Obama Proposed "Preventive" Indefinite Detention of Americans

Rate this post


We are living in a waking nightmare.
On December 1, 2011, by a bipartisan 93:7 vote, the Senate passed a bill that, in Sec. 1301, gives the President of the United States the authority to have the military arrest and detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.
The bill is S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.
Obama has said he means to veto the final version of NDAA, produced by the House and Senate reconciling their respective versions of the bill. (The House version is HR1540.)
Don’t be fooled by Obama’s veto. He’s not doing it because he disagrees with S. 1867’s Sec. 1301. He’s not doing it because he cares about the Constitution and our civil liberties. (To find out why he’ll veto the bill, go to my post here.)
The truth is that Obama completely agrees with S. 1867’s Sec. 1301 — and more.
The truth is the Senate, in approving S1867, was merely doing his bidding.
More than two years ago, on May 21, 2009, in a speech at the National Archives, flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, Obama outlined a new policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.
He said that more than two years ago! Did you hear/read/know about it? No? Join the crowd. I consider myself well-informed, with my ear to the ground. But I only found out about Obama’s “preventive detention” speech early this morning when I got an email tip about the Maddow video below, which has no date or year. So I went on the web to look for when Obama had made that speech.
Here’s MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (yes, liberal Rachel Maddow! — which goes to show this issue transcends political parties) telling us what Obama is proposing — the “preventive” and indefinite detention/incarceration of Americans. “Preventive detention” means detaining people for crimes they haven’t yet but may commit in the future.

H/t beloved fellow Tina.
What can we do about this?
A committee, called a “conference,” of House and Senate members is being assembled, whose job is to “reconcile” the two versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 1540 and S 1867).
The House is our hope, because HR 1540 does not contain a section like S 1867’s Sec. 1301. We already know Congressman Allen West (R-Florida) has been appointed to that conference. Tell your Congressman/woman you strenuously, vehemently object to the arrest and detention of U.S. citizens without due process — without charge or trial!!!!
Your very life depends on it.
UPDATE:
No cigar. Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, and US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”
See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

18 responses to “Obama Proposed "Preventive" Indefinite Detention of Americans

  1. With S.1867,
    Get ready for the new Pre-Crime units.
    Actor Tom Cruise’s Pre Crime movie is not so far fetched anymore!
    The difference is; if you really speak your mind, you are possibly guilty of a Thought Crime. New technology has already come up with thought implant chips.
    We are entering an era of absolute control potential.
    Are we not handing the hen house over to the political foxes?

     
    • Essay to build dossiers on and lock up folk who MIGHT commit crime… Rush Limbaugh, TEA Partiers, people who own guns, etc.
      “The Chekist [KGB member] does not wait for crime to happen, the Chekist seeks crime out,” as they said in the former USSR.

       
  2. Do you think we will actually have a presidential election in 2012?
    I hope so, but this news makes me wonder what’s next. All we need is some kind of out-of-control mob action, like Occupy Whatever, to justify martial law and a state of national emergency. If that happens, in comes FEMA with a whole new agenda for a brave new world.

     
  3. Eowyn; Though I am one of those who suffer from leftwing pathology (and you should see what I write about rightwing totalitarian syndrome) I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Mr. Obama’s dangerous, treacherous, and anti-constitutional position on ‘preventative detention’. The president has been completely dishonest about his approach to reforming national security in the wake of what folks of my ilk saw as an unconscionable string of constitutional abuses in the Bush-Cheney era. Far from reforming and retracting such abuses, Obama has continued and, in some cases, amplified them. I will happily link to this post and will recommend to friends, family, and fellow-travellers of the left that we all do as you suggest and let Congress know we ‘strenuously, vehemently object to’ the Senate provisions of the NDAA. Thanks for a great post on this vital threat to liberty and democracy.
    https://back2theroot.com/

     
  4. So, why aren’t Bonehead & Co. raising Hell about this?
    Hmm.
    -Dave

     
  5. Fema Camps/prisons all over this country , and hundreds of thousands of new coffin liners stocked piled all around them during the past few years ! Are those for Islamist terrorists too (???)

     
  6. The Israel firsters control both sides.
    I’ve been warning of this for years; first they looted the treasury, then they got control of the military and the State department, now we’re all terrorists if we oppose. Surprise, surprise…..
    Remember. remember the 5th of November. Of Gunpowder treason and plot.

     
    • That was not the “Israel firsters” as you call them. The guy in the White House is doing everything he can to betray Israel. And in case you haven’t noticed, Israel is the only country in the middle east that would be our ally even without receiving American aid.

       
    • Thanks Sage, I couldn’t have put it better myself.

       
  7. I’m glad you found the truth about this bill (NDAA) hope you will treat those that try to show a danger about a bill, a little more respectful in the future!

     
    • And I hope you would also be more respectful of fellow patriots who did not have adequate information to properly evaluate the then-proposed bill, instead of being rude and disdainful — a demeanor and attitude which did not win people to your side. I certainly was put off by your attitude. I eventually came to understand the true nature of the bill by investigating the matter, and not because of you.

       
  8. My congressmen warner and webb both voted yes for this bill. Warner never answered a request as tto why. Webb sidestepped the question saying he didn’t have a choice. This is crap. I voted for them and Obama. I will vote for Romney and anyone voting against them that says they are against this bill.

     

Leave a Reply

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