• 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!

ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provisions...

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In a scathing statement, the head of the ACLU, and other leading civil liberties and human rights groups who were among President Obama's most ardent campaign supporters said the President's decision to sign a sprawling defense bill including controversial detainee provisions would tarnish his legacy.

And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:

1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.

2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.

3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.

Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.

Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.

Finally, if a case is ever to be made for a third party, this is it, just as long as they don't sell America down the river too.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

wow, looks like the ACLU has joined in on the paranoid conspiracy theorist chicken-little bandwagon regarding NDAA 2012.

sad....and pathetic.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:

1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.

2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.

3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.

Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.

Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.

Article is here.


Good opening post Dana, however, why did this have to have its own thread?


j-mac
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:

1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.

Obama never argued that signing statements were a bad thing per se. What he said was that the Bush administration serially abused them. In his eight years, Bush issued close to 160 signing statements. Obama has been in office three years and I believe this is his fifth or sixth signing statement.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Obama never argued that signing statements were a bad thing per se. What he said was that the Bush administration serially abused them. In his eight years, Bush issued close to 160 signing statements. Obama has been in office three years and I believe this is his fifth or sixth signing statement.


He also pledged to cite in the signing statement where he thought it was warranted constitutionally. is that in this statement? Anyone have a copy of the text of the statement?


j-mac
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Obama never argued that signing statements were a bad thing per se. What he said was that the Bush administration serially abused them. In his eight years, Bush issued close to 160 signing statements. Obama has been in office three years and I believe this is his fifth or sixth signing statement.

Obama has added 19 signing statements to bills he's signed.

Many of the bills signed by Bush, and perhaps Obama also, included inconsequential signing statements to correct minor errors in the bill. For example, Bush signed a bill in 2002 on the boundary modifications at Vicksburg National Military Park. The actual bill stated "‘‘Upon the acquisition of the property referenced in this subsection, the Secretary add it to Vicksburg National Military Park and shall modify the boundaries of the park to reflect its inclusion.’’

Bush added a signing statement that the bill obviously meant to state that "Upon the acquisition of the property referenced in this subsection, the Secretary shall add it to Vicksburg National Military Park..." and that the Executive Branch would enforce the law as if the word "shall" was included in the original bill.

Presidential signing statements are not always ominous.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Obama has added 19 signing statements to bills he's signed.

Okay, so that's about six per year, or about 1/3 as many as Bush issued.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

There have to be half a dozen threads on this bill already
beat_deadhorse.gif
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Okay, so that's about six per year, or about 1/3 as many as Bush issued.

And as I've shown, many of Bush's signing statements were inconsequential. Another example is the designation of a waterfowl sanctuary. In his signing statement, he thanked the various organizations that made the act possible.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:

1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.

2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.

3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.

Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.

Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.

Finally, if a case is ever to be made for a third party, this is it, just as long as they don't sell America down the river too.

Article is here.

You agreed with the ACLU. Your conservative card, I want it, now.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

wow, looks like the ACLU has joined in on the paranoid conspiracy theorist chicken-little bandwagon regarding NDAA 2012.

sad....and pathetic.
I take it that since you are mocking others you must have read the whole entire bill and pointed out what parts people are misinterpreting and what is not in the bill.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I take it that since you are mocking others you must have read the whole entire bill and pointed out what parts people are misinterpreting and what is not in the bill.

I have read the sections in question, and posted them.

they are very clear as to what they do..and do NOT do.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I have read the sections in question, and posted them.

they are very clear as to what they do..and do NOT do.

SO you actually read the whole thing and not just pasted and clipped what others have posted?
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I have read the sections in question, and posted them.

they are very clear as to what they do..and do NOT do.

This foolishness again boya? I clearly explained that this act does in fact allow for the indefinite detention of US citizens.

Actually, that's not true at all. Here's the thing, this bill does not grant the President any new powers, rather, it solidifies and codifies old ones into law. Under the Patriot Act people were detained indefinitely (Imprisoned by the Patriot Act -- In These Times) (GrepLaw | Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act") and the 2006 Military Commissions Act gives the President the power to label protesters unlawful enemy combatants (JURIST - Hotline: Challenging the Military Commissions Act). The definition of unlawful enemy combatants is so vague to the point where it can include US citizens.

Edit: emphasis added

Edit 2: John Turley who (GW Law -- Faculty Directory)
  • Is the second most cited law professor in the country
  • Has worked as both the CBS and NBC legal analyst during national controversies
  • Ranks 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by a well-known judge
  • Is one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases
  • Has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues
  • Is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues
agrees that this law allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens (Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011 « JONATHAN TURLEY)
 
Last edited:
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

SO you actually read the whole thing and not just pasted and clipped what others have posted?

I copied & pasted the sections of the Bill in question.

b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to citizens of the United
States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident

e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect 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.
 
Last edited:
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I find it funny when Republicans attack Obama for going along with Republican policy goals. Silly Republicans.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Thunder, you do realize the difference between the word "requirement" and the word "authority", do you not?
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

To give Obama a little rhythm I couldn't understand why he didn't keep half his campaign promises, especially those concerning the War on Terror. He was going to get out us out of Iraq, Afghanistan tout de suite, close Gitmo and stop all renditions. Instead he's been using the drones like a killing machine to seek and destroy. Internment is the least of their worries. Then I imagined his first briefing from the military and intelligence agencies on the extent and depth of terror threats. The stuff us average citizens never see and would probably mess our britches over. An indefinite detention without some form of due process though goes beyond the scope of our sense of duty and fairness.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

To give Obama a little rhythm I couldn't understand why he didn't keep half his campaign promises, especially those concerning the War on Terror.

To give him a little credit... I think he won the election, got the transitional intelligence briefings, and realized how ****ing stupid his campaign promises concerning the War on Terror had been.

The thing that scares me is that he has "serious reservations" about this bill and promises not to use it-- but has no problem signing it and giving whoever follows him the authority he's afraid to use.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

The worst thing Obama has done. He should have vetoed this, might lose my vote.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

To give him a little credit... I think he won the election, got the transitional intelligence briefings, and realized how ****ing stupid his campaign promises concerning the War on Terror had been.

I didn't vote for him in the first place because his ideas were too pollyannaish.

The thing that scares me is that he has "serious reservations" about this bill and promises not to use it-- but has no problem signing it and giving whoever follows him the authority he's afraid to use.

You mean he's trying to please everyone? I've never heard of a politician doing that before, oh my....lol
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I feel like I'm the only liberal who isn't outraged and disillusioned by this. I also feel like I'm the only one who understands that campaign promises are made before candidates get certain information.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I feel like I'm the only liberal who isn't outraged and disillusioned by this. I also feel like I'm the only one who understands that campaign promises are made before candidates get certain information.

I understand that every candidate makes some promises from naiveté but BO was too wonderful. I actually thought his ideas sounded great but I knew there's "the world we want" and "the one we got". Idealism means well but sometimes it comes from the ego of wanting to be recognized for having good thoughts. I don't always like the hard truth but it still works the best.
 
Back
Top Bottom