Obama regime wins back right to indefinitely detain you

[dblack]

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.

It's an utterly fair criticism of Sallow's claim that Obama was supposedly opposed to a law that (a) he signed and (b) his lawyers vigorously defended before the court. Obama supporters can't have it both ways.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

All that had to happen was a veto and send it back for revision and removal of those provisions. it's not like the congress was going to halt funding of the military. Thats just fear mongering and nonsense. Doomsday bullshit.

the reality is, Obama wanted those provisions in NDAA 2012, contrary to shallow's assertion to the contrary.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

It's it's utterly fair criticism of Sallow's claim that Obama was supposedly opposed to a law that (a) he signed and (b) his lawyers vigorously defended before the court. Obama supporters can't have it both ways.

I get your point, but I am only in partial agreement.

Pres. Obama's TRUE objection to the NDAA was the GITMO component. But if he also objected to the provisions we are now discussing, he still couldn't responsibly veto the law that funded the military.

Where the criticism you make of Sallow's position has more logical persuasive power is found in the fact that the Administration sure did defend those provisions in Court..

Personally, I am happy to see it. I am no fan of Pres. Obama, but maybe (it's possible) he simply grew a bit in the job, and came to belatedly see that, as the President and Commander in Chief, he really did need those tools. So, he dropped his prior opposition and decided to do the right thing and change his mind.

If that's what happened, then props to the Pres.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

All that had to happen was a veto and send it back for revision and removal of those provisions. it's not like the congress was going to halt funding of the military. Thats just fear mongering and nonsense. Doomsday bullshit.

the reality is, Obama wanted those provisions in NDAA 2012, contrary to shallow's assertion to the contrary.

^ nonsense. That would be wildly irresponsible.

 

[Sallow]

All that had to happen was a veto and send it back for revision and removal of those provisions. it's not like the congress was going to halt funding of the military. Thats just fear mongering and nonsense. Doomsday bullshit.

the reality is, Obama wanted those provisions in NDAA 2012, contrary to shallow's assertion to the contrary.

And if you think that's what would have happened?

I have a bridge in Brooklyn, cheap.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it would have been the responsible and constitutional thing to do.

I get it, you side heavily with spying on americans, the suspension of fundemental liberties, etc..but to say that funding would have seized because he actually vetoed a bill and sent it back for revision is just fear mongering. Nothing more.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

All that had to happen was a veto and send it back for revision and removal of those provisions. it's not like the congress was going to halt funding of the military. Thats just fear mongering and nonsense. Doomsday bullshit.

the reality is, Obama wanted those provisions in NDAA 2012, contrary to shallow's assertion to the contrary.

And if you think that's what would have happened?

I have a bridge in Brooklyn, cheap.

I dont have to think that's what WOULD have happened, dullard. It didn't happen. He wanted those provisions. plain and simple. Any assertion to the contrary doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[dblack]

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.

It's it's utterly fair criticism of Sallow's claim that Obama was supposedly opposed to a law that (a) he signed and (b) his lawyers vigorously defended before the court. Obama supporters can't have it both ways.

I get your point, but I am only in partial agreement.

Pres. Obama's TRUE objection to the NDAA was the GITMO component. But if he also objected to the provisions we are now discussing, he still couldn't responsibly veto the law that funded the military.

Where the criticism you make of Sallow's position has more logical persuasive power is found in the fact that the Administration sure did defend those provisions in Court..

Personally, I am happy to see it. I am no fan of Pres. Obama, but maybe (it's possible) he simply grew a bit in the job, and came to belatedly see that, as the President and Commander in Chief, he really did need those tools. So, he dropped his prior opposition and decided to do the right thing and change his mind.

If that's what happened, then props to the Pres.

I've always been a little surprised that more neo-cons don't jump on the bandwagon with Obama - or at least giving him his props for implementing their policies. He's sure as hell not a libertarian.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Wtf?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's it's utterly fair criticism of Sallow's claim that Obama was supposedly opposed to a law that (a) he signed and (b) his lawyers vigorously defended before the court. Obama supporters can't have it both ways.

I get your point, but I am only in partial agreement.

Pres. Obama's TRUE objection to the NDAA was the GITMO component. But if he also objected to the provisions we are now discussing, he still couldn't responsibly veto the law that funded the military.

Where the criticism you make of Sallow's position has more logical persuasive power is found in the fact that the Administration sure did defend those provisions in Court..

Personally, I am happy to see it. I am no fan of Pres. Obama, but maybe (it's possible) he simply grew a bit in the job, and came to belatedly see that, as the President and Commander in Chief, he really did need those tools. So, he dropped his prior opposition and decided to do the right thing and change his mind.

If that's what happened, then props to the Pres.

I've always been a little surprised that more neo-cons don't jump on the bandwagon with Obama - or at least giving him his props for implementing their policies. He's sure as hell not a libertarian.

I am not a neocon. That's just a handy rag tag label that gets misused a lot by folks who cannot think clearly or speak honestly.

I remain a conservative.

And I am not jumping on any Obama bandwagon. I am merely acknowledging that he did apparently change his mind and I am grateful that the change went from stupid slovenly lolberal thinking to more sophisticated and mature statesmanlike thinking.

You may not agree, but I think America and the Republic are worth saving, as are the lives of our people and the preservation of our property interests. I think all of that IS under attack. I happen not to believe that the terrorist scumbags are just some childhood bogeyman under our beds. They really do exist; they really are ******* unspeakably evil motherfuckers; they really do want to kill us. And we have every legitimate right to try to intercept their ******* communications and undermine their plots and plans and to root them out and kill them. This is why, as a conservative, I ENDORSE the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA Surveillance program.

And yet, even as I endorse it I have no qualms about acknowledging the risks inherent in such powers (the Constitutional rights and our liberty interests, etc., which such laws could potentially threaten, could be compromised by such powers). Thus, as a conservative, I go back to basic principles: CHECKS and BALANCES. OVERSIGHT.

Lots of laughable progressives and other lolberals as well as some libertarian and some misguided conservatives jump all over my shit for my position. Oh nosies. The horror.

**** that. None of those criticisms I have had directed at me address the various facets of the problems I have identified. Until they do, the criticisms tend to be just reflexive spouting of talking points. They are not all that serious, in my estimation. The critics may take their own words seriously, but that's not the same thing.

We have a problem. "THEY" are indeed out there and "THEY" really DO want to kill us. THAT is what we ARE facing. The question is HOW to do go about the PROPER job of protecting our interests (the lives of Americans and its interests) without, in the process, undermining the foundations of what MAKES America what it is and what it is supposed to be.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Then why did the government insist on having it? They are arguing in court for it.Oh and if he didn't want it he shouldn't have signed the bill.

Correct, he has veto power.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7556349-post5.html

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ah..well that just sucks...sometimes ya get bills that are for the most part good but in some cases have lousy parts...No not benefits to the troops they fought for those benefits they deserve them...I don't trust government with this kind of power...that's scary.

What’s scary is your ignorance of the Constitution and its case law and propensity toward hyperbole and demagoguery.

The government doesn’t have ‘this kind of power.’ Constitutional case law forbids the Federal government from suspending habeas in any jurisdiction where the courts are still functioning.

The law itself prohibits the ‘indefinite detention’ of US citizens or LPRAs.

And post-9/11 jurisprudence has been clear and consistent that both American citizens and non-citizens are afforded due process rights on US soil.