Why Obama Wants to Veto S.1867

Rate this post

On December 31, 2011, Obama signed this effective martial-law bill into law.
Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, which Obama says he will not veto. 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.”
Some among us are puzzled as to why Obama has made known he plans to veto the recently passed Senate bill 1867, that will give him (and future Presidents) immense power.
The now infamous Section 1031 of S. 1867 does not exclude U.S. citizens from those “covered persons” whom the President can have the military arrest and detain without charge or trial. In effect, S. 1867 suspends and  removes the protection of the U.S. Constitution from American citizens if they/we are deemed to be “at war” with the United States, whatever “at war” means.

Obama’s opposition to S. 1867 is not due to his passion to preserve our civil liberties.
Matt Apuzzo of the AP reports that on Dec. 1, 2011, “top national security lawyers” in the Obama administration said exactly what S. 1867’s Sec. 1031 says — that “U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.”

The Obama administration’s CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure who died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen. The two lawyers did not directly address the al-Awlaki case, but they did say U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. Echoing S. 1867’s Sec. 1031, Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

So why is Obama opposed to S. 1867?
It is not for reasons of protecting U.S. citizens, but because Obama opposes S. 1867’s “military detention” of those “covered persons.” Military detention means those “covered persons” become prisoners of war (POWs), and POWs are covered by the Geneva Convention, which forbids the torture of POWs.
In other words, Obama wants to continue to be able to use torture on “covered persons” — a category that, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein says in her e-mail, includes U.S. citizens.
As former Wall Street Journal editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts explains:

“The Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war.[…]

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing “extraordinary renditions” to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf)”

Update (12.11.2011):
More than 2 years ago, Obama had proposed the creation of “a legal basis” for the preventive and indefinite detention of American citizens. Go here.

Please follow and like us:

22 responses to “Why Obama Wants to Veto S.1867

  1. I wonder if anyone is tracking the “Obama Remorse Index” – AKA the percentage of Obama voters who regret electing him.

  2. This piece of crap legislation further chips away at our freedoms and will widen the divide between us and OUR country! We are at war with those who are supposed to champion liberty….I don’t care what obscene reason he is vetoing it! RON PAUL 2012

  3. Hope and Change..more like Bull and shit.
    All politicians are cut from the same piece of toilet paper..except Ron Paul…
    ya’ll haveagoodun

  4. Ron Paul is the only honest candidate running for President of the U.S ! He is not liked by the ‘establishment’ for pointing out the miserable failure of the overseas wars and also the domestic ‘War on Drugs’ !

  5. Hmmmmmmm…. dunnoh… MY GUESS is: not even Ron Paul …naaaahhh…
    just anuther guy wich will bertray US!


  7. Dennis H. Bennett

    Marc Thiessen (Courting Disaster) does an excellent job of exposing B Hussein Muhammad Obama’s gutting of the CIA’s interrogation options, including the most misunderstood by the public, waterboarding. That the “CIC” would object on the basis of being limited in interrogation techniques is grandiose hypocrisy in light of the accusations he made against Bush and the CIA as he entered office. But not if someone else does it! The continuance of the non-“extraordinary” Panetta/Obama “rendition flights” clearly exposes B. Hussein Muhammad Obama as the Master of Deception. Why object to S.1867? In addition to another “bump” in voter approval ratings, It just might expose his deception, the ideological image he has tried so hard to keep, and his absolute incompetence as “CIC”

  8. I still can’t believe that 93 Senators passed this fascist piece of crap. SLAVES ARE MADE IN SUCH WAYS!- William Wallace
    It was just 70 years ago that we fought AGAINST Fascist nation states like Nazi Germany. Now look at what we have become. This time there will be no young country like America to save us from our own dictators.

  9. “at war with the United States” – just what does that mean?
    Was Afghanistan or Iraq EVER at war with the United States or were we at war with them?
    That label is just saying we want to kill you and bomb the hell out of your country and steal your stuff.
    Who is to say that they do not decide that pro democracy demonstrators such as the occupy movement are also “at war with the United States”?
    Isn’t fascism amazing?
    Who won World War 2 again?

  10. Can I please tell you guys how happy I am to see conservatives standing up against these things? I shouted about it all during the Bush administration and was told by almost every conservative I knew that I was being anything from “unpatriotic” to a “traitor”. I warned liberals in 2008 that Obama, if elected, would just take these powers and use them himself, and was called equally rotten names. I’m sorry it took Obama’s election to wake so many people up, but I’m glad they’re waking up nevertheless.

    • Danny,
      When it comes to a government that is anti-Constitution, it matters not whether the administration wears the label of Democrat or Republican. Tyranny by any name is just as foul. Conservatives just needed convincing — not with rhetoric but with facts and evidence. I stand with you at the ramparts.

  11. The president of “HOPE” is now the President of “NOPE”. Great article on what’s truly happening in America. THanks.

  12. This comment was deleted because “Lucas” can’t seem to write a comment without using the F-word and calling us “retards.” Your mom and all your grade- and high-school teachers over there in or near Toronto, Ontario, must be so proud of your sadly-limited command of the English vocabulary.

  13. This is amazing and baffling. Not only does the article make no sense, but most commenters seem to be against the legislation, while at the same time being against Obama, who is, with them, against the legislation, but for a purely speculative and conspiratorial reason, saying that Obama wants to break the law re: torture legally, even though he’s now doing it illegally.

  14. I fear even if Ron Paul was elected as president in 2012, he would most likely be a target for assassination by the globalist elite if he didn’t conform.
    I also feel as though the powers in charge need Ron Paul right where he is. To give the Americans a false sense of hope while their plans move forward.
    Doesn’t anyone else find it a bit strange that practically all of Obama’s campaign promises withered on the vine after he took office?

  15. American Terrorist Watch List Are you on it?
    They want to see our country bankrupted and make our entire nation considered a battle field
    We need to kick all Liberal/Progressive Government people to the curb ..Period

  16. Bama and Newt are on the same page, along with the rest of the monkeys on chains! Ron Paul is America’s last chance to let the world know, NO MATTER WHAT WE WILL STAY FREE, it doesn’t matter what these monkeys on chains have to say! Congress and the Senate need cleaned out, we need to run the registered Socialist back to a country where they would be happy, NOT HERE! Every American needs to stand WITH RON PAUL OR NOT AT ALL! Without a real man in office we are doomed to a slow death, and the world will be lost for another couple hundred years!
    Semper Fi.

  17. HG Wells Citizen Kane comes to life!!
    Like Lombardi said ” What the hell is going on here?!! Its a sad day in mudd town 🙁
    Iam going with Paul! The only one to stand up
    To those Senators that voted for this diabolical bill!!! Has anyone heard anything about this bill
    the mainstream media? No couse they picked the perfect time to pass this bill in secret during a time when people are shopping and getting ready for the biggest Holiday of the year! And the mainstream media is nothing more than part of the establishment! My God our fore Fathers are turning in there graves!!
    alarm rang a long time ago unfortunately they
    pushed the snooze button again and again! Know is the time to unite people.

  18. he would make it known he will veto it because you will pass it thinking its no big deal it wont hurt nothing because hes gonna veto it and thats why he didnt veto it but the house of representatives never voted so its trash it can be trash because he dont have the job anymore and we all are owners of this country we can have a fresh start as owners voting our federal out get them out of our states we own it together more of us than them like the army if they went to their families to arrest theres more family that can shoot them they cant shoot all their family and they all that got family.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.