. Anwar al-Awlaki style. LOL

    ReplyReply
  4. Capt-Dax says: 4

    Ivan.. As long as this Usurper&Thief is in Our White House..I Worry.

    ReplyReply
  5. Nan G says: 5

    We only need to observe Obama’s years as president to know who he considers ”enemies.”

    He tried to get Fox News removed from the White House press room on the basis that it was a propaganda outlet, not a news outlet.
    He tried to list returning veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq as belonging on his terrorist watch list.
    He referred to the folks in fly-over country as armed religious fanatics who cling to their guns and Bibles.
    He said he stands with the Occupy movement against ”them,” meaning the 1% who create wealth and jobs in the USA.

    OTOH….
    Nidal Hassan was NOT a jihadist but his killing of 13 people at Ft. Hood was merely ”workplace violence.”
    The Saudi king was deeply bowed to by Obama.
    The Islamists who are taking Egypt were called ”the Arab Spring.”
    No sanctions against Iran for 6 months.
    No DEMAND that the drone be returned, either.
    The Iranian Green Revolution against the Mullahs could be killed in the streets as far as Obama cares.
    Same with the Assad regime protestors. (Assad is an ally of Iran.)
    Afghanistan can be ruled by the taliban….again.

    I’m less than a little fuzzy on exactly who Obama sees as friends/allies VS his idea of who his enemy is.

    ReplyReply
  6. Hard Right says: 6

    @MataHarley:

    Thank you. The same thing came up on Hot Air and it felt like I was at the Prison Planet site with the responses being posted.

    ReplyReply
  7. DrJohn says: 7

    @MataHarley:

    Of course I did get a grin about you worrying about whether Obama detains them anyway, drj. I was sorta under the impression you believed Obama didn’t care much about that pesky step of detainment, and just sent out an execution squad instead…. Anwar al-Awlaki style. LOL

    I would not even have brought it up again were it not for Obama’s denial. So maybe it is that he won’t detain any of us indefinitely without trial.

    He’ll just blow us away.

    ReplyReply
  8. Richard Wheeler says: 8

    Dr. J. It’s “just because you’re NOT paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you”
    This post ranks with your most bizarre to date.Not an easy feat.

    ReplyReply
  9. DrJohn says: 9

    @Richard Wheeler: Thank you!

    ReplyReply
  10. Richard Wheeler says: 10

    Dr. John You’re most welcome.

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 11

    @DrJohn… LOL! Yessir, I know your Obama venom runs deep. Not that I have any love for this CiC or POTUS either, mind you. But I think I process some events differently than you.

    Obama did not issue a “denial”. He merely made a signing statement… again, not just an “Obama thing” and, in fact, signing statements date back to Monroe… making observations on one part of the legislation they are signing. Considering that you don’t want to see indefinite detention for American jihadist bad guys, I’m confused why you aren’t singing his praises.

    Certainly, if there is convincing enough evidence while Obama still temporarily resides in the people’s house, he would authorize a detention of an American citizen. I believe that had there been a feasible way to capture al-Awlaki, he would have done just that.

    The difference between Bush and Obama is the criteria Obama will demand as evidence is likely to be more strict than the Bush admin would have demanded. Considering your viewpoint, this should make Obama far more appealing than Bush on this issue to you.

    @Nan G, not exactly sure of any cogent tangent in that comment, girl. Obama may have many opinions and degrees of “enemies”… political and otherwise. I don’t think I would argue that his viewpoint of allies in the Middle East, Asia, as well as his meddling policies (including being on the wrong side in Honduras) is any way close to mine.. or yours.

    But I certainly do not believe that Obama would be able to “detain” political enemies since that would require the willing participation of far too many agencies, military and law enforcement manpower. Even when the al-Awlaki mission was being considered, the CIA wasn’t about to go ahead with it until it had an AG opinion in their hands with a credible verification of Constitutional authorization.

    Checks and balances, albeit slowly eroding, still remain in place because we still have more good patriots than we have power hungry mongrels.

    ReplyReply
  12. MataHarley says: 12

    @Hard Right, I agree. We have so much political ammo to use on Obama that is clear cut, overt and important to both sides of the aisle. When conservatives step off the deep end in misrepresenting stuff like this… especially with it’s history… it tisn’t hard to paint conservatives or the Republicans as slightly to the left of birthers, and slightly to the right of truthers.

    ReplyReply
  13. Richard Wheeler says: 13

    Mata Would you agree if you wanna win you’d best get AS FAR AS POSSIBLE from birthers and truthers.lol

    ReplyReply
  14. MataHarley says: 14

    @Ivan… you may want to rethink. The 4th Circuit Appellate courts disagree with you.

    SCOTUS did not alter that, and merely ruled against Padilla’s appeal because of a filing error.

    Per the 4th Circuit

    The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.

    We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed.

    ReplyReply
  15. MataHarley says: 15

    @Richard Wheeler, yup… but they keep following me around. LOL

    ReplyReply
  16. Richard Wheeler says: 16

    Mata #15 That’s a problem. Some good news–you’re not paranoid. LOL

    ReplyReply
  17. Hard Right says: 17

    @Richard Wheeler:
    Truthers tend to be Ronulans and lefties. In some cases they are one and the same.

    ReplyReply
  18. Richard Wheeler says: 18

    Hard Right Ron Paul is your problem,not mine

    One thing’s certain. You got ALL those crazy birthers. Good luck with that.

    ReplyReply
  19. MataHarley says: 19

    If he (gasp) became the Republican nominee (barf.. spit), he would then become your and Obama’s problem, rich. He would directly double dip into the leftist anti-war who are disgruntled with Obama. That could take away a hefty part of his base.

    Now I’m nauseous at the thought…

    ReplyReply
  20. Poppa_T says: 20

    @MichiganJen:

    Don’t forget Jen, we must have folks to man those camps hence the new Army MOS-31E.

    ReplyReply
  21. liberalmann says: 21

    Psst….I guess you forgot Bush issued three times as many signing statements.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201201030005

    ReplyReply
  22. MataHarley says: 22

    You’re a little slow on the uptake, aren’t you, libman? I already provided a history of signing statements in my comment above. Clinton and a plethora of POTUS engaged in such. Been there, done that. Maybe you need to get your 4G? LOL

    ReplyReply
  23. Hard Right says: 23

    @liberalmann:

    Pssst, I guess you forgot obama promised he wouldn’t use them. That makes him a liar like you.
    Although you seem to have outstripped him in the scumbag dept.

    ReplyReply
  24. Hard Right says: 24

    @Richard Wheeler:
    We definitely have our share, but the dems are hardly immune on that one. Remember, it was a dem that first took the issue to court.

    ReplyReply
  25. Smorgasbord says: 25

    What Should I Consider Suspicious?

    People or Groups Who:
    Provide identification that is inconsistent or suspect or demand identity “privacy”

    This would include every police officer and investigative agency.

    Insist on paying with cash
    I didn’t know I was committing a crime by paying cash. I don’t like to owe anybody anything.

    Have missing hand/fingers, chemical burns, strange odors or bright colored stains on clothing
    The missing body parts would include wounded warriors. Strange odors puts the homeless, drunks, and drug users under suspicion. Someone please explain the “bright colored stains” to me. This would put the hippies under suspicion.

    Demonstrate interest in uses that do not seem consistent with the intended use of the item being purchased
    Are all items supposed to come with a list of INTENDED uses? Do I have to sign an agreement to use the item as listed?

    Possess little knowledge of intended purchase items

    I guess I can’t buy gifts for others unless I know how to use it. Should I have been required to take a training course to know how to ride the ATV I just bought? I had never ridden one before. What about the new pickup I bought to haul it. I don’t know all about all of the features it has, especially the digital dash that even tells me the transmission temperature.

    Make bulk purchases of items to include:
    -Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers
    I had never heard of these before. I will have to look into them.

    -Meals Ready to Eat
    Are we going to be required to fill out a form as to how we are going to use the food? If we change our minds and use it for something else, do we fill out another form to keep from being charged with misusing the stuff?

    High capacity magazines
    They are going to have a hard time keeping track of all of those bought here in Idaho.

    Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles
    I don’t get this one at all. I am new to Idaho and have never hunted with a high powered rifle. Do hunters use them for better shots. If they are referring to the machine gun mounts, here again, they will have a hard time keeping track of them here.

    I’m going to guess that Obama will want a “Proper Use of Products” department and another tzar to run it.

    Let’s not forget that Obama has a track record of breaking promises, and he said he wants a civilian security force as strong as and equally funded as the military. Could this be part of a plan to control the populace? I think so.

    ReplyReply
  26. drjohn says: 26

    @Smorgasbord:

    Let’s not forget that Obama has a track record of breaking promises, and he said he wants a civilian security force as strong as and equally funded as the military. Could this be part of a plan to control the populace? I think so.

    I would not put this past him and that’s really what the post is about.

    ReplyReply
  27. drjohn says: 27

    @MataHarley:

    Obama did not issue a “denial”. He merely made a signing statement… again, not just an “Obama thing” and, in fact, signing statements date back to Monroe… making observations on one part of the legislation they are signing. Considering that you don’t want to see indefinite detention for American jihadist bad guys, I’m confused why you aren’t singing his praises.

    Obama specifically promised not to use them, Mata. And his declaration that he would not detain an American indefinitely convinces me of the opposite.

    ReplyReply
  28. disenchanted says: 28

    IMHO it doesn’t matter what he said (as if anyone still believes what he says), the fact is he signed the bill making it law that US citizens could be detained without due process if necessary. According to big sis, terrorists are described as anyone who is gun toting, bible clinging, white, in the military and or returning from a conflict. It has already been stated by the administration that the taliban are NO longer considered terrorists, and muslim terrorists like the guy who murdered 13 people at Ft. Hood are just victims of workplace violence.

    BTW, it was leaked that barry himself insisted this statement be placed in the bill as it previously only applied to illegals and those legally in the country, but not citizens.

    This is a scary time in our lives.

    ReplyReply
  29. Aqua says: 29

    @ MataHarley:

    When conservatives step off the deep end in misrepresenting stuff like this… especially with it’s history… it tisn’t hard to paint conservatives or the Republicans as slightly to the left of birthers, and slightly to the right of truthers.

    I’m not sure I understand where you are coming from on this Mata. I have read over the controversial sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA as well as the Fienstein amendment and I still don’t like it. If the authority already exists, why is there a need to put it in the 2012 NDAA?
    Me, I’m just tired of these idiots passing law after law after law that continuously chip away at our liberty. There is no reason to trade liberty for safety, I refuse the premise of that argument.

    ReplyReply
  30. Poppa_T says: 30

    No one, Republican or Democrat, should ever have the power to “indefinitely detain” anyone.

    ReplyReply
  31. Smorgasbord says: 31

    @drjohn: #26
    If this is his plan, and the states start falling under his control, I am guessing Idaho will be one of the last to surrender, if they do.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>