Obama's "Defense Bill": Two Takes On The Same Theme

First, from the Associated Press on HR 1540:

HONOLULU (AP) -- President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

Make sure you read the article further.

Second, from InfoWars.com on HR 1540:

As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.

Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.

Again, read the full article.

The final version of HR 1540 can be found here.

From Reddit.com:

SEC. 1021 - Affirmation of authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the authorization for use of military force.

Notable:

• Covered persons includes anyone with ties to 9/11 and anyone who was, or is part of, Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
• Under subsection (a) (1) "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorizes by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
• Under subsection (e) "Authorities - Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States" (added by the administration, as stated in signing statement this reaffirms the Patriot Act and does not explicitly extend more power than the executive branch already has)

SEC. 1022 - "In General - Except as provided in paragraph (4) the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2 - Covered Persons, see above) who is captured for the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force in military custody pending disposition under law of war.

Notable:

• Disposition under law of war, as stated in SEC. 1021 under notable, can result in no trial until the end of hostilities as authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
• (4) means if the President submits too congress a * written* waiver saying it's the interest of national security it will waive the "In General" portion stated above.
• Under Resident Aliens (1) and (2) all American or lawful resident aliens does not extend to them.
• Under (d) "Authorities - Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody"
• In the Signing Statement Obama said he was against this, and used quite strong language, and would use the vagueness of this section to not change current policy.

SEC. 1023-1025 - These are meant to give congress more information about detainees.

Under SEC. 1024 - "In General - Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of military Force for purposes of section 1021"

Notable:

• In the Signing Statement Obama said he'll keep things the way they are and allow the Secretary of Defense to use his/her discretion in the future.

SEC. 1026-1028 - These curtail the President's ability to deal with Guantanamo Bay, Cuba including his ability to close it, transfer inmates, and requirements for certification to move inmates. You can read them below.

SEC. 1026 - "In General - No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the DoD for fiscal year 2012 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the DoD unless authorized by Congress."

SEC. 1027 - "None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2012 may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who— (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense."

SEC. 1028 - "IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d - waiver from DoD), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b - from DoD with SoS) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual."

I suspect the most important point is this:

In short, as an American sections 1021-1027 don't apply to you.

Until this bill passes: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3166

Take a peek.

Finally, this most interesting tidbit from UK's The Telegraph (indicating, once again, that if you wish to discover what's really occurring in this country, I strongly suggest scouring UK news):

According to the FBI, over 1.5 million background checks on customers were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in December. Nearly 500,000 of those were in the six days before Christmas.

It was the highest number ever in a single month, surpassing the previous record set in November.

On Dec 23 alone there were 102,222 background checks, making it the second busiest single day for buying guns in history.

The actual number of guns bought may have been even higher if individual customers took home more than one each.

Explanations for America's surge in gun buying include that it is a response to the stalled economy with people fearing crime waves. Another theory is that buyers are rushing to gun shops because they believe tighter firearms laws will be introduced in the future.

In that light, I would suggest that under a Leftist administration such as Mr Obama's, tighter firearms laws are an absolute guarantee. Further, I submit that you can count on a vicious clamp on ammunition, restrictions to include the types and amount of ammunition purchased and lengthy backgrounds checks, as with firearms, involving sales of rounds.

The trend had already started in 2008 (again, UK's The Telegraph) just before the November presidential election.

"I've sold probably four times as much in the last six months as I have in 20 years combined," said Cliff Hunter, owner of Tommy Bronson Sporting Goods in Memphis. "Hand guns and the tactical weapons, they're absolutely off the charts."

Most of his gun sales used to be for hunting, or personal protection in a city riddled with crime. But just before the November election, anxiety that Mr Obama would win and enact a radical programme of curtailing gun rights began drove business right up.

"Obama's a liberal socialist and I think he's proven quickly how extreme he is," he said. "When they get through healthcare, guns are on the table. They're not talking about it but it's going to happen."

The FBI recorded a 49 per cent rise in gun background checks during election week compared to the same week a year earlier.

This should come as no shock to any right-thinking individual.

And isn't it funny that those persons who embrace Socialism, Marxism or Communism don't think the failure lies with the philosophical idea itself -- they instead believe the idea just hasn't been handled by the right person yet.

BZ