Breakown of Obama's NDAA 2012 Statement from December 31, 2011

The 2012 NDAA leaves to many variables for the manner of interpretation to the extent of what ideology the interpreter may hold! We as a free people can not ignore and permit this Pandora’s Box of unconstitutionality, that’s been opened to go uncontested!

Barack Hussein Obama admits, in his own words, that the NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 can be interpreted in an unconstitutional manner, however, his administration would never interpret said sections in an unconstitutional manner.

Obama quotes in his NDAA statement December 31, 2011;

Obama admits to the unconstitutionality of the NDAA:
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
Obama quotes, he will not authorize indefinite detention: Moreover, 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. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

You must ask yourself; which law will Obama as commander and chief of the USA,
Adhere to, Constitutional law or Law of War.
Obama admits to the NDAA as being ill-conceived: Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States.
Ill-conceived, section 1022 claims for detention for belligerent acts and does not include the type and or whom commits those acts!
Obama admits to the potential to create uncertainty and the manner of interpretation: While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
The uncertainty comes from the interpretation and the manner thereof! Do you really want to turn over the interpretation to Obama?
Obama admits that the NDAA gives him broad authority: I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States.

Think about it, according to Obama’s own words, section 1022 gives him broad authority in implementation! Ask yourselves; do you really want Obama with that kind of authority?
Obama admits to the, across- the- board requirement for military detention: 
 I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

 In this comment, Obama, by his own words, admits that there are across-the-board requirements for military detention!

No comments:

Post a Comment