• 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

That's a pretty good bet.

It's also a good bet that moderate Romney will paint himself as "conservative", and will try to make us think that Obama is somewhere to the left of Maxine Waters. Meantime, Obama will be busy pointing out how many flips Romney has flopped, while busily sweeping those multi trillion dollar deficits under the carpet.

Agreed.

The bottom line: If the economy improves, it's likely to be Obama. If it doesn't Romney will probably be the next one getting the blame for the poor economy.

Given the opposition to all progress by the GOP to defend the tax cuts for the rich and the crop of contenders as the alternative, I would bet that unless the economy gets worse, Obama wins.

But, back to the subject of this thread: I don't want to see either of them with the power to detain Americans without trial.
And, even less do I want to see whoever succeeds them as next POTUS with that power. Who knows who that might be?

Or, it could be Perry with that power... now that's a scary thought, isn't it?

I agree. That's one of the reasons I'm glad for the OWS to bring some heat on issues neither party is highlighting. I think all citizens should join the OWS in protesting the support of the Patriot Act by both parties.
 
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.
..




bare in mind if this law somehow changed existing law, to now allow for the indefinite detention without trial/charge, of any legal residents of the USA, I too would be yelling bloody murder and probably call for a popular uprising.

but the fact is, this law changes nothing. No citizens of the USA nor legal residents of the USA, shall be detained indefinitely without charge/trial, due to this law or due to any current law.

Now last I knew the executive branch is run by civilians and not the military correct? The FBI is not a part of the military nor is the CIA and the Secret Service is not a part of the military, there are plenty of federal prisons that are not run by the military. You might want to note that this NDAA only restricts the military from holding custody an American citizen or lawful resident indefinately. No where does it restrict the Federal government from doing the same.

As for the authorities section, according to it the NDAA does not affect any other laws or authorities correct? Do you know what can happen under a State of Emergency and that one of the requirements for it to be called is war? (we are actually under a state of emergency right now btw...Obama extended Bush's declaration of a state of emergency in 2010). Did you know that if the President declares the US to be a warzone under the NDAA then they can suspend Habeas Corpus as defined in the Constitution due to there being a state of emergency?
 
It expires at the end of his 1st term, I think that covers it.

Bills can be extended. Even sections of bills can be extended while allowing the rest of it to expire. Sorry but I'm not going to hold my breath thinking that this will expire.
 
This whole thing worries me. The biggest issue, aside from the unconstitutional law, is that Obama has no spine.
 
This whole thing worries me. The biggest issue, aside from the unconstitutional law, is that Obama has no spine.
His chance will be coming up with Iran. Ever since the 1979 embassy attack, Iran has been earning its comeuppance.
 
Obama has promised alot of things that he has in the end lied about.


j-mac

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?

I may have not been clear on this: I do not think that the bill should be passed, nor am I am Obama supporter. I even went and emailed my Senators asking them to propose an amendment to the bill that will explicitly exclude US citizens and legal immigrants from indefinite detention. I am not going to vote for either party these elections.
 
I think he has been forced to govern more moderately because he has a Republican majorty House to deal with. However, in 2008 when he ran for president I would not say (based on Obama's voting record as a senator) that he was a moderate. It will be interesting to see how Obama campaigns during the 2012 election and if his rhetoric will become more centrist in nature.
I would tend to agree, while noting that his rhetoric will be irrelevant... his centrist actions have already betrayed him.
 
That's a pretty good bet.

It's also a good bet that moderate Romney will paint himself as "conservative", and will try to make us think that Obama is somewhere to the left of Maxine Waters. Meantime, Obama will be busy pointing out how many flips Romney has flopped, while busily sweeping those multi trillion dollar deficits under the carpet.

The bottom line: If the economy improves, it's likely to be Obama. If it doesn't Romney will probably be the next one getting the blame for the poor economy.

But, back to the subject of this thread: I don't want to see either of them with the power to detain Americans without trial.

And, even less do I want to see whoever succeeds them as next POTUS with that power. Who knows who that might be?

Or, it could be Perry with that power... now that's a scary thought, isn't it?

I gree completely. This is a poor bill. May the courts exercise some reason.
 
I gree completely. This is a poor bill. May the courts exercise some reason.


So you place your faith more in unelected people making law through edict....Interesting.


j-mac
 
So you place your faith more in unelected people making law through edict....Interesting.


j-mac

Though following the law. Yes. I believe the law should be followed. I know that is worse than allowing politicians to break the law, but that's who I am. :coffeepap
 
Though following the law. Yes. I believe the law should be followed. I know that is worse than allowing politicians to break the law, but that's who I am. :coffeepap


Ok, congratulations. You've managed to totally skirt what was asked, and make a statement that is pure straw.

Now, back to the question asked....Do you Joe, believe that the courts are who should be making law in this country?


j-mac
 
What happened to "Don't Tread on Me"?
 
Ok, congratulations. You've managed to totally skirt what was asked, and make a statement that is pure straw.

Now, back to the question asked....Do you Joe, believe that the courts are who should be making law in this country?


j-mac

J, your question is drenched in flawed thinking. No one said a thing about them making law. Only enforcing the law, which this bill breaks. So, I stand by my answer as it is not a strawman, but the proper response to your . . . strawman. :coffeepap
 
J, your question is drenched in flawed thinking. No one said a thing about them making law. Only enforcing the law, which this bill breaks. So, I stand by my answer as it is not a strawman, but the proper response to your . . . strawman. :coffeepap


So, the bill that Obama signed into law, actually breaks the law? Please back up that assertion.


j-mac
 
So, the bill that Obama signed into law, actually breaks the law? Please back up that assertion.


j-mac

Yes. as noted in posts above. I truely believe it breaks the law, and i think the courts will rule that it does. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness cannot be taken without due process. I'm shocked at how scared some are of proper due process. As a people, we should never be that scared.
 
Yes. as noted in posts above. I truely believe it breaks the law, and i think the courts will rule that it does. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness cannot be taken without due process. I'm shocked at how scared some are of proper due process. As a people, we should never be that scared.


You still haven't shown where you believe that the law was broken in this law....I have no patience to search for what your claim is, so could you just link to the law broken, and or argument that shows where Obama broke the law in signing this bill?


j-mac
 
You still haven't shown where you believe that the law was broken in this law....I have no patience to search for what your claim is, so could you just link to the law broken, and or argument that shows where Obama broke the law in signing this bill?


j-mac

You have read that part in the constitution? Odd.

Ron Paul addresses it fairly well here. Look at Paul's comments, and what he cites.

Ron Paul Calls National Defense Authorization Act "Slip Into Tyranny"
 
Ok, so Obama has violated his oath of office....But I am confident that you will still pull the lever for him this fall won't you?

BTW, Ron Paul on national defense is a whack job.


j-mac

Even a whack job can be right, But, compared to Perry, Bachman, Santorum and Newt, Paul is a prue genuis!!!

And if my choice is between Obama and Perry, Bachman, Santorum or Newt, I will be forced to vote for Obama and hope the courts do their job. The bill is a poor one, likley illegal, and something we all should agree be changed.
 
[...] according to a constitutional attorney the NDAA also makes closing Guantanamo a near impossibility (Constitutional attorney: Guantanamo ‘nearly impossible to close’ thanks to NDAA | The Raw Story)
Now you're getting warm as to why the detainee section was inserted into this bill.

All along the liberal position has been that terrorism is a crime, not an act war (takeover of a country or destruction of a government is not a goal, in our current situation. Indeed, we are the invaders and civil usurpers). In his campaign, and early in his presidency, Obama wanted to treat the detainees as criminals, not soldiers, in that he wanted to close Gitmo and try the detainees in civilian criminal courts (especially the ringleaders). The military-industrial complex wants absolutely nothing to do with that approach, for the so-called 'war on terror' is enriching them, and in turn enriching their toadies (Congress).

So, Gitmo and mandatory military detention is now codified as law. Let the war profiteering keep on rollin'. . . . .
 
Ok, so Obama has violated his oath of office....But I am confident that you will still pull the lever for him this fall won't you?

BTW, Ron Paul on national defense is a whack job.


j-mac

On National Defense, Paul is right on. He's perfectly within the ideals and limits of the Republic. It's YOU GUYS who are looking to change the game and work against the Republic. More and more government, surrender more and more rights, remove more and more checks and balances. You'll lead us to ruination faster than the terrorists could ever hope to drive us there. Integrity and honor and the backbone to abide by the Constitution and the dream of the founders, only Paul out of the other contenders has it. Dr. Paul is right, the National Defense Authorization Act is a slip into tyranny; ever closer the Republocrats take us till we wake up slaves on the land our forefathers conquered.
 
You still haven't shown where you believe that the law was broken in this law....I have no patience to search for what your claim is, so could you just link to the law broken, and or argument that shows where Obama broke the law in signing this bill?


j-mac

The law is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. Does that mean Obama broke the law by signing it? Did Congress break the law by passing it?

It seems to me that both broke their oath to uphold the Constitution, but I'm not sure that means that either one actually broke the law.
 
On National Defense, Paul is right on. He's perfectly within the ideals and limits of the Republic. It's YOU GUYS who are looking to change the game and work against the Republic. More and more government, surrender more and more rights, remove more and more checks and balances. You'll lead us to ruination faster than the terrorists could ever hope to drive us there. Integrity and honor and the backbone to abide by the Constitution and the dream of the founders, only Paul out of the other contenders has it. Dr. Paul is right, the National Defense Authorization Act is a slip into tyranny; ever closer the Republocrats take us till we wake up slaves on the land our forefathers conquered.

I agree. And it is in the national defense and international policy that I most agree with Paul. Domestically less so. But here I agree with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom