Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act. It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S. Citizens.

Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National Security.

Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future: some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S. Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization or former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in military custody with no evidence whatsoever.

Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1847, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention. It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama had signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012?

Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. McCain’s (The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others to support government actions including passage of more Police State (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the civil liberties of Americans.

Immediately Below: The Nazi 1933 Decrees Signed By Hitler
Compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees Below with S. McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

1933. ROBL. I 83.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE PEOPLE AND STATE

Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/12/19/18703052.php

Now is the time to think about were we as the dollars stand as a force for good in these up incoming events. What do you

Think?

This is on Main, no?

Don't recreate the same damn topic JUST to get it noticed.

I agree with heartbeatknight, it may be time we take a stand as a force of good. As I type this, we have 91,765 members, and with 311,800,000 citizens of the USA(as of the mid-2011)We have collected a good section of world citizens. I think we recruit many more US citizens to help our cause.

>>6 I take it you don't know about the real member count.

And now I dislike pretty much everyone running in this election.

Ha! What sucks is that I serve the military, so I got to protect these assholes! But really I would just wait, I don't fully trust this information, and call me crazy but I do trust my leaders (some of them). If it is as bad as you say it is, then I will stand with you. Please post news topic of people affected by this please.

Eh, we could always impeach the next President if things really turn out for the worst. Hell, technically the people have the power, so we could (in theory) just take the country, and run it ourselves with a new government altogether. However, in practice, there are many problems with whatever change will come next.

>>9 I understand what you're saying, but impeachment require the president to commit A crime. If he dosent do anything illegal and is just a shitty president he can't be impeached.where as, If the government fails to do its job though, the government can be destroyed.

I have already lost faith in america.....this shit just pisses me off. I'm saving up money and i'm going to move. If i don't get out in time i'm going to become a resistance fighter. I'm even thinking of becoming a pirate.

>>10 Still Umbra is right. We as the people (or rather just you guys) can over throw any government that we feel is not in the best interests of the people and can create a new one as we see fit. People don't realize how much power the government gives the people; you essentially run it. The president works for you and gives you what you want, if he doesn't you have a right to kick his ass out and get a new one.

2012 wont be the end of the world, but I can certainly feel that shit like this is going to start another civil war. Well, not really a civil war. More like a government's slaughter of it's own oppressed people. We're already at the boiling point, and if this kind of stuff keeps slipping by, well, prepare yourselves for war.

bump
and I agree with>>13

We cant do anything :/ if we want to go against this the government is gonna hunt us down. And the governments already trying to pass the new bill thats gonna take down websites like facebook,youtube,4chan, and probally this website. They are restricting our information and restricting what we can say.slowly but surely they are tighting there grasp on us,and creating a new world order. And for the solider guy im sorry there using you as a pawn to protect themselves (people in power) and not telling you whats really go on. Im sorry for that because your fight for the protection of the people and i honor you for that. :) good job

Lmao and yeah 2012 might not be the end of the world but its gonna get really fucked up. The people might revolt and america might destroy it self. We'll just have to wait and see

>>15 The government does not outnumber the people, and it's a mindset like that that prevents the masses from attaining its full potential.

As Umbra says, the average citizens of the US have a massive amount of power that only remains untapped because we don't act as a unit. We contradict each other, we quarrel, and we blindly follow what people tell us is good. Not enough people have their own opinions that aren't simply spoonfed to them by authority. If we did, we wouldn't have a power deficit issue between the government and the governed.

Hey its you :3 haha we where on the other thread talkin about chavez and stuff :p. I wasnt sayin we shouldnt take action, but itll be hard to do without worrying about the government all up in our face x). And sadly it doesnt matter if we out number them we need to be unified to take action like ya said :)

Oh, of course we should be worried about them being opposed to losing power. If they weren't, again, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

And I wasn't necessarily calling you out or anything, it's just that a lot of people refuse to take things in a larger scope, and your statement - whether you believed the same thing or not - personified that.

Hahaha naww its cool :3 dont sound formal :D i like talkin to ya hahaha your sorta like my first friend here. I sound like a wierdo :p ive been on this site for a while but i just scan.

>>20 I'll be your second friend!

Plus, I like Misuto's 'formal-ness.'

I imagine him to look like Professor Layton in my head, but more strict and less animated.

Hahaha sure potato bread.

If you guys are going to go against the government get help from Anonymous. They have helped the middle eastern country's organize assembly's against there government and all the information they need on how to do it right and what to do when the cops or government try to stop them.

bump

>Two paragraphs in
>Hitler comparisons
>Nazi comparisons follow soon after
>Obama did this
>Obama did that

Oh boy, I'm sure glad the position of president for our country isn't essentially a figure head for congress and the senate!

Presidents have a lot of "public" power. They're the head of our nation. That being said, they have little say in how things are run and what gets passed. Saying "Obama is instituting" implies that he's somehow magically skipping the congressional and senatorial houses all together to make something appear into law.

I am about to explain something to you all, and its going to blow your mind...

If the only person who supported the law was the president, it wouldn't be passed.

Blame the figure head all you'd like, but the fact that things such as SOPA and this detainment act are coming up and being passed are the fault of our leaders. Yes, plural. The hundreds of faceless legislatures that we love to ignore and blame the president instead.

If you people want change, if you dislike the direction the change is going in, criticizing the president and demanding a new one will help you very little. It's the same thing as having a broken phone and putting a new case on it.

Look, my phone is pretty and new again!
But it's still broken on the inside. The fundamental processes that you are aware exist but you don't see, they're still fucked up.

It goes without saying at this point, but since this article exists I feel the need to spoonfeed opinion to idiots.

This article is biased as all shit and written by ignorant people. While it has legitimate information in it, it is sorely misrepresented and the entire thing is geared towards scare tactics and "guilt-by-association" style rhetoric.

BBS, I am disappoint.

ಠ_ಠ

@25

But didn't you hear? Obama signed NDAA behind peoples' backs during the New Years Celebration for 2012, despite the fact that he said to the people that he wouldn't do so (First round, by the way, not the 2nd round, which was the 2/3 congress acceptance.)!!

How's that for political powers of skipping?

What should we do about this situation? >_> <_<

>>26

It gets to the president last, meaning congress and the senate had already approved it. He threatened a veto due to choice wording in it, which was vaguely removed/reworded, thus making his objection to the bill a moot point.

There was no "political powers of skipping". Congress and the senate approved it and worded it, then re-worded portions of it to appease Obama's veto threat so they didn't have to resend it with a 2/3 passing rate.

Bottom line is that the bill is backed by Congress and would have been forced through UNCHANGED even if Obama had vetoed it initially.

Copied from something I saw on tumblr but I feel that this will explain it better than I can:

"He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.

You’ll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn’t coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President’s stated mandate - they are effectively a giant ‘fuck you’ to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President’s support with his own base. Observe:

Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.

Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.

Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)

Here’s where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party’s base and the opposition’s. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to ‘Keep America safe’ and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent’s liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that’s what they care about most. You’ve designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don’t even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.

Pass the ‘parent’ legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military’s operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent’s base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won’t matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.

Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It’s a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.

This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.

EDIT: thanks to Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller for this post"

>>28 and >>29 These are the important points that literally NO ONE usually makes when discussing this. It truly is depressing when you think that our President was overridden in that way. Please pay closer attention to the details such as those that these two members have brought to light. The internet is already flooded with fingers pointing in the wrong directions.

idiot, that does not mean the government is going to just randomly walk up to people a start arresting any random person that walks by. This means that if you do something that is against the government or a government official, they will have the right to arrest you for life. Witch has nothing to do with hitler. You think people who are a threat to the USA should just be let to just walk around and do what they want?

I heard about all of this already. The only thing I can say, is we all need to work together. If that means a member is arrested for an idiotic charge, I would gladly break them out of prison. Also, I believe(like someone before me) that we need to stand up as members of the Dollars and try to protect the world from what it's becoming. We need to get ahold of the Anonymous and discuss matters or possibly even join them as allies. At least present our own views between each other.

>>31 Don't misunderstand. Comparing it to a dictatorship regime is a worst case scenario, because with this law it becomes entirely plausible. Theoretically, it allows them to arrest anyone who has dissent towards the government, since they are the ones who decide whether or not something is considered a threat to the nation. They are incredible spin doctors when it comes to convincing the masses, because they have so much influence and people are simply inattentive.

This law will reduce it to us simply trusting that they won't do this, which is a horrible thing. The laws that go against something exactly like this are in place as checks and balances between the government and the governed. The fact they are trying to break that barrier to gain more power than they rightfully need is what is considered the issue here.

You're right that people who are a threat to the country should not be walking around, but at that point it's a matter of risking personal freedoms for just a tiny bit extra paranoid safety.

There is a prominent quote in history, spoken by Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Can you put a title that relate to your topic. I hate spending time reading something I have no interest in, just because someone tried to be mysterious.

Sky, wth? This addresses everyone in the United States, and possibly a few that are out of state. You SHOULD be reading this!

>>35

No, Sky has a point. The title is obscure and vague as all fuck - It's the kind of thing you see whiny brats put up followed by a wall of text of some personal grievance or chain letter.

If it were accurately titled, referring to what the topic was actually about, then people who cared would be more inclined to read it - and vice versa.

I agree with Sky as well.

>>36 I understand that. But we all need informed, more or less of what the government is doing.

hmmm. . .

>>17 Your right if we can put aside those differences we could change things. The only way we can do that is by showing those who blindly follow things like this how much it affects them. Through the influence we as dollars have to the people around us I'm sure that there is something we could do to make people put forth the effort to stand against this. Right? After all it only takes a few sparks to start a fire.