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