by: Tim Brown
Let’s ask the question here: Should Barack Obama and the Congress be
arrested and sent to Gitmo for violating the NDAA. After all the
Congress passed it and Barack Obama signed it. I’m sure much of you
believe that more than that should happen and it wouldn’t just be
dependent upon the NDAA, but does what happened last week indicate that
such persons as Barack Obama, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain should be
wearing and orange jump suit an some leg irons soon?
Understand something, Congress passes some
55,000 pages a year in new laws! Yet, for the most part they
never read one page of them. They passed the NDAA into law. What’s worse is that GOP presumptive nominee
Mitt Romney said that he supported NDAA as written, thus withholding the rights of citizens to due process, under the Constitution, because he says so.
The NDAA text affirms the President’s authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person,
“who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or
associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its coalition partners,” and anyone who commits a “belligerent
act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war,
“without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
[AUMF].”
The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or
“transfer to the custody or control of the person’s
country of origin,” or transfer to “any other foreign country, or any
other foreign entity.”
An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the
indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by
the Senate.
According to a
Reuters story
from Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Barack Obama and the Congress
authorized support, specifically $25 million of taxpayer money, to help
Syrian rebels,
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S.
support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.
According to a
Reuters story
from Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Barack Obama and the Congress
authorized support, specifically $25 million of taxpayer money, to help
Syrian rebels,
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order
authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter
said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an
intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies
to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit
still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that
intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council
to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.
What most people aren’t asking is, just who are these rebels? Well the answer lies buried at the bottom of the article:
Recent news reports from the region have suggested that the influence
and numbers of Islamist militants, some of them connected to al Qaeda
or its affiliates, have been growing among Assad’s opponents.
U.S. and European officials say that, so far, intelligence agencies
do not believe the militants’ role in the anti-Assad opposition is
dominant.
While U.S. and allied government experts believe that the Syrian
rebels have been making some progress against Assad’s forces lately,
most believe the conflict is nowhere near resolution, and could go on
for years.
Does anyone else sense an Eurasia, Eastasia flavor to any of this?
For those no familiar, those are the alleged allies, then enemies of
Oceania in George Orwell’s 1984. The people never know if they are at
war with one or if they are its allies.
Well
America has courted Al-Qaeda in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and now they are doing it in Syria to remove Assad!
John Aziz rightly asks,
If providing material assistance to al-Qaeda is illegal under the
National Defence Authorization Act (2012), and Obama and Congress are
sending $25 million of aid to al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian opposition,
aren’t Congress and President Obama violating their own law? Should
Obama (or at least the Justice Department) not be using “all necessary
and appropriate force” including “the power to indefinitely detain” to
prevent Obama and Congress from assisting al-Qaeda? Did anyone in
Congress or the Obama administration even bother to read the law that
they were signing? Do Federal laws no longer apply to lawmakers?
John is not the only one asking such a question. Fox News’
Ben Swann is also asking simliar questions
as to whether Al-Qaeda is an enemy or not? I think those are good
questions for sure, but even more pressing and the more dangerous
question is have our elected representatives and the current occupant of
the White House become domestic enemies against our Constitution? I
would say that a majority of them, with very few exceptions have become
just that.
No comments:
Post a Comment