The Real Reason for Obama's Threat to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill (Hint: It's Not to Protect Liberty)

George Washington's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
johnjb32's picture

The stench from Washington is overwhelming. -- Michael C. Ruppert

my puppy for prez's picture

This is what the empire-building, global-fascists do NOT want you to see:

Very hard to watch...not for the faint of heart or the willfully ignorant.

steelrules's picture

Powerful, thank you for posting.

forrestdweller's picture

the USA has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world.

between 7 and 8 million people are being held in prison, one in every 32 americans?

let's make a law to keep people detained indefinitely. that is a good plan.

forrestdweller's picture


torture your own citizens.

do it abroad to keep up the illusion that there is no torture in the USA.

call your citizens terrorists just to be able te keep them detained indefinitely.

what a country.

a government should act on behalf of its citizens, not against its citizens.


steelrules's picture

Maybe in the end it's going to be a needed cull. The sad part is patriots will die defending the freedom of these animals.

besnook's picture

obama is threatening veto in a brilliant political move to get something he approves of while being absolved of it's approval. the measure passed by a huge veto proof margin. so when congress over rides the veto obama can safely say he opposed the measure. the reason he gave for opposing the measure(it infringes executive power) is a ploy to prevent the republicans from claiming he is soft on terror. simple as that.

CatoTheElder's picture

@The Laughing Man

The term "police state" as defined in just about any dictionary fits the US pretty well: "a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to established legal processes". Gas chambers, firing squads, and killing fields are optional, but are not essential to the dictionary definition of police state.

MarketWatchTerrorist's picture

You name yourself after a Roman statesman.  He names himself after something from an obscure Japanese anime pop culture trash from the 1990's.


You write in complete sentences and express coherent thoughts.  He writes in teeny bopper Facebook/text message gibberish and expresses only HURR DURRR.


Don't waste your time on trolls.

Darkness's picture


What would Ron Paul do?

cranky-old-geezer's picture



Geneva convention only applies to soldiers in uniform, not "terrorists", so no, that can't be the reason Obama threatens a veto. 

It's more likely backlash generated by news of this detention bill going viral on the internet.  Obama couldn't handle the embarrassment of signing it with so many people knowing what's in the bill.  He threatens a veto to save face and not further hurt his (poor) re-election chances.

jmc8888's picture

Obama already claims the draconian powers in the bill.  No need to put it on paper, so the idiotic fascist thinking goes in order to CYA.


TheAkashicRecord's picture

The Khmer Rouge Regime in Cambodia, the police state lead by Pinochet in Chile and the Gestapo all used waterboarding. 

But when we do it, it's an enhanced interrogation technique.  Funny, most of these pro-torture folks also claim to abhor the moral relativism they say plagues the Democratic Party.  

xcehn's picture

Yes, and war is now called 'kinetic,' something no doubt inspired by an energy drink.  The nazis were also fond of their euphemisms. Slippery slope.


FlyPaper's picture

I am wondering why individuals submit articles by other authors without identifying them?  George?

Paul Craig Roberts wrote this article.

I'm very happy to have it repeated on Zero, but at least credit the writer!

George Washington's picture

The first half is Mr. Roberts. I properly attributed and linked.

The second half is very different, and isn't in Mr. Roberts' essay.

jeaton's picture

Let me ask a simple question.  If 9/11 was a false flag op perpetrated in order to justify the invasion of Iraq for oil, then why did we not get any of the oil.  And why did we delay and screw around with Afghanistan?  As far as I can tell we did not get any of the Afghans' sand, dirt or camels either.  

And before someone throws out that it was all so that Halliburton could get the contracts to rebuild, I can think of a hundred ways to accomplish this task much more efficiently.  

If you say it was to enrich the weapons manufacturers then this was poorly executed as the "shock and awe" with the expensive fireworks was over in a relatively short time.  If they really wanted to crank up the assembly lines they could have chose a better bit player that could have put on a more convincing act.  

I am sure the tin foil hat brigade will flame away, but I am asking these questions in a sincere fashion.  Where was the payoff?

my puppy for prez's picture

It's NOT "just about oil", although it does factor in.

The overarching agenda is "destableiziing" the entire region in order to move closer to a banker/globalist controlled New World Order.  And don't give me that "tin foil hat" crap!  The bigwigs talk about the NWO in public all the time!

Iraq has allowed the military to establish permanent bases (don't believe the propaganda that we will completely leave Iraq), controlling airspace, starting the domino effect of overthrowing targeted dictatorships who no longer serve the globalists' purpose.

The globalists that run our govt. and military have a lovely global order in mind.  I bet you can't wait!

Dugald's picture

With claims of up to a thousand dollars cost per gallon of fuel delivered etc someone was making a buck.....

Janestool's picture

No the NATO allies got the oil, but what need did we have for NATO after the Cold War ended?

my puppy for prez's picture

It is the nascient form (test run, if you will) for a global military force....getting people used to the idea of trans-sovereign military cooperation.  Also, NATO nations have common political interests to this conquering the world for global dictatorship.

saiybat's picture

This is appeal to belief. What does what we get in return for war have to do with whether 9/11 was a false flag or not? Here's a historical example that's contrary to what you just said; the British Empire and what did the average Englishman get? Since the British Empire was huge and in control of many resources you would think there was prosperity and spoils of war for the average person. They didn't get shit and were for the most part in poverty.

Here's a short background on living conditions at the height of the British empire. Life in Britain was so bad it led to the largest mass emigration in history.




jomama's picture

There were (are) geodemographic, political manipulation 'advantages' to set up shop in iraq.  To say that we didn't get the oil is a fallacy, as one of the main reasons the US went in is because Saddam said he will start trading oil in Euros. So in essence, yes, we did get the oil there, regardless of which contractor and their mercanaries are benefitting the most.  

The MIC is also not known for being efficient.  Nor is that even remotely their aim. Ever.

TheAkashicRecord's picture

I follow your line of logic and tend to agree with you there, but I also think that the "payoff" may not have happened yet and we are analyzing things on too short of a time-frame.   

A Lunatic's picture

The purpose of war is to waste resources; human, environmental and monetary while justifying the ever increasing scope of an unconstitutional standing army. Efficiency never enters the equation. The rich get richer.

jeaton's picture

I don't think that I can buy the "to waste resources" logic as an end unto itself.  A power grab is a feasible theory, so lets follow it a bit.  Who got more power than they already had and to what benefit?  I am open to the idea that the Patriot Act, etc. expanded the powers of the Federal gov, but again, to what end.  If you say the rich got richer, then by what means? 

I am willing to "follow the money," but not in a circular logic fashion like a dog chasing his tail.  Who got richer, appreciably richer?  Please note that I am somewhat suspect of the "follow the money" theory, as it implies that no one does anything from a growth and benevolence perspective.  There are other ways to make a buck.  

Again, bear with me.  I am sincerely curious.   

my puppy for prez's picture

To what end?

The endgame is a loss of sovereignty for ALL countries and a new global government!  This is NOT hard to understand and is supportable by a sea of documentation!

A Lunatic's picture

I do not belive the wasting of resources to be the end goal. I merely state that war need not be efficient; in fact it is more profitable for the war mongers if it is not. There is not one country on the planet that we could not turn into glass with the simple push of a button. Cheap, efficient, quick and easy. But what would happen to the small arms trade? The war against the illegal trafficking of small arms? The ammo depots? Etc. infinity. Who would need to make the loans? Wars cost money. Bankers have money. Politicians are whores. Whores sell out for more money. Money is addictive. Addicts are trapped in a life of circular reasoning. Yes there are other (legitimate) ways to make a buck.

jeaton's picture

I follow you.  Maybe it is easier to contemplate if one starts with the concept of the "war on drugs." 

Those that get to decide the allocation of resources are not as prone to look at the process as wasteful. 

YHC-FTSE's picture

Let me add something to that answer.

Why did we not get any oil? Do you see Iraqi companies drilling in Iraq, or are they American? Control the production of crude, you control the wholesale price. Control the refineries, you control the retail price. If you know anything about the merchantile exchanges, you would know that controlling the price of commodities is much more profitable than owning a few million barrels. 


If you could think of a hundred ways for Halliburton to get more contracts with all the public scrutiny that attracted in Iraq, then I am sure they will hire you with open arms. The lobbyists for the weapons manufacturers would also be delighted to have someone of your calibre show them the complex political dance of representatives in a bidding war of their own to entice military money to their areas, against the backdrop of the Pentagon's budgetary constraints, bids, offers and rate of expenditure. Show them how you could "crank up the assembly lines" even more, and I am sure they will be properly impressed. 


If I was simple and new to the world, I'd probably be asking the same questions, so I am taking it easy on a newbie. Try getting your news from any other source than the msm, and in a few short years/months (depending on your learning curve) you'll come back and realize what almost everyone here is talking about. 

xcehn's picture

The change Obama believes in amounts to the totalitarian police state.

A Lunatic's picture

It was like that when he got there.

xcehn's picture

And he's made it much worse despite his campaign pledges to turn away from the bush-cheney edicts.

nothing can go wrogn's picture

Don't mean to digress here....but who the hell did Natalie Portman get a job as an "actress?" I've never seen someone so flat and uninspiring behind a camera.

She's got the cute lil' preppy cheerleader face...but come on? I'm not buying it.

YHC-FTSE's picture

If America of liberty, freedom, and truth ever existed, and some doubt it ever did, it is now dead. It is an ex-parrot. 

I am only telling you this as a friend. The kind of friend who tells you the truth, the way things are, even though it hurts for your own good before something terrible happens. America is a corporatist fascist state at perpetual war for profit for the elites and the spooks. The days of anti-war heroes, the John Denver songs, and the reflective conscience of intelligent people are long gone - they are all dead. In fact, in places like Australia, beautiful American anti-war songs are used to excuse and justify America's warmongering ways by the Murdoch press.

I reflect on the US with great sadness - a mad, violent, lying, grabbing, desperate debtor with delusions of grandeur and dreams of cruelty for whatever it deems "wrong", the nature and definition of which changes with the seasons. Somedays, I almost pray for an ambulance to take America away to a mental institution where it cannot harm others or itself. 

videopro's picture

While everyone debates whether we have a police state or not, the Los Angeles Police Department already has an answer to your question

See what it is here:

Flocking swans's picture

OR.... an unknown anarchist movement pops up and shoots some cops, a mall santa, and steals the baby jeebus off the courthouse lawn....then you know he'd just have to sign it... to save xmas...

Maybe even with a good ol 'signing statement' on the back of the bill getting rid of those pesky Geneva 'issues'...

Grinder74's picture

That Star Wars clip could be used for the passing of Obamacare too.  Sure was a lot of applause going on during that raping of our liberties.

Richard Head's picture

Yet another example of why Obama is dangerous and must be ejected from the Oval Office.  I thought I'd be surprised that McCain's fingerprints are all over this too, but he has gone looney over the last 7-8 (?) years.  I fully expected Sen. Levin to be involved in this atrocity though.

A Lunatic's picture

Terrorism is a STRATEGY.  The ultimate goal of course has nothing to do with fighting "terror" but to broaden the scope and definition of bogeyman (terrorist) until it encompasses any who are not enthusiastically supportive of everything this fascist government decides to do, now or ever.  There is absolutely no law whatever that can prevent someone from committing the most heinous atrocities known to man today, tomorrow, or sometime next week. If the law were sufficient to prevent Evil we should all be living in Utopia........not the next Ethiopia.

The Heart's picture

3. "It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare."


Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion--Protocol 1

pods's picture

No wonder you are called A Lunatic, I understand and agree entirely.

Yet all the "sane" people will throw themselves at the feet of authority begging for security.

Well, not sane, but I think you know what I am saying.


Pitchman's picture

It is only a mater of time when some joystick cowboy in Nevada starts taking out American's right here in the good old USA...  USA. USA. USA!!!  911 Patriotism morphs into blood lust.  Sick. sick world!

The Disappearance of Chivalry - George Santayana & Murder By Joystick

Dugald's picture

Chivalry died when men began hiding inside tin suits, and it has been all down hill since, if only we could deal life with the innovation and speed with which we are able to deal destruction.