M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
I got the signing thing. Missed the wardrobe thing.
- Status
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
I got the signing thing. Missed the wardrobe thing.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
It’s the way big government works. It’s what we will continue to get voting for guys/gals like Newt, Romney, Bachman or Santorum. Democrats have their constituents drawn in and held by certain issues as do Republicans. Abortions not the issue that keeps people voting for Republicans, it’s security. They know what’s best for your safety and you better vote for them so they can go get that bad guy before he gets you.
I
incense
Guest
Not according to this guy (second video) businessinsider.com/ndaa-is-law-now-heres-what-you-need-to-know-2012-1 He says Senator Carl Levin pointed out it was Obama (produced the letter) and his lawyers who insisted that the presidency be given the power to indefinitely retain US citizens, and held the military funding as hostage.
I think President Obama did the wrong thing by signing this bill, but lets face it… it was initiated and passed by the US Congress. And leadership in both political parties are to blame.
Unless you’re being clever by saying they initiated the bill, but ignoring that the most objectionable part was forced thru by Obama, a Democrat.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
I’d like to know how the republican candidates view this (besides Ron Paul).
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Romney either didn’t know about it at all or lied about not knowing about it, and still seems to support it despite his lack of knowledge. At least judging from his comments in this video: youtube.com/watch?v=elw_O14qo1A
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Also Bachmann voted yes on the NDAA
J
JustaServant
Guest
Of course she did.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
U.S. Senator Carl Levin, (D-Michigan) is the guy who personally and deliberately held up President George W. Bush’s choices for intelligence positions.Not according to this guy (second video) businessinsider.com/ndaa-is-law-now-heres-what-you-need-to-know-2012-1 He says Senator Carl Levin pointed out it was Obama (produced the letter) and his lawyers who insisted that the presidency be given the power to indefinitely retain US citizens, and held the military funding as hostage.
Unless you’re being clever by saying they initiated the bill, but ignoring that the most objectionable part was forced thru by Obama, a Democrat.
You can put some of the blame for 9/11 directly onto Senator Carl Levin.
So, maybe do some more research on some of the other debacles we have suffered and see Senator Levin’s hand in those.
What a patriot! [sarcasm]
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Levin apparently made a statement to the effect that Obama DEMANDED this authority to lock up Americans without habeas corpus.
This is really bad news for our country.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
What we need now is for two/thirds of each House of Congress to pass a bill withdrawing that detention authority.Not according to this guy (second video) businessinsider.com/ndaa-is-law-now-heres-what-you-need-to-know-2012-1 He says Senator Carl Levin pointed out it was Obama (produced the letter) and his lawyers who insisted that the presidency be given the power to indefinitely retain US citizens, and held the military funding as hostage.
Unless you’re being clever by saying they initiated the bill, but ignoring that the most objectionable part was forced thru by Obama, a Democrat.
And quickly.
They can pass a law over the President’s veto.
But they need 2/3 majority.
If Senators Levin and Graham and Paul and Representatives Paul and Bachman push this, they can get it done in one day.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
This would allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge. 
My kind of Constitutional advocate:thumbsup:
Can hardly wait to see what he’ll do next.
My kind of Constitutional advocate:thumbsup:
Can hardly wait to see what he’ll do next.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Forget blame!
I think President Obama did the wrong thing by signing this bill, but lets face it… it was initiated and passed by the US Congress. And leadership in both political parties are to blame.
Let’s just fix the darned thing.
Now!
They can pass a law without the President’s signature, if they have a 2/3 majority of both houses of congress.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
I think all of you are wrong for several reasons.
First of all, I think this bill is for the purpose of our preparing for a major war on the order of WW II, only this time with Iran and her allies. I do not think China will enter in, except to sell arms and raw materials to one and all.
The purpose of this law will be to avoid a repitition of the civil dissent of the 1960’s and
'70’s that caused our country to lose the war in Viet Nam. This time, the authorities will lock up all of the dissenters for the duration. The ACLU of course will appeal this to the Supreme Court who will table the lawsuit for the duration-just as they did in the American Civil War, WW I and WW II. If you don’t believe that this can’t happen, during the Am. Civil War, Civilians were not only arrested by the Northern Army, but were Court Martialed and even executed by the US Army for “offences” against the Union. And, just look at what happened to the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast during WW II, most of whom were American Citizens who had their real estate and business property confiscated and were locked up in prison camps for the duration of WWII.
It took the US courts more than 50 years to decide that the Federal Government was wrong, and although Congress voted them some compensation, it did not even come close to the value of the real estate that was confiscated.
The same thing is going to happen to dissenters under this legislation, if and when we get into another major War. And religious conscientious objection will not save anyone from military service- just as it didn’t during WW II. You either served as a Medical Corpsman (including in combat), or you went to Federal Prison for the duration- with no exceptions.
First of all, I think this bill is for the purpose of our preparing for a major war on the order of WW II, only this time with Iran and her allies. I do not think China will enter in, except to sell arms and raw materials to one and all.
The purpose of this law will be to avoid a repitition of the civil dissent of the 1960’s and
'70’s that caused our country to lose the war in Viet Nam. This time, the authorities will lock up all of the dissenters for the duration. The ACLU of course will appeal this to the Supreme Court who will table the lawsuit for the duration-just as they did in the American Civil War, WW I and WW II. If you don’t believe that this can’t happen, during the Am. Civil War, Civilians were not only arrested by the Northern Army, but were Court Martialed and even executed by the US Army for “offences” against the Union. And, just look at what happened to the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast during WW II, most of whom were American Citizens who had their real estate and business property confiscated and were locked up in prison camps for the duration of WWII.
It took the US courts more than 50 years to decide that the Federal Government was wrong, and although Congress voted them some compensation, it did not even come close to the value of the real estate that was confiscated.
The same thing is going to happen to dissenters under this legislation, if and when we get into another major War. And religious conscientious objection will not save anyone from military service- just as it didn’t during WW II. You either served as a Medical Corpsman (including in combat), or you went to Federal Prison for the duration- with no exceptions.
S
SamH
Guest
I think many people are confused by what this bill does.This would allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.
My kind of Constitutional advocate:thumbsup:
Can hardly wait to see what he’ll do next.
My understanding is that under the “Patriot Act” agencies of the government (under the Department of Homeland Security) could already indefinitely detain American citizens - without giving them any rights or even notification to the “outside world” of who was being held or why.
This bill actually restricts what the government could do under the Patriot Act by limiting the detention to military prison camps with the person have the rights of an enemy combatant - similar to the Gitmo holdings. Obama was actually apposed to limiting what could be done under the Patriot Act. He wanted shadowy agencies of the government to be able to grab a person off the street and hold them in a basement somewhere without anyone ever knowing what happened.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Perhaps, but my understanding is that the holdings are restricted to those captured on the “battlefield.” And all those captured (citizens and non citizens) must go through hearing to determine whether they actually are an “enemy combatant.” Citizens would also get more constitutional rights (though possibly actual charges like treason) than non citizens. This however, could be my understanding of the changes that occurred after the patriot act, cases and new laws, etc.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Was New York a battlefield?
J
jilly4ski
Guest
As far as I am aware, in the system before this law, the US couldn’t really be a battlefield, (unless there was a "major invasion,"with terrorists setting up bases and taking control of territory) because we don’t have troops on the ground in the US, thus they cannot engage “enemy combatants.”
New York doesn’t really apply as none of the terrorists were alive after the attacks. They didn’t try to set up a base and continue to terrorize, thus no one could be captured as an enemy combatant. But even if they could have been captured, there would have been no reason to detain them in such a way. Not to mention, that once on US soil, rights again increase. It is why there were such strong arguments that Gitmo was not US territory (I do believe that the Court disagreed and said it was close enough). So terrorists captured in the US cannot be shipped out to Gitmo to be detained indefinitely, unless they are first deported an re caught on a battlefield. Again that would be pointless, because you could try, imprison, and probably execute anyone caught blowing up buildings, killing in excess of 5000 people.
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Honestly I don’t think they even need the 2/3rd’s majority. While Obama seems to want the power everything so far indicates that he is not willing to be out in the open about that desire so I’m not so sure that he would even bother to Veto a bill saying that you can’t detain US citizens without trial.
- Status