Why did Bushbama leave town with NDAA unsigned?
Before Bushbama left for Hawaii, he signed all pending legislation EXCEPT the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which still shows as unsigned as of 9:00am ET 24 December 2011:
Will the American Sheeple swallow shifting the blame for 9/11 from Bin Laden to Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran?
Why was Bushbama's buddy the Sultan of Brunei one of the first to pick this up?
Who will they blame 9/11 on next? Occupy Wall Street?
When are YOU going to rise up and DO SOMETHING to stop this insanity?
I dunno, why don't you tell us what you intuit?
Mebbe he needed to think about all the BS in the 5200+ sections of the bill...or sections 1031 and 1032 that seem to violate the Bill of Rights.
What's your point? And what does it have to do with Iran?
"Bushbama"....now there's an interesting juxtaposition. Sort of a one word oxymoron.
I get the feeling you may be in need of help.
You can start helping me by getting up to speed...
1. Sections 1031 and 1032 were renumbered in the final wording of the bill to 1021 and 1022:
2. "Bushbama" is a reference to the fact that the Obama administration has in many ways been the third term of Bush 2. The agenda put in place by the election coup of 2000 and the false flag ops of 9/11 continue:
3. Yes, I am in need of help! And you can start helping me by getting up to speed on what's really going on in this nation and worldwide:
I was sorta thinking your screen name implied
you'd had some misfortune with an over-pressure round that had blown a rifle bolt back into your skull...and that you needed medical attention. :)
Instead of linking stuff why don't you say what's on your mind in your own words...succinctly...without hyperbole. I'm no fan of Bush and I'm not particularly happy with Obama...although considering the alternatives, both past and present, he'd be my pick. And, I figure I'm more up to speed than most..which is also true of many who post here. And, there's a difference in being up to speed and being obsessed. Just what is it that you think, reasonably, ought to be done?
Listen up...less than 11% of people in this country think Congress is worth the powder to blow them to hell. True "conservatives" and "liberals" alike think we're, as a nation, in deep yogurt. Unless you're advocating violent revolution, about the only way you, and the rest of us, have any way to change things is at the polls. NC Republicans and Democrats alike, in their turns at the helm, have gerrymandered the heck out of the districts trying to ensure they win...whether they deserve to or not.
83% or more of 8th graders in this country can't read or write or do basic math at an acceptable level. You're worried about the DFAA nor being signed at a particular time? Personally I think, in it's current state, it shouldn't be signed. When it is, welcome to even more erosion of our freedoms. How about no habeas corpus?
Are Parts of the Passed Defense Authorization (Retroactive?)
Are Parts of the Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (Retroactive?)
It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the scope of Section 1021 and other provision in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not just persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban; or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered persons” (other) alleged terrorists, organizations, combatants and belligerents—foreign and domestic including Americans Citizens in the U.S.. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting terrorists; (3) being a “Combatant” or (4) “Belligerent” is vague and broadly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action abroad—could be charged with all (four) under The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act.
Under the passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could some U.S. activists (Retroactively) be subject to indefinite U.S. Military or other detention overseas if they travel abroad? American Citizen activists under the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 appear vulnerable to indefinite detention if they travel abroad because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do “illegally” in the future in the U.S. or abroad.
FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans without trial; and conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s article at: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons) without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military Force.