Promises, Promises: President Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement

This time last year, President Obama responded to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act with a signing statement. Objecting to the law's restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trial or to their home countries, the president promised: "My Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future." (My emphasis).

This past New Year's eve, President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. In doing so, he extended the Guantanamo transfer restrictions, while also codifying the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists. In the statement he issued with that signature, he said:

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

The pledge to seek repeal and oppose expansion of transfer restrictions had melted into a watery "reservation."

The president's Saturday statement also makes a new promise.

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation." Although the Obama Administration has consistently claimed the power to kill U.S. citizens without charge or trial in the war on terror, as it did to the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the president now promises not to imprison them.

Of course, a future president still might

There's more...

Promises, Promises: President Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement

This time last year, President Obama responded to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act with a signing statement. Objecting to the law's restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trial or to their home countries, the president promised: "My Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future." (My emphasis).

This past New Year's eve, President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. In doing so, he extended the Guantanamo transfer restrictions, while also codifying the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists. In the statement he issued with that signature, he said:

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

The pledge to seek repeal and oppose expansion of transfer restrictions had melted into a watery "reservation."

The president's Saturday statement also makes a new promise.

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation." Although the Obama Administration has consistently claimed the power to kill U.S. citizens without charge or trial in the war on terror, as it did to the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the president now promises not to imprison them.

Of course, a future president still might

There's more...

Egyptian Elections: Five reasons to stick with the process as uncertainty follows recent vote

Political parties with clear Islamic identities appear to be gaining a majority in preliminary results from Egypt’s first round of parliamentary elections: the Muslim Brotherhood backed Freedom and Justice Party has around 40% of the vote and a further 25% went to the more extreme Salafi, An-Nour party. While the Brotherhood and the FJP have pledged to respect democratic principles and the rights of other Egyptians, the Salafis are explicitly hostile to the rights of women and minorities and to freedom of expression.

These parties believe that the law of God is superior to that of men and that they are in unique possession of the authoritative interpretation of the divine will. Their apparent strength is bad news for human rights in Egypt, but it should focus the minds of those who wish to see Egypt’s democratic transition move forward.

Here are five reasons not to give up on Egypt’s democratic transition at the first hurdle:

 

There's more...

Sharia = apartheid!

SHARIA = APARTHEID!

The news: Volume 14, Issues 13-25 - Independent Communications Network Ltd., 2000 - Page 6
Sharia is what apartheid was in South Africa. Even if constitutional, it is unjust! If we do not dismantle it like apartheid, it will dismantle Nigeria.
http://books.google.com/books?&id=gGQuAQAAIAAJ&q=%22sharia+is+what+apartheid+was+in+south+africa%22

National Writers Syndicate - Islamic Apartheid Muslims Only
Islamic Apartheid in Mecca and Medina is a legal, political, and religious segregation enforced by the Shariah compliant country of Saudi Arabia, ...
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/2294/40/

Surrender! - HUMAN EVENTS
Jul 8, 2008 – This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27394

Shilling for Shariah | FrontPageMagazine
Aug 30, 2011
... So Shariah is based upon a religious ideology that embraces gender apartheid, religious apartheid, cruel punishment and the denial of freedoms of speech, thought, and conscience. As such it cannot be compatible with western pluralistic democratic societies.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/30/shilling-for-shariah/

Sharia would create legal apartheid in Britain, says David Cameron
Feb 26, 2008 - Islamic law for Muslims would create legal apartheid in Britain, David Cameron said today.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3438846.ece

Shariah Islamic Law: Legal Apartheid
Sep 1, 2009 - Shariah Islamic Law: Legal Apartheid.
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/email-archives/1544-shariah-islamic-law-legal-apartheid

Islamic Gender & Religious Apartheid
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/topics/1/islamic-gender-religious-apartheid

Racism, Cultural ... - Maryam Namazie - Human Rights Activist
She is spokesperson for the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in ... women and girls continue to face apartheid and Islamic laws and customs.
http://www.maryamnamazie.com/articles/racism_cultural_rel.html

Introduction: Tenets of Shariah Law
Shariah Law is a military political doctrine written 1,200 years ago by Islamic authorities. The believers of Shariah Law have created a movement like Apartheid in which a minority oppresses a majority.
The goal of authoritative Shariah Law is to establish a one-world militant political Islam through Jihad. There are three forms of Jihad: Violent, Cultural, and Financial.
http://www.stopshariahnow.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=328&Itemid=149

The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices - Page 11 - Steven Vertovec, Susanne Wessendorf - Taylor & Francis, 2010 - 210 pages
... that the ultimate outcome of multiculturalism, if unchecked, could be the recognition of Sharia law in Britain. ... quite literally, a legal apartheid to entrench what is the cultural apartheid in too many parts of our country.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wUaHVimJkT0C&pg=PA11

Islamic Finance or Sharia-compliant Finance - Q Society
Understand what Islamic finance really is and ignore the marketing lies. - Do not endorse the introduction of sharia law and apartheid in Australia,..
http://www.qsociety.org.au/qonshariafinance.pdf

Dutch VVD Bolkestein warns of Ethnic apartheid | Eux Online
He fears that there are areas in Holland where the Islamic Sharia law is being practiced.
http://www.euxonline.com/dutch-vvd-bolkestein-warns-of-ethnic-apartheid

LGF Pages - Sharia would create legal apartheid in Britain
Feb 26, 2008 – The reality is that the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims is actually the logical endpoint of the now discredited doctrine of ...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/19514_Sharia_would_create_legal_apar

Civil Rights | American Public Policy Alliance
These groups understand what is at stake: Shariah doctrine in America is the 21st century equivalent to Jim Crow segregation laws and apartheid laws.
http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=195

Taliban
A Pashtoon city, Kandahar has accepted the Taliban’s strict version of sharia ... increasing dogmatism and ‘gender apartheid’ by the denial of basic human rights ...
http://www.womenaid.org/humanrights/shadows/taliban.htm

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine
by A. M. Dershowitz
September 21, 2011 at 11:30 am
Sep 21, 2011 – It wants Palestine to be a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law... The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that “Islam is the official religion in Palestine.” It also states that Sharia Law will be “the major source of legislation.” It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership which supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion. Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one. It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics. Indeed, a very high proportion of Israelis describe themselves as secular...
To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion..
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2442/united-nations-palestine

Ban Koran-burning?
If Islam becomes a protected faith, free expression will be no more
The Washington Times
Thursday, April 7, 2011
... Shariah law - the legal basis of most Islamic states - is a form of religious apartheid, systematically classifying Christians and Jews as third-class citizens. Christophobia and anti-Semitism are rampant in the Muslim world.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/7/ban-koran-burning

Fears and Smears
National Review Online - ‎Oct 22, 2011‎
Moreover, they believe this can be done mostly without violence, through a sedulous campaign of voluntary apartheid (integrating with but not assimilating into the West) and the infiltration of sharia principles into our law and our institutions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280997/fears-and-smears-andrew-c-mccarthy

New Republic - Sep 29, 2011
Wierdly, the progressives talk all the time about class, apartheid (in Israel where it doesn't exist) but somehow doesn't see us women as a class and is loathe to speak out about the mistreatment of half the people on the planet.
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/95539/saudi-arabia-women-voting-human-rights

Islamophobia is Not an Irrational Fear, Nor is it the Fear of Islam.
AINA (press release) - [Oct. 24, 2011]
Moreover, they believe this can be done mostly without violence, through a sedulous campaign of voluntary apartheid (integrating with but not assimilating into the West) and the infiltration of sharia principles into our law and our institutions.
http://www.aina.org/news/20111024103759.htm

Sharia: Obama-encouraged Libyan transitional council approves polygamy,...
Daily Caller - Neil Munro - ‎[Oct. 24, 2011]
... Abdul-Jalil's announced support for Islamic law could have meant anything between a symbolic nod to fundamentalist rebel groups and a promise for Saudi-style theocracy — complete with apartheid-style treatment of Muslim women and Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. His announcement ending the Gadhafi-era ban on polygamy suggests that he and his allies intend to implement much of Sharia.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/24/sharia-obama-encouraged-libyan-transitional-council-approves-polygamy-bans-banking-interest/

StopShariaNow

September 11, 2011

On the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the time is right to consider how we have changed as a country and how we remain the same.  It is a widely-accepted truism that we were all changed after the terrorist attacks in Washington, DC, New York, and Pennsylvania. However, even though some made use of the fear and heated emotions following the attacks to suppress human and civil rights, our bedrock principles endure, and in fact, flourish.

Throughout the history of our country, we have struggled to navigate the tension between security and fairness.  At times, we have experienced shameful failures – the World War II internment camps for Japanese Americans are a notable example.  And yet, our democracy continues, striving to reaffirm our national unity of purpose. This tension is not a simple intellectual exercise – it goes to the heart of what America will be. This dialog and our ability to have it demonstrate how deeply our country values freedom.

In the decade since September 11, 2001, the evolution of our counterterrorism policies has clearly exemplified this struggle.  Some of the measures we’ve taken have put human rights at risk and promoted suspicion of particular communities. The indefinite detentions following the Patriot Act are one example. However, an atmosphere of suspicion toward immigrants and our history of immigration risks a core element of our country and does not make us safer. In fact, the opposite is true.  Experts have noted that the decision to institute military commissions in the wake of the attacks had the potential to place the men and women of our own armed services at greater risk. Moreover, alienating or demonizing some of our communities prevents the flow of information that is vital to effective security, damages our unity, and most importantly, violates our fundamental values.

Our commitment to fundamental freedoms and human rights must trump partisan political divisions as we work together to ensure American security. We must reject ethnic or racial stereotyping, we must protect religious freedom, we must protect civil and human rights, and we must stand together – to prevent losing even more than the lives we lost that day and the human rights we lost in the aftermath.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads