Skip to content

Happy New Year: Obama Signs the Indefinite Detention Bill – 2012’s Significance – Was the Iraq War Worth It?

January 1, 2012

The Secret Of 2012

Court Upholds Immunity for Telecom Companies in Warrantless Surveillance Case


Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA, Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

President signs authorization to indefinitely detain, torture and deny trial to Americans; grants power to all future presidents.

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
January 1, 2012

Indeed it is a new day. Ushering in the New Year, President Obama signed legislation that helps to further destroy the principles the nation was founded upon.

President Obama, who pledged to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has now signed it. Of course, his promise was only for public consumption. After all, lying to your enemy is what invading corporate takeover armies do. It was the Obama administration all along that demanded the indefinite detention provisions be added while at the same time telling the American people he was fighting to protect their rights. This is treason on parade, in your face all out despotism– that is, for those paying any attention!

In this video is Alex Jones’ reaction to the bill and Obama’s accompanying signing statement:

As the Associated Press reports, the President signed the bill on Saturday “despite having ‘serious reservations’ about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

However, those reservations have nothing to do with the rights of the people under the Constitution and Bill of Rights that he swore to protect– rather, his reservations dealt with changes that “challenged the president’s terrorism-fighting ability.” He reportedly accepted the legislation only after such impedance was removed.

Instead, it was a deceptive maneuver to appear wary of such powers when the White House demanded it all along. In fact, Obama’s veto threat was always about that issue– the language over Section 1032 and NOT the authorization for the indefinite detention of Americans in Section 1031. Rather, it was a debate over “requiring” military protocol on detention rather than leaving the discretion over whether to detain to the executive branch, under the power of the Presidency.

Yesterday, with a friendly note, Obama issued a signing statement that read:

“Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”

Despite positioning himself in the signing statement as cautious towards the rights of the individuals in the nation, the President has just signed into law a provision that threatens the right of every American to due process, and a public trial with a jury. Instead, he has handed over grotesque authority to himself and EVERY President that comes after him, whatever their intentions might be.

The ACLU, too, warns about this power grab:

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.

[…] ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero stated: “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.”

Obviously, this is a dangerous precedent and a dark day for America.


Was the Iraq War Worth it?

| Print |  
Iraq victim: A soldier leaps from a blazing tank

Written by John F. McManus

Friday, 30 December 2011 15:50

The Council on Foreign Relations recently asked the above question of some of its favorite commentators. One of the answers sent to this seat of the Eastern Liberal Establishment likely surprised whoever received it.Andrew Bacevich is a professor of International Relations at Boston University. He happens to be a fairly new member of the CFR. But he is also the father of an Iraq War victim; his U.S. Army lieutenant son perished during the fighting.

In his uninvited response to the query posed by the CFR, Professor Bacevich scoffed at the customarily cited benefit — the capture and death of Saddam Hussein. Then, without mentioning the loss of his son, he added:

[The] tally includes well over four thousand U.S. dead along with several tens of thousands wounded and otherwise bearing the scars of wars; the vastly larger numbers of Iraqi civilians killed, maimed, and displaced; and at least a trillion dollars expended  — probably several times that by the time the last bill comes due decades from now…. Seldom in the course of human history have so many sacrificed so dearly to achieve so little.

But the professor didn’t stop there. He pointed to the war’s “disastrous legacy” that includes “Washington’s decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.” And he offered a harsh assessment of the work of President Bush and its chief “militarists”— Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz whom he claims have been handed “an unearned victory” by President Obama’s. The Bush team members, of course, were those who so loudly informed the world that Saddam Hussein had to be toppled because he possessed and would likely use “weapons of mass destruction” that never existed.

Beyond what Professor Bacevich noted, the claim that the Iraq War is something of a triumph for our forces manages to ignore the 8,000 U.S. service personnel still in the Kurdish portion of northern Iraq. Nor are we to consider the many thousands of American troops who simply moved across Iraq’s border into Kuwait and are not coming home. Then, there are American forces left to guard the enormous U.S. embassy in Baghdad where more than 10,000 American “diplomats” will be stationed for unknown reasons. All of this plus more troops in Jordan and in other Mideast nations who weren’t there when the war started in March 2003.

Another cost that should never be overlooked is the increased animosity toward America among worldwide Muslims who believe that the invasion of Muslim-dominated lands was actually a war against Islam. Will terrorism continue to threaten America because of this war? The question answers itself. Also, does anyone seem to care that most of 1.5 million Christians in Iraq have either fled, been murdered by rogue Islamists, or are living their daily in abject terror? Under Saddam, they were full citizens living at peace among Muslim neighbors. Today, they are targets.

The Iraq War was indeed costly. One final casualty is the harm done to the U.S. Constitution that bars preemptive wars and wars that Congress has not declared. The Iraq War’s probable hidden goal has always been moving the world, especially the United States, toward a world government. That cost, long the goal of the Council on Foreign Relations, must never be borne.



No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: