|
Correspondence regarding various issues of national significance: imprisonment, torture... |
Size: 1 Item
Created: January 4th, 2012 at 11:12pm
Modified: March 4th, 2013 at 11:33pm
Access:
No Restrictions A letter (I wrote) re. the President's empowerment, bequeathed to him on News Years Day 2012, to choose which American citizens he will commit and confine to indefinite military detention in a cell, etc. (no lawyer and so on) (heil Hitler!):
(To Amnesty International / Jan. 4, 2012)
---
Regarding Amnesty International's recent email: "Pres. Obama signed the NDAA - now we fight back."
Hello! I love your work!
However, regarding your assertion that "President Obama has yet again relented to extremists in Congress. On New Year's Eve, he signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, along with its appalling detention provisions," I fail to understand. Actually, I was under the impression that the President returned the first NDAA to the original sponsors in the Senate, Levin (D) and another senator (R), because that version specifically did Not empower the President to commit American citizens to indefinite military detention. Carl Levin said, and I saw him say this on Senate video, that his (Levin's) original provision re. indefinite detention specifically did Not empower the President to detain US citizens indefinitely without charge, defense counsel, etc. (the difference being, I believe, that the president would have, however, now been able to do so with non-US citizens. But that, apparently, wasn't good enough for Barack).
Why, then, the assertion (in your email) that Barack Obama has "yet again relented to extremists in Congress?" From what I know, and I have been following this—although I am neither a lawyer nor a politician—this man, i.e., the President, said he, himself, would actually veto the NDAA if the relevant provision specifically did Not empower him (or really the office of the presidency, I would venture) to execute indefinite detention of American citizens at his own discretion, and, of course, without the provision of the Constitutional requirements that the accused be charged formally (or charged at all), provided with defense counsel, provided the mandatory phone call (although that obviously came later!), or granted his/her Constitutional right to trial by one's peers, i.e., by jury, as well as numerous other rights guaranteed (in writing only, admittedly) by what is now termed the Bill of Rights*.
Am I missing something? Did he actually "relent," as you put it? Please correct me if I am wrong. Any relevant link would be most helpful. Or information from your own well of data would most certainly be appreciated—especially because it might help me salvage, for myself of course, a bit of his reputation, clout, and even honor if I were to learn that I—and others—were, and are, wrong, entirely.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matt Bohart
Web Show Creator-and-Artist
Writer
PS: I did sign the, your letter to the President urging him not to sign the NDAA. Now they (the government) have been reminded that I exist—. Or maybe they never knew at all in the first place! Oh well—. After I'm arrested, though, I can at least get a lawyer, and when my family and friends find out they'll be able to help me, also...but wait. I don't have to have any kind of right to that kind of stuff now! If the president says I don't, well, I don't! American citizen, American schmitizen! (I guess I'd better shut my mouth.... You think?)
* I.e., the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
