Obama regime wins back right to indefinitely detain you

[Sallow]

Nice way to dodge the debate, but you just proved my point. Thanks Yankee. That was for the liberal shill from New Yawk.

Dodge what debate?

You folks want to engage in name calling.

That's not debate.

Unless you are "debating" what name to call.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What are you defending here anyway, shallow?

Seriously?

is it really your contention that the president didn't want these provisions and has no liability for them being signed into law?
That he was forced because the republicans are saying he wants to dismantle the military, so he was forced to sign, and then defend in court, proviions that he objected to in the first place?

Do you have any idea how illogical this sounds?

 

[Sallow]

he objected to it so much that he signed the bill anyway instead of sending it back for revision. Then when challenged on those provisions of the law, he fought in court to keep them.

You're such a gullible useful idiot, bro.

Not sure what you expected to happen.

The Republicans were playing both "poison pill" and "the Bush administration was right", with a little "Obama is trying to destroy the military" put in the mix for good measure.

How do you think any President you supported would have handled it?

Excuses, excuses.

If he didn't support those provisions, he would have allowed them to die instead of fighting it in court. He wanted those provisions in there, for whatever reason. He told a nice lie about it to his loyal followers so you could come back to the topic with the excuses.

He signed it. He fought for them and regardless of what bullshit passed his lying lips, he owns those provisions. Regardless of republican this, republican that.

It's just pathetic that you try to excuse and justify in order to avoid having to accept the obvious.

Feel free.

Answer the question.

Or just tell me what a terrible person I am.

Whatever's clever.

But the reality is, is that this sort of thing has been in place for quite some time. It went into overdrive with the Bush administration, but our government has been doing this with "the bad guys" for a very long time.

It's only gotten codified recently with the whole "enemy combatants" thing (remember that? It was used during the civil war).

This was a political ploy. So in terms of politics..not really sure what result you were looking for..

Which was why I asked the question.

You folks seem to think President Obama's a wild eyed anti colonial radical. When the opposite is true.

 

[Sallow]

What are you defending here anyway, shallow?

Seriously?

is it really your contention that the president didn't want these provisions and has no liability for them being signed into law?
That he was forced because the republicans are saying he wants to dismantle the military, so he was forced to sign, and then defend in court, proviions that he objected to in the first place?

Do you have any idea how illogical this sounds?

Welcome to Chinatown, Jake.

Or, American Politics.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Answer what question? What a president I support would do? He'd send it back for revisions adn explain why it was sent back so there was no speculating. Making it clear that these over reaches will not be codified into law.

All you can do is point to Bush and say it was ramped up! Meanwhile in the now, it's being further rampe dup and you act liek it's just what Obama had to do. It's a never ending string of excuses from you.

it's also completely an dutterly illogical and irrational to even debate with you, so i digress. You're head is granite rock thick, bro.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What are you defending here anyway, shallow?

Seriously?

is it really your contention that the president didn't want these provisions and has no liability for them being signed into law?
That he was forced because the republicans are saying he wants to dismantle the military, so he was forced to sign, and then defend in court, proviions that he objected to in the first place?

Do you have any idea how illogical this sounds?

Welcome to Chinatown, Jake.

Or, American Politics.

Good answer. So your contention is that it was completely out of his hands. Got it.

He bares no blame. But, he never does in your eyes, does he? He just has to do these things because of the evil republicans.

Grow the fuck up and wise up, dude.

 

[Sallow]

Answer what question? What a president I support would do? He'd send it back for revisions adn explain why it was sent back so there was no speculating. Making it clear that these over reaches will not be codified into law.

All you can do is point to Bush and say it was ramped up! Meanwhile in the now, it's being further rampe dup and you act liek it's just what Obama had to do. It's a never ending string of excuses from you.

it's also completely an dutterly illogical and irrational to even debate with you, so i digress. You're head is granite rock thick, bro.

What president past or present..or that is viable in the future would have done anything different?

Reagan? Bush? Eisenhower? Clinton? Johnson? Kennedy?

Go for it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The author of the OP ought to try -- reading:

Granted the "article" he cites is written poorly; and poorly edited (it appears) by a dope like TderpM. (Earn some free rep: figure out what word is missing or what words are missing in the opening paragraph, if you can.)

But the money quote IS still there:

“We conclude that plaintiffs lack standing to seek preenforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction,” reads Wednesday’s decision. “The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens. And while Section 1021 does have a real bearing on those who are neither citizens nor lawful resident aliens and who are apprehended abroad, the non-citizen plaintiffs also have failed to establish standing because they have not shown a sufficient threat that the government will detain them under Section 1021. Accordingly, we do not address the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Hawaii is not part of Kenya.

Fun fact.

 

[Gardener]

Obama Wins Back The Right To Indefinitely Detain Under NDAA - Liberty Crier

The man makes Hitler look like a nice guy I swear.

You actually think Obama is much worse than Hitler?????????????????

OMG

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He objected to it...but he'll use it now that he has it.

Yep. Just like DHS.
It's a scam both sides play on the American people.

 

[Sallow]

What are you defending here anyway, shallow?

Seriously?

is it really your contention that the president didn't want these provisions and has no liability for them being signed into law?
That he was forced because the republicans are saying he wants to dismantle the military, so he was forced to sign, and then defend in court, proviions that he objected to in the first place?

Do you have any idea how illogical this sounds?

Welcome to Chinatown, Jake.

Or, American Politics.

Good answer. So your contention is that it was completely out of his hands. Got it.

He bares no blame. But, he never does in your eyes, does he? He just has to do these things because of the evil republicans.

Grow the fuck up and wise up, dude.

I'm sorry..did you say "Grow up"?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Answer what question? What a president I support would do? He'd send it back for revisions adn explain why it was sent back so there was no speculating. Making it clear that these over reaches will not be codified into law.

All you can do is point to Bush and say it was ramped up! Meanwhile in the now, it's being further rampe dup and you act liek it's just what Obama had to do. It's a never ending string of excuses from you.

it's also completely an dutterly illogical and irrational to even debate with you, so i digress. You're head is granite rock thick, bro.

What president past or present..or that is viable in the future would have done anything different?

Reagan? Bush? Eisenhower? Clinton? Johnson? Kennedy?

Go for it.

Is this the best you can do? Play past or present?

Obama signed this into law. He objected based on the same type of "objections" he always gives. A bunch of lip service that is absolutely untrustworthy.

He signed it.

he fought for them in court. Not once, but twice and you continue to point at republicans as though he would have been any more scrutinized by them if he actually had the integrity to act on his rhetoric?

Resigned the patriot act
gave us ndaa 2012 provision
assassination lists
killing americans abroad without due process
arming terroists

Well, republicans made him do it!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Welcome to Chinatown, Jake.

Or, American Politics.

Good answer. So your contention is that it was completely out of his hands. Got it.

He bares no blame. But, he never does in your eyes, does he? He just has to do these things because of the evil republicans.

Grow the fuck up and wise up, dude.

I'm sorry..did you say "Grow up"?

No, i said grow the fuck up. The problem is, I dont think you can. You have rocks in your head, dude. it's unfortunate, but you're not alone. I suppose thats a consolation prize of a sort.

Anyway, you're hopeless.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

NDAA Indefinite Detention Challenge Shot Down by Appeals Court | Long Island Press

Lead plaintiff Hedges posted his response to Wednesday’s ruling on TruthDig.com, where he’s a columnist:

“This is quite distressing. It means there is no recourse now either within the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of government to halt the steady assault on our civil liberties and most basic Constitutional rights. It means that the state can use the military, overturning over two centuries of domestic law, to use troops on the streets to seize U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military detention centers. States that accrue to themselves this kind of power, history has shown, will use it. We will appeal, but the Supreme Court is not required to hear our appeal. It is a black day for those who care about liberty.”

Unreachable by telephone Wednesday, plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Afran insisted to the Press the viability of his clients’ standing in February.

“The journalists are in fact directly within the scope of the law,” he contended. “The journalists are harmed or brought within the statute.”

 

[Sallow]

Answer what question? What a president I support would do? He'd send it back for revisions adn explain why it was sent back so there was no speculating. Making it clear that these over reaches will not be codified into law.

All you can do is point to Bush and say it was ramped up! Meanwhile in the now, it's being further rampe dup and you act liek it's just what Obama had to do. It's a never ending string of excuses from you.

it's also completely an dutterly illogical and irrational to even debate with you, so i digress. You're head is granite rock thick, bro.

What president past or present..or that is viable in the future would have done anything different?

Reagan? Bush? Eisenhower? Clinton? Johnson? Kennedy?

Go for it.

Is this the best you can do? Play past or present?

Obama signed this into law. He objected based on the same type of "objections" he always gives. A bunch of lip service that is absolutely untrustworthy.

He signed it.

he fought for them in court. Not once, but twice and you continue to point at republicans as though he would have been any more scrutinized by them if he actually had the integrity to act on his rhetoric?

Resigned the patriot act
gave us ndaa 2012 provision
assassination lists
killing americans abroad without due process
arming terroists

Well, republicans made him do it!!

Yeah..you are so convincing me.

Impeach Obama now.

Where do I sign on for your newsletter..

 

[Sallow]

Good answer. So your contention is that it was completely out of his hands. Got it.

He bares no blame. But, he never does in your eyes, does he? He just has to do these things because of the evil republicans.

Grow the fuck up and wise up, dude.

I'm sorry..did you say "Grow up"?

No, i said grow the fuck up. The problem is, I dont think you can. You have rocks in your head, dude. it's unfortunate, but you're not alone. I suppose thats a consolation prize of a sort.

Anyway, you're hopeless.

Yessiree..hopeless.

You go Don Quixote! Tell the world!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGSYAYZjI5k]RICHARD KILEY "The Impossible Dream" on The Ed Sullivan Show - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

Obama Wins Back The Right To Indefinitely Detain Under NDAA - Liberty Crier

The man makes Hitler look like a nice guy I swear.

Oh man..you guys are rich.

That's the clause of the NDAA, Obama actually objected too.

Ahh.. is that why he vetoed it?

 

[Sallow]

Obama Wins Back The Right To Indefinitely Detain Under NDAA - Liberty Crier

The man makes Hitler look like a nice guy I swear.

Oh man..you guys are rich.

That's the clause of the NDAA, Obama actually objected too.

Ahh.. is that why he vetoed it?

It's groundhog day!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Obama Wins Back The Right To Indefinitely Detain Under NDAA - Liberty Crier

The man makes Hitler look like a nice guy I swear.

Oh man..you guys are rich.

That's the clause of the NDAA, Obama actually objected too.

Ahh.. is that why he vetoed it?

There was no line item veto available.

There still isn't.

I don't know that he would have used a line item veto if it had been an option. But since it wasn't, the question is kind of pointless.

If he wanted to have the military funded, he had to accept the legislation as presented.

Don't get me wrong. I can't abide Pres. Obama. But in criticizing him, fair is still fair. And the fact that he couldn't and didn't veto the Act is not ground for fair criticism, in my humble estimation.