• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

apdst said:
The bill does state that. Thunder already posted that for us.
Click to expand...

What Thunder posted is that the bill specifically exempts American citizens from mandatory military detention. The section he quoted doesn't forbid the government from holding citizens indefinitely.

ETA: Er, yeah, what Mr. Invisible said. :lol:
 
Dittohead not! said:
But only if people care enough. if they don't, if they're really ready to trade freedom for security, then our whole experiment in liberty is over. Are you ready to count on the populace and its willingness to be vigilant and challenge authority when it becomes necessary?
Click to expand...

While I agree about trading liberty for security, this bill is not going to change anything. Obama signed it because it was the budget for the military, it expires in a year, and he KNOWS that he won't allow the use of the unconstutional power it gives him. The real question is about the Congress that wrote and passed it. Who's idea was it anyway? And who decided to tack it on the the defense budget? I'm oretty sure it was the GOP and the question is why?
 
iguanaman said:
While I agree about trading liberty for security, this bill is not going to change anything. Obama signed it because it was the budget for the military, it expires in a year, and he KNOWS that he won't allow the use of the unconstutional power it gives him. The real question is about the Congress that wrote and passed it. Who's idea was it anyway? And who decided to tack it on the the defense budget? I'm oretty sure it was the GOP and the question is why?
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama has stated that he will not use it but what stops a future president from using that power?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Yes, Obama has stated that he will not use it but what stops a future president from using that power?
Click to expand...

and a president, being a politician and all, would never, but never ever go back on his word, right? Moreover, his promise extends to whoever takes his place, right? We have nothing to worry about, nothing at all. Let's give the whitehouse the power to detain without trial. Hell, let's give them any power that they want, just so long as the current POTUS promises not to use it. How about a suspension of the press? That's a great idea, too, don't you think?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Yes, Obama has stated that he will not use it but what stops a future president from using that power?
Click to expand...
The bill in question does not give him that power.
 
Karl said:
The bill in question does not give him that power.
Click to expand...

At the bare minimum it affirms that he already has it, given the other legal references mentioned in this thread and the over-vague language regarding who can be detained indefinitely in the bill itself.

If the architects of this bill actually intended to protect American citizens from that kind of treatment, it would have explicitly done so.
 
When a law is anyting but absolutely clear, a politician will use it however they wish and claim it was their interpretation of the bill.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
[...] If the architects of this bill actually intended to protect American citizens from that kind of treatment, it would have explicitly done so.
Click to expand...
A reasonable statement of the obvious, but all this hoopla masks the true intent of the detainee provisions of this bill -- to prevent the executive from transferring/keeping detainees to/in American prisons and to prevent the executive from processing detainees thru the civilian court system. It effectively codifies Gitmo and relegates terrorism to an act of war instead of a criminal act (which is what it usually really is).

So, the war-mongering Geneva-convention-violating Bush administration has been replaced by the war-mongering Geneva-convention-violating chicken-**** Congress. Lovely :doh
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
When a law is anyting but absolutely clear, a politician will use it however they wish and claim it was their interpretation of the bill.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, read the Constitution then get back to us on how long that's been going on :roll:
 
Karl said:
Yeah, well, read the Constitution then get back to us on how long that's been going on :roll:
Click to expand...

There are no provisions in the Constitution that would allow a president to target an American citizen for death without due process either.
 
1Perry said:
Karl said:
1Perry said:
When a law is anyting but absolutely clear, a politician will use it however they wish and claim it was their interpretation of the bill.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, read the Constitution then get back to us on how long that's been going on
Click to expand...
There are no provisions in the Constitution that would allow a president to target an American citizen for death without due process either.
Click to expand...
You change the subject a lot, don't you?
confuse.gif
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
You change the subject a lot, don't you?
confuse.gif
Click to expand...

So we'll agree that the Constitution has no relevance to what Obama will do. (and who knows about future presidents)
 
Karl said:
A reasonable statement of the obvious, but all this hoopla masks the true intent of the detainee provisions of this bill -- to prevent the executive from transferring/keeping detainees to/in American prisons and to prevent the executive from processing detainees thru the civilian court system.
Click to expand...

Which is proper. Detainees of Guantanamo are not privy to our courts systems, nor should they be.

It effectively codifies Gitmo and relegates terrorism to an act of war instead of a criminal act (which is what it usually really is).
Click to expand...


Agreed, terrorism is an act of war.

So, the war-mongering Geneva-convention-violating Bush administration has been replaced by the war-mongering Geneva-convention-violating chicken-**** Congress. Lovely
Click to expand...

So when it was Bush, it was the Bush administration, but when it is Obama it is the republican congress eh....Nice hypocrisy.


j-mac
 
1Perry said:
So we'll agree that the Constitution has no relevance to what Obama will do. (and who knows about future presidents)
Click to expand...
You're having a nice conversation with yourself... don't let me interrupt.
 
j-mac said:
[...] So when it was Bush, it was the Bush administration, but when it is Obama it is the republican congress eh....Nice hypocrisy. [...]
Click to expand...
Nice observation of actual events, I'm sure you meant to say.

Unless you have some evidence that Obama pushed for the inclusion of the detainee section of the bill (such as Bush pushed for the AUMF, and Cheney pushed for the legal justification for torture). Or is empty rhetoric going to be the sum total of your argument?
 
Karl said:
You're having a nice conversation with yourself... don't let me interrupt.
Click to expand...

Right, we wouldn't want to force you to actually face the facts.
 
j-mac said:
Obama has promised alot of things that he has in the end lied about.


j-mac
Click to expand...

He's a Chicago politician. There was no logical reason to believe he was anything other than a corrupt politician willing to lie about anything and everything to get into and maintain power.

My real question is why is it that the only bills which seem to produce across the isle, bipartisan support are the bills which grossly expand government against the rights and liberties of the individual?
 
Karl said:
A reasonable statement of the obvious
Click to expand...

Heh, so first I'm some kind of loony bird, and now I'm stating the obvious. Cute.

Karl said:
but all this hoopla masks the true intent of the detainee provisions of this bill -- to prevent the executive from transferring/keeping detainees to/in American prisons and to prevent the executive from processing detainees thru the civilian court system. It effectively codifies Gitmo.

So, the war-mongering Geneva-convention-violating Bush administration has been replaced by the war-mongering Geneva-convention-violating chicken-**** Congress. Lovely :doh
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Republican Congress under Bush, and President Obama himself. Barring an over-ride vote, it takes two branches to tango when it comes to codifying things.
 
Karl said:
Nice observation of actual events, I'm sure you meant to say.

Unless you have some evidence that Obama pushed for the inclusion of the detainee section of the bill (such as Bush pushed for the AUMF, and Cheney pushed for the legal justification for torture). Or is empty rhetoric going to be the sum total of your argument?
Click to expand...


Just noticing your hypocrisy that sure would play well on the bull horn to the like minded sheeple that buy your excrement, but in here it is transparent....Sorry you can't take it like you love to dish it.


j-mac
 
1Perry said:
Right, we wouldn't want to force you to actually face the facts.
Click to expand...
The rapidity at which you change subjects makes facing the facts a task measured in microseconds. My reaction time simply isn't that fast.
 
Ikari said:
He's a Chicago politician. There was no logical reason to believe he was anything other than a corrupt politician willing to lie about anything and everything to get into and maintain power.

My real question is why is it that the only bills which seem to produce across the isle, bipartisan support are the bills which grossly expand government against the rights and liberties of the individual?
Click to expand...

Good question. It should be noted that this was a bi-partisan embarressment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom