obama's law ruled Americans can be indefinitely detain

[bigrebnc1775]

Excuse, but me did I misspell something?

nope, just didnt understand your point

Likely because there isn’t one.

Liberals claim that Romney is the say anything candidate. That is a true statement I have seen the attack threads on Romney. So is he now the say anything candidate or not?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

nope, just didnt understand your point

Likely because there isn’t one.

Liberals claim that Romney is the say anything candidate. That is a true statement I have seen the attack threads on Romney. So is he now the say anything candidate or not?

Liberals here have used this as an argument against Romney

 

[Plasmaball]

Excuse, but me did I misspell something?

nope, just didnt understand your point

Again I thought Romney was the say anything candidate according to the left.

he is but what does that have to do with him supporting the NDAA?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

nope, just didnt understand your point

Again I thought Romney was the say anything candidate according to the left.

he is but what does that have to do with him supporting the NDAA?

He'll say anything right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Romney, unfortunately, will support the NDAA if and when it comes up again.

Romney will also keep kicking the Tea Party in the mouth on other issues.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again I thought Romney was the say anything candidate according to the left.

he is but what does that have to do with him supporting the NDAA?

He'll say anything right?

WOW how things change with liberals they can't even keep up with their own propaganda against Romney.

 

[paulitician]

he is but what does that have to do with him supporting the NDAA?

He'll say anything right?

WOW how things change with liberals they can't even keep up with their own propaganda against Romney.

Police States are all the rage with the Socialists/Progressives. Just put a 'D' in front of their name, and the sheep will go along with anything. Big Brother has this stuff down to a science. He knows his flock so well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians will enslave the masses given the chance to enact a society of "equals".

You pricks are the flip side of communism, a society of equals managed by cadres.

 

[paulitician]

Libertarians will enslave the masses given the chance to enact a society of "equals".

You pricks are the flip side of communism, a society of equals managed by cadres.

You're very confused. It's you Socialists/Progressives along with Neocons, who are forcing this Police State on us. You're just a typical simpleton who will go along with anything depending on which letter comes before a Politician's name. You're not nearly as sophisticated or intelligent as you think you are. Just slap a Democrat label on em, and you'll Goose Step along with anything proposed. That's very sad but it is what it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can't even use socialism in context to what has happened since 1902 in America. The simpletons like you and the Communists come up with simplistic systems that ignore human nature and think you have solved America's problem.

You are as worthless as Lenin or Hitler or bigrebnc.

 

[Plasmaball]

he is but what does that have to do with him supporting the NDAA?

He'll say anything right?

WOW how things change with liberals they can't even keep up with their own propaganda against Romney.

So you are saying romrom is a liar and you are going to vote for a liar. Good to know.

 

[paulitician]

You can't even use socialism in context to what has happened since 1902 in America. The simpletons like you and the Communists come up with simplistic systems that ignore human nature and think you have solved America's problem.

You are as worthless as Lenin or Hitler or bigrebnc.

Yeah, you are very confused. And unfortunately, you're far from being alone on that. Like i said, just slap a 'Democrat' label before their name, and you'll Goose Step away in support of anything. You are a confused simpleton. It is what it is.

 

[Liability]

The wording in section 1031 and 1032 which obama signed one part does not pertain to Citizens and the other does not give any protection to Citizens.
Judge Forrest said that the act is too vague and could have a “chilling effect” on free speech, noting that it appears to give the president “necessary force against anyone he deems involved in activities supporting enemy combatants, and therefore criminal laws and due process are suspended for any acts falling within the broad purview of what might constitute ‘substantially’ or ‘directly supporting’ terrorist organizations. If this is what Congress in fact intended, no doubt it goes too far.”

And now the Department of Justice is calling Forrest's ruling "unprecedented," arguing that the government has long had the authority to detain anyone it deems a threat to the county, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported Friday.

Read more: Obama Administration Fights For The NDAA - Business Insider

After all we are supposed to have due process and the military is not supposed to have any interaction with civilian authority.

You and I have debated this before. Your "reading" of the law is still simply wrong.

Yes we have

Here we go again
President given authority to detain
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Any person

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

You insist on ignoring the relevant language.

The Court chose not to.

This is why your "argument" was bogus the first time. And it's why your argument still is bogus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You armpit theory of what America needs will always smell.

Yes, there are plenty of GOP and Dems that are going to never let you silly asses ever have more than 2 to 3% of the vote. And when you do have a candidate, whether Dr. Paul or Governor Johnson, you assholes can't agree on the color of the sky.

Just a joke, this "libertarian" loony movement.

You can't even use socialism in context to what has happened since 1902 in America. The simpletons like you and the Communists come up with simplistic systems that ignore human nature and think you have solved America's problem.

You are as worthless as Lenin or Hitler or bigrebnc.

Yeah, you are very confused. And unfortunately, you're far from being alone on that. Like i said, just slap a 'Democrat' label before their name, and you'll Goose Step away in support of anything. You are a confused simpleton. It is what it is.

 

[Liability]

I thought the left was pushing the say anything Romney stick?

what?

Excuse, but me did I misspell something?

Yes.

Schtick is not spelled "stick."

 

[Liability]

You and I have debated this before. Your "reading" of the law is still simply wrong.

Yes we have

Here we go again
President given authority to detain
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Any person

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

I will also add in supporting the Libyan Rebel's and supporting the Syrian rebels obama has done this very act.

That doesn't even make sense and has no bearing on the topic under actual discussion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

what?

Excuse, but me did I misspell something?

Yes.

Schtick is not spelled "stick."

No as in stick up his ass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes we have

Here we go again
President given authority to detain
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Any person

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

I will also add in supporting the Libyan Rebel's and supporting the Syrian rebels obama has done this very act.

That doesn't even make sense and has no bearing on the topic under actual discussion.

I thought you were smarter than this.
obama violated the very law he has signed. when he gave aid to al-Qaeda in Libya (Libyan rebels), and is giving aid to al-Qaeda in Syria ( Syrian rebels)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You and I have debated this before. Your "reading" of the law is still simply wrong.

Yes we have

Here we go again
President given authority to detain
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Any person

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

You insist on ignoring the relevant language.

The Court chose not to.

This is why your "argument" was bogus the first time. And it's why your argument still is bogus.

Who is ANY PERSON?

 

[Liability]

Yes we have

Here we go again
President given authority to detain
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Any person

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

You insist on ignoring the relevant language.

The Court chose not to.

This is why your "argument" was bogus the first time. And it's why your argument still is bogus.

Who is ANY PERSON?

Who cares?

Who is specifically EXEMPTED?