Well , he signed the NDAA

[Foxfyre]

I am wary of EVERYTHING the government does these days whether pushed by the Dems or GOP. I notice that Congress's approval rating as being good or excellent is now at an astounding 5%!!!!

But. . . . .

The overriding question to ask regarding the NDAA is the same as the questions surrounding the Patriot Act. Is it necessary to provide the common defense? And does it provide protections for the unalienable rights of the citizen?

I think that question needs to be addressed before the legislation is condemned entirely.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Haven't seen very many dems pissed at all about this. Actually, a lot are excited about this new law.

I haven't seen many regardless of the political party upset about this. I think it's because they feel it will never happen to them.

Yep.

Which just goes to show how truly selfish most people are. Even the bleeding heart liberals are selfish.

How anyone could go along with the creation of DHS is beyond me. We now have rogue cyborg agencies, laws, police state actions evolving to the detriment of its own people.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Haven't seen very many dems pissed at all about this. Actually, a lot are excited about this new law.

I haven't seen many regardless of the political party upset about this. I think it's because they feel it will never happen to them.

I haven't either. I've noticed people trying to justify it. Its appalling.

 

[paulitician]

I've yet to see even one poster on here boasting about how great or necessary this thing is. So how did it become of the Law of the Land? Does our Representative Government represent the People anymore? Doesn't look like it to me.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I've yet to see even one poster on here boasting about how great or necessary this thing is. So how did it become of the Law of the Land? Does our Representaive Government represent the People anymore? Doesn't look like it to me.

We vote em in. They represent themselves to the tune of millions of back scratching bucks. They retire, multi millionaires with full caddy bennies. We're left with a pile of flaming shit on our porch as we point the finger at our next door neighbor.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've yet to see even one poster on here boasting about how great or necessary this thing is. So how did it become of the Law of the Land? Does our Representative Government represent the People anymore? Doesn't look like it to me.

More Republicans in the House and Senate voted for it than voted against it. More Democrats in the Senate voted for it than against it. An equal number of Democrats in the House voted for and against it.

When you have that kind of bipartisan support, we either assume that a large majority of our elected representatives have taken over the government and no longer represent us, in which case a revolution is mandatory if we wish to restore the rightful government of the people. . . .or. . . .

There may be merit to this legislation that warrants looking at.

I suggest we look at it a bit more closely and think about it before condemning it out of hand.

Many Americans are distrustful of and/or absolutely opposed to the Patriot Act. But when you see that it was initially passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, and that all subsequent Congresses have voted to keep it and continue to fund it, and even the most liberal Congress and President in this nation's history did not move to rescind any part of it, you have to figure it could have merit. And in light of at least hundreds of terrorist attempts between discovered and thwarted in the ten plus years since 9/11 and the people remaining safe from terrorist assault, that too merits a look and consideration before condemning it out of hand.

I am not defending either. But neither will I condemn them without knowing the motives and reasons that underpin them.

 

[MikeK]

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Haven't seen very many dems pissed at all about this. Actually, a lot are excited about this new law.

I haven't seen many regardless of the political party upset about this. I think it's because they feel it will never happen to them.

You are absolutely right about that!

And a lot of them are soothed by the belief that the Obama Administration would never abuse such power. It doesn't even occur to them that we could have another sonofabitch like Bush, or worse, in the future. And because Obama took no steps to prosecute the Bush Crime Family is assurance we can expect more of the same, and worse, in the future.

The government already exercised these abominable powers before this bill was passed. E.g., the Jose Padilla case. And regardless of how guilty Padilla might have been, Thomas Paine had something to say about the way he was handled:

"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've yet to see even one poster on here boasting about how great or necessary this thing is. So how did it become of the Law of the Land? Does our Representative Government represent the People anymore? Doesn't look like it to me.

More Republicans in the House and Senate voted for it than voted against it. More Democrats in the Senate voted for it than against it. An equal number of Democrats in the House voted for and against it.

When you have that kind of bipartisan support, we either assume that a large majority of our elected representatives have taken over the government and no longer represent us, in which case a revolution is mandatory if we wish to restore the rightful government of the people. . . .or. . . .

There may be merit to this legislation that warrants looking at.

I suggest we look at it a bit more closely and think about it before condemning it out of hand.

Many Americans are distrustful of and/or absolutely opposed to the Patriot Act. But when you see that it was initially passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, and that all subsequent Congresses have voted to keep it and continue to fund it, and even the most liberal Congress and President in this nation's history did not move to rescind any part of it, you have to figure it could have merit. And in light of at least hundreds of terrorist attempts between discovered and thwarted in the ten plus years since 9/11 and the people remaining safe from terrorist assault, that too merits a look and consideration before condemning it out of hand.

I am not defending either. But neither will I condemn them without knowing the motives and reasons that underpin them.

When you have that kind of bipartisan support, we either assume that a large majority of our elected representatives have taken over the government and no longer represent us, in which case a revolution is mandatory if we wish to restore the rightful government of the people.

Of all that you posted this should be the quote of the Year and should be repeated.

 

[The T]

I've yet to see even one poster on here boasting about how great or necessary this thing is. So how did it become of the Law of the Land? Does our Representaive Government represent the People anymore? Doesn't look like it to me.

We vote em in. They represent themselves to the tune of millions of back scratching bucks. They retire, multi millionaires with full caddy bennies. We're left with a pile of flaming shit on our porch as we point the finger at our next door neighbor.

By design...until the people rise up...

 

[Foxfyre]

I've yet to see even one poster on here boasting about how great or necessary this thing is. So how did it become of the Law of the Land? Does our Representative Government represent the People anymore? Doesn't look like it to me.

More Republicans in the House and Senate voted for it than voted against it. More Democrats in the Senate voted for it than against it. An equal number of Democrats in the House voted for and against it.

When you have that kind of bipartisan support, we either assume that a large majority of our elected representatives have taken over the government and no longer represent us, in which case a revolution is mandatory if we wish to restore the rightful government of the people. . . .or. . . .

There may be merit to this legislation that warrants looking at.

I suggest we look at it a bit more closely and think about it before condemning it out of hand.

Many Americans are distrustful of and/or absolutely opposed to the Patriot Act. But when you see that it was initially passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, and that all subsequent Congresses have voted to keep it and continue to fund it, and even the most liberal Congress and President in this nation's history did not move to rescind any part of it, you have to figure it could have merit. And in light of at least hundreds of terrorist attempts between discovered and thwarted in the ten plus years since 9/11 and the people remaining safe from terrorist assault, that too merits a look and consideration before condemning it out of hand.

I am not defending either. But neither will I condemn them without knowing the motives and reasons that underpin them.

When you have that kind of bipartisan support, we either assume that a large majority of our elected representatives have taken over the government and no longer represent us, in which case a revolution is mandatory if we wish to restore the rightful government of the people.

Of all that you posted this should be the quote of the Year and should be repeated.

Whoa, I am NOT suggesting that we start a revolution here. Yet anyway. (Expecting the black helicopters to be circling any minute here. )

I AM suggesting that we owe it to our elected representatives to get their side of the story and see the legislation through their eyes. If that does not address our concerns, then we know they aren't unfounded.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

More Republicans in the House and Senate voted for it than voted against it. More Democrats in the Senate voted for it than against it. An equal number of Democrats in the House voted for and against it.

When you have that kind of bipartisan support, we either assume that a large majority of our elected representatives have taken over the government and no longer represent us, in which case a revolution is mandatory if we wish to restore the rightful government of the people. . . .or. . . .

There may be merit to this legislation that warrants looking at.

I suggest we look at it a bit more closely and think about it before condemning it out of hand.

Many Americans are distrustful of and/or absolutely opposed to the Patriot Act. But when you see that it was initially passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, and that all subsequent Congresses have voted to keep it and continue to fund it, and even the most liberal Congress and President in this nation's history did not move to rescind any part of it, you have to figure it could have merit. And in light of at least hundreds of terrorist attempts between discovered and thwarted in the ten plus years since 9/11 and the people remaining safe from terrorist assault, that too merits a look and consideration before condemning it out of hand.

I am not defending either. But neither will I condemn them without knowing the motives and reasons that underpin them.

When you have that kind of bipartisan support, we either assume that a large majority of our elected representatives have taken over the government and no longer represent us, in which case a revolution is mandatory if we wish to restore the rightful government of the people.

Of all that you posted this should be the quote of the Year and should be repeated.

Whoa, I am NOT suggesting that we start a revolution here. Yet anyway. (Expecting the black helicopters to be circling any minute here. )

I AM suggesting that we owe it to our elected representatives to get their side of the story and see the legislation through their eyes. If that does not address our concerns, then we know they aren't unfounded.

No one is suggesting it but when you have been backed in the corner what do you do? Submit or come out swinging?

 

[The T]

Of all that you posted this should be the quote of the Year and should be repeated.

Whoa, I am NOT suggesting that we start a revolution here. Yet anyway. (Expecting the black helicopters to be circling any minute here. )

I AM suggesting that we owe it to our elected representatives to get their side of the story and see the legislation through their eyes. If that does not address our concerns, then we know they aren't unfounded.

No one is suggesting it but when you have been backed in the corner what do you do? Submit or come out swinging?

Especially a good portion of these politicians expect us just to sit down and shut up.

 

[Cervantes22]

Bush signed the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, which threatened Posse Comitatus, and the Military Commissions Act which suspended Habeas Corpus, and the left was up in arms.

Now Obama has done the same thing and it's all gravy.

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Haven't seen very many dems pissed at all about this. Actually, a lot are excited about this new law.

The only people I've seen defending that portion are members of Congress.

And if you still think all liberals are giving Obama a free pass, the ACLU is pissed about this, and calling him out (I know you said Dems, and not liberals but still).

 

[Conservative]

I'll burn my fucking house down before I allow that.

I'll bring the hot dogs and marshmallows.

 

[Conservative]

prove that dem wrote the lines you are so mad about

prove a Republican did, dipshit

 

[Conservative]

It was written by someone huh?


It was written by the house which is republican

yup.. not a singel Democrat in the House, huh.

Stupid fuck.

 

[newpolitics]

I think this, along with SOPA, is a direct response to the revolutionary fervor that has taken hold starting with the Arab Spring, and culminating in OWS. With OWS, corrupt politicians, lobbyists, corporations, realize that the people are onto the core problem: private money in Washington, and those who have been profiting want to squash it. With SOPA and NDAA, it is more than ever possible to silence dissenting opinions against this establishment. It is a shame this has been allowed through, and I fear the worst for dissenters here on out.

 

[MikeK]

Things are about to get ugly people. You Obama supporters just say one thing against this country and you to might be detained!!! Wonder how you will feel about him if you or one of your family members gets in trouble for free speech!

Incorrect.

Those provisions were removed from the bill:

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

News from The Associated Press

In his signing statement the president maintains that provisions in the NDAA have already passed Constitutional muster:

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, 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. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

BREAKING: Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill | ThinkProgress

Your comments are usually authoritative. But Jonathan Turley and Naomi Wolff both are Constitutional experts and I think you should read what they have to say about this NDAA -- which Obama promised not to sign:

How Congress is Signing its own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest bill | Naomi Wolf

Jonathan Turley: The NDAA's Historic Assault on American Liberty - Democratic Underground

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think this, along with SOPA, is a direct response to the revolutionary fervor that has taken hold starting with the Arab Spring, and culminating in OWS. With OWS, corrupt politicians, lobbyists, corporations, realize that the people are onto the core problem: private money in Washington, and those who have been profiting want to squash it. With SOPA and NDAA, it is more than ever possible to silence dissenting opinions against this establishment. It is a shame this has been allowed through, and I fear the worst for dissenters here on out.

OWS? OWS is supported by obama have you noticed OWS does not protest in mass in DC?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Well the dem senate passed it, the dem reps voted yes, and he signed it, so apparently not nearly enough.

You can't pin this all on the dems, the Republicans voted for it too.

And dem or Rep, anyone who didn't try to remove that bit, should be deeply ashamed.

I'm hoping for ritualistic suicide. Maybe lock themselves in a bus and light it on fire.

Many of the lefty partisans on here are laying ALL of this on the GOP. They are also giving Obama a hall pass even though without his signature, this never happens.