Skip to main content

It is the end of your 'blissful' slumber...for those who're intellectually 'lazy'. As a general rule, I never quote anything from alex jones or his ilk (especially ron paul,) because I don't like'm. But this video just makes it 'simple'. Watch. 

 

--

http://youtu.be/KdxXhn3We7U

--

 

No Nation is any Greater than it's Leaders

 

“Africa must build relationships with the rest of the world independently. It should never receive friends or foes from Europe and America"....President Robert Mugabe

Last edited by roarin1
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

 

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.


The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.

"Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded," Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.

Obama's signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans' constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes.

 

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or "associated forces" and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau's ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn't clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away.

Other officials have said agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether get a waiver while trying to thwart a terror attack.

The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.

The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil.

The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.

This week, Iran warned that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz — a vital Persian Gulf waterway. But on Saturday, Tehran seemed to back off that threat when a commander of its Revolutionary Guard said such discussion is a thing of the past and "belongs to five years ago."

 

 

Iran also said Saturday that it had proposed a new round of talks on its nuclear program with the U.S. and other world powers. The invitation would come after the U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions. Separately, the U.S. and the European Union have imposed their own tough economic and financial penalties.

The $662 billion bill authorizes money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The measure also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

Obama signed the bill in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family.

___

Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC


Originally Posted by sunnubian:

 

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.



 

========================================

 

A couple of weeks ago, (BEFORE the President actually put his pen to the paper and signed this bill - i.e., when ALL of this was speculation!!)  I remember a whole lot of bitching, fussing and complaining about the President's intent to "indefinitely detain American citizens"! And how f*#^(*d up as a President and an individual he was for doing so!!!

 

Now that the final bill (developed, constructed and sent to him by Congress) has actually be signed by him ..... and the reality shows that he pretty much REFUSED to sign it with that particular provision in it and instead forced the Congress to get rid of it before he WOULD sign it .... I wonder if any of those people who wrongly accused him of doing something he didn't do are willing to come back out  - with as much venom, hatred and enthusiasm - and say they were wrong??? 

Sorry, Roarin ..... but something told me that that story was just to unbelievable to be true!    I did some googling .... and here's what appears to be the real story of Ashton Lundby ... who, it seems, was actually guilty of the crimes with which he was accused.

 

 

Teen takes plea deal in phony bomb threats

 

Thursday, October 21, 2010
(Updated 5:31 am)
 

RALEIGH (MCT) — Ashton Lundeby, the teenager from Oxford who has spent the past 19 months in a federal detention center, pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring to lodge bomb threats to entertain select Internet audiences.

 

The plea in a federal courtroom in Indiana closes a case that exposed an online prankster world. Lundeby and others would participate in pranks and broadcast their mischief and ensuing drama from Web cameras to people who paid nominal fees to PayPal accounts.

 

A sentencing hearing is set for Nov. 23, the day before Lundeby's 18th birthday.

At that hearing, according to the plea document filed Wednesday, a judge will dismiss two other charges accusing Lundeby of making bomb threats to willfully kill, injure or intimidate someone or to damage or destroy a public building.

 

Lundeby acknowledged helping make phony bomb threats from his home computer to Purdue University and other places in at least a dozen states, according to a plea agreement petition filed last week in an Indiana federal court. Lundeby, who became a celebrity among pranksters under the pseudonym "Tyrone," did not know the true names of many of his co-conspirators. He joined forces with others he knew only as "J.T.," ''Vaultackie," ''Britfag," ''Does Not Afraid" and "Delicious Cakes" to place bomb threats at universities, high schools, a middle school and FBI offices with hopes of closing the schools down for a day.

 

UNC-Chapel Hill, Clemson University, Florida State University and Boston College were among the sites targeted. According to the plea document, Lundeby has acknowledged calling police departments in Fort Wayne, Ind., and West Lafayette, Ind., on Jan. 31 and Feb. 15 in 2009, and falsely claiming that bombs on college campuses there were about to go off.

 

Disguised voices, IDs


Prosecutors said Lundeby and his co-conspirators used elaborate computer gaming techniques to disguise their voices and identities, then transmit threats and watch live through video surveillance and webcams as law enforcement teams responded.

The Granville County teen's case drew the attention of bloggers and others early on after his mother tried to rally support for her son, then only 16, saying he had been detained as a domestic terrorist under the USA Patriot Act.

 

Detained in Indiana


At that time, the case was not in adult court, and documents were sealed from public scrutiny, as federal law allows. But Indiana prosecutors issued a statement to dispel the idea that Lundeby's case had anything to do with the Patriot Act. They acknowledged that a teen had been accused of making bomb threats to Purdue University and detained in Indiana while awaiting court proceedings.

 

Annette Lundeby, Ashton's mother, said this week that she remains convinced that her son was set up by other online pranksters.

Excellent work Sis ROSE!

 

(Man! The posters here at AA.org. arestill some of the sharpest!)

 

But while YOU were reading the comments on the video page, did YOU read this one?

 

Actually this happened back in 2009. As it turned out he was also guilty.
He was selling school bomb threats online. So if you wanted your final canceled you could hire him to place a bomb threat and he would shut down the school.
His records were sealed because he was a minor but he was later charged as an adult and he showed up in the paperwork again. He plead guilty and was sentenced with 22 months time served. It ends up having nothing to do with the patriot act.


The point is he was deemed guilty and served his time before ever being proved guilty and going before a judge. DUE PROCESS Now a day's in America you are guilty till proven innocent. He may have been found guilty actually he pleaded guilty but you know after 22 months being locked up any teenager would just to get out


Or, this one?


Deep breath .. you had good points. Guilty or Innocent this was presented as a current events. Was only by fluke i noticed the march 5th mentioned @3:11 (in this copy of the vid) myself then started to question the "when" of this. Bottom line of yours is valid of Patriotic Act & now NDAA is scarey beginnings of a future that is history repeating itself. You shined a large light on what these Acts are capable of doing to USA citizens & perhaps the world.


I appreciate YOUR input Sis ROSE (as usual,) but as the title in the OP suggests, 'What is the NDAA'? MY intent was never to 'draw conclusions' for anybody, but to hopefully promote a healthy curiosity-- or a least a closer look at what the inferences of the NDAA in fact, do entail.


So, without going into a long drawn-out dissertation over how certain inferences are incorporated into the very fabric of the 'laws of the land' itself as 'acceptable' and-- as it ('the law',) itself is not an 'absolute', nor could it ever even remotely be considered as such, as per usual, the casual observer must first do his own 'research', and draw his own conclusions. 


Thanks for sharing YOURS but needless to say, MINES are a little different.

Originally Posted by EbonyRose:
Originally Posted by sunnubian:

 

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.



 

========================================

 

A couple of weeks ago, (BEFORE the President actually put his pen to the paper and signed this bill - i.e., when ALL of this was speculation!!)  I remember a whole lot of bitching, fussing and complaining about the President's intent to "indefinitely detain American citizens"! And how f*#^(*d up as a President and an individual he was for doing so!!!

 

Now that the final bill (developed, constructed and sent to him by Congress) has actually be signed by him ..... and the reality shows that he pretty much REFUSED to sign it with that particular provision in it and instead forced the Congress to get rid of it before he WOULD sign it .... I wonder if any of those people who wrongly accused him of doing something he didn't do are willing to come back out  - with as much venom, hatred and enthusiasm - and say they were wrong??? 

 

You will never remove your head from Obama's ass will you?  Any and everything Obama says you swallow.  Now take a second and realize that the requirement for military custody of citizens was removed.  That does not mean it is still not an option.  Further, because Obama says his administration will not do it means nothing and if you were not so dim you would realize it.  Future administrations will have free will to do what they want thanks to Obama.  If a president has severe reservations he shouldn't pick up the fucking pen. 

LOL ... well ... at least I don't walk around with my OWN head up my OWN ass, as you do, nuggyt!!    I at least picked a prominent ass!!!  You can only spend your time shytting on yourself! 

 

As to the President ... any and all presidents have to sign legislation with 'severe reservations'.  No president gets the exact bill he wants ... since he has no legal means to draft his own bills.

 

If you had ANY type of relevant knowledge of politics you would know that EVERY president - even your precious hero, George W. Bush - signed legislation with stuff in it that he didn't want to sign his name to ... just in order to get some of the things he did want. 

 

Congress intentionally puts amendments and attachments to the bills it presents to a president, specifically because they know that ahat president would not agree to their demands any other way.

 

Your apparent limited knowledge of politics - and especially the constitutional duties of the President and his Congress - is the only reason you would say something as frighteningly ignorant as that a President shouldn't sign something he as "reservations" about. 

 

Every president since George Washington has done so.  You do know who George Washington is, don't you?? 

Originally Posted by roarin1:
I appreciate YOUR input Sis ROSE (as usual,) but as the title in the OP suggests, 'What is the NDAA'? MY intent was never to 'draw conclusions' for anybody, but to hopefully promote a healthy curiosity-- or a least a closer look at what the inferences of the NDAA in fact, do entail.


So, without going into a long drawn-out dissertation over how certain inferences are incorporated into the very fabric of the 'laws of the land' itself as 'acceptable' and-- as it ('the law',) itself is not an 'absolute', nor could it ever even remotely be considered as such, as per usual, the casual observer must first do his own 'research', and draw his own conclusions. 


Thanks for sharing YOURS but needless to say, MINES are a little different.

------------------------------------------

 

Actually, Roarin1 ... I didn't read any of the comments on that page ... only the story itself!    It was the video of the Mom that gave me pause ... and I started 'surfing' just after watching that!!

 

For the record ... I'm no fan of the Patriot Act ... never have been ... and this new NDAA thing doesn't seem much different!! 

 

However ... personally, for me .... I'm not the type of person who gets particularly 'riled up' over what is seemingly SPECULATION .... about what a president MIGHT do in situations that have NOT and may NEVER happen .... with powers that MAY be at his disposal!!! 

 

For me ... there's too much REAL LIFE stuff that goes on everyday to get bogged down in supposition about something that MIGHT happen ... or MIGHT NOT ... at some futuristic time ... days, months, years - or never - from now!!  I prefer to deal in the reality of the day!! 

 

So unless and until the President actually starts rounding up innocent American citizens and holding them "indefinitely" and "without due process" .... there's simply too many bigger fish to fry for me to get overly excited about something like this!!

 

I mean ... after all ... President Obama COULD HAVE decided to unilaterally start dropping bombs on a sovereign country who has posed no threat to the United States, destroying their government, infrastructure, economic capabilities, causing a civil war and killing tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of their innocent people ... and killing and wounding thousands of our OWN soldiers by now, if he wanted to, no?!?!?   I mean ... he HAS the power to do so, right?!?!?

 

But he HASN'T done it yet!!!  And I don't think he will.  Of course, I could be wrong.  (Although I wasn't wrong about the last guy who did it!!)  But it's all SPECULATION

 

AND .... we will just all have to wait and see.

Amazing....


even when the critical analysis is right under our noses...


--
Is There a Limit to Black Tolerance of Obama's Police State, Assassinations and Wars?

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

What if the First Black President eviscerated the rule of law, legalizing assassination and detention of U.S. citizens without trial? Would he still be considered a “credit to his race?” His supporters may convince themselves they are safe in Obama’s hands, but he has also “given President Gingrich or President Romney or President Palin those powers – the same powers Egyptian generals have used to imprison thousands of protesters in military jails.”
--
http://blackagendareport.com/content/there-limit-black-tolerance-obamas-polic...
--


Damn! Since when is an 'alternate point of view'....destructive!

No ... I'm saying that the Black Agenda Report is a piece of journalistic crap that Black people who are interested in the integrity of Black news shouldn't take seriously because it's mostly just a bunch of raving, extremist, opinion reporting that doesn't bother to rely on actual facts .... especially when it comes to it's irrational discontent with President Obama!! 

Last edited by EbonyRose
Originally Posted by EbonyRose:

No ... I'm saying that the Black Agenda Report is a piece of journalistic crap that Black people who are interested in the integrity of Black news shouldn't take seriously because it's mostly just a bunch of raving, extremist, opinion reporting that doesn't bother to rely on actual facts .... especially when it comes to it's irrational discontent with President Obama!! 

Stop being ambiguous ... be specific if you can. Nobody is interested in your opinion if you can't substantiate your claim.

 

If you have a grievance you're more than welcome to speak with Glenn Ford or Bruce Dixon on SiriusXM Radio channel 127, Wednesdays 8pm EST. Partisan Obama prostitutes who dare to call ALWAYS get debunked with the facts (something you NO LONGER give a damn about) then conveniently make excuses to rationalize their poor deficiencies. It's comical to listen to these callers get intellectually busted up by Glenn and Bruce. To be honest, many who call to rationalize excuses and defend Obama on issues that are indefensible (such as NDAA ... among a laundry list of issues) are uncouth, emotionally-driven reactionaries. Clearly they are not critical thinkers and willfully fail to articulate fact from fiction. I suspect you would be no different. It's amazing to see parity between Bush and Obama cheerleaders be indistinguishable. 

 

I do hope you call in and exercise your unbiased, broad knowledge (ROFL) on the social and political issues, ER. You will make my commute home from work much more enjoyable. I will be listening intensely.

 

Goodnight, sweetie. 

Originally Posted by EbonyRose:

No ... I'm saying that the Black Agenda Report is a piece of journalistic crap that Black people who are interested in the integrity of Black news shouldn't take seriously because it's mostly just a bunch of raving, extremist, opinion reporting that doesn't bother to rely on actual facts .... especially when it comes to it's irrational discontent with President Obama!! 

Crap, shouldn't take seriously, extremist, opinion reporting.....

 

Unfortunate.

 

But the mis-education of some of Our People.... certainly don't surprise Me.

 

Seems though that now however, Obama could even make like one of his marines and piss down the neck of his some of supporters, but they would still swear that it was rain or champagne from'm.

 

Again, unfortunate but of course, that don't rile me up either.

 

History will decide.

   

 

Originally Posted by EbonyRose:

No ... I'm saying that the Black Agenda Report is a piece of journalistic crap that Black people who are interested in the integrity of Black news shouldn't take seriously because it's mostly just a bunch of raving, extremist, opinion reporting that doesn't bother to rely on actual facts ....

 

You mean just like all this forum?!?? 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×