Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Info Wars)   Obama's NDAA Signing Statement: I have the power to detain Americans...but I won't   (infowars.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, signing statements, Executive Office of the President of the United States, ndaa, Americans, security interests, hostilities, terrorist threats, Director of National Intelligence  
•       •       •

3185 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jan 2012 at 6:28 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-01 11:14:07 PM  

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: If you actually are a US citizen turned terrorist, there would be no reason for them not to hold you indefinitely.

That's the whole point of being able to challenge your status. Which goes for citizens and non-citizens alike. Yes, they can hold you indefinitely, *if* they can establish you're a combatant -- which is based on things like the Geneva Convention. Not the whims of the President.


9/11 AUMF:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It's war powers. They don't need a warrant, they don't need judicial review to determine you're a combatant. Review processes are entirely internal and voluntary. Strictly speaking, the President can determine that the person that cut him off in traffic is a terrorist and tell the secret service agents in the car to shoot to kill.
 
2012-01-01 11:18:16 PM  

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: If you actually are a US citizen turned terrorist, there would be no reason for them not to hold you indefinitely.

That's the whole point of being able to challenge your status. Which goes for citizens and non-citizens alike. Yes, they can hold you indefinitely, *if* they can establish you're a combatant -- which is based on things like the Geneva Convention. Not the whims of the President.

9/11 AUMF:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
It's war powers. They don't need a warrant, they don't need judicial review to determine you're a combatant. Review processes are entirely internal and voluntary. Strictly speaking, the President can determine that the person that cut him off in traffic is a terrorist and tell the secret service agents in the car to shoot to kill.


Yea, and it was contested in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and the court said it doesn't work that way.
 
2012-01-01 11:19:09 PM  
That's how they justified al-Awlaki. Didn't have any real concrete proof of wrongdoing, just decided he'd been aiding bad guys.
 
kab
2012-01-01 11:25:15 PM  
"I'm saying I dislike this in an attempt to save face with my voters, but yeah.. I'll sign it anyhow".

What a complete and utter farking joke.
 
2012-01-01 11:25:24 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Yea, and it was contested in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and the court said it doesn't work that way.


...are you serious? I just explained what Hamdi changed.

Before, the President independently determined you were a target, and authorized them to pick you up. They held you without trial indefinitely. If you wished to contest your combatant status, you appealed to the Executive branch who would hear your pleas and determine if they made a mistake.

Now, the President independently determines you are a target, and authorizes them to pick you up. They hold you without trial indefinitely. If you wish to contest your combatant status, you appeal to the Executive Judicial branch who will hear your pleas and determine if they made a mistake.

My problem is with the first two sentences. Hamdi's change has nothing to do with those sentences.
 
2012-01-01 11:29:31 PM  

DarnoKonrad: "My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution."


This clearly one of the stupidest thing congress has done in a long time, but just passing a law doesn't make it Constitutional. I wish he'd vetoed the farking thing, but at least they're admitting it's a steaming pile.


So he's basically saying he signed an unconstitutional law.
 
2012-01-01 11:33:12 PM  

sprawl15:

Now, the President independently determines you are a target, and authorizes them to pick you up. They hold you without trial indefinitely. If you wish to contest your combatant status, you appeal to the Judicial branch who will hear your pleas and determine if they made a mistake.

My problem is with the first two sentences. Hamdi's change has nothing to do with those sentences.


They can't hold you if you're not a combatant. And you're deemed to be a combatant under the Geneva Convention and whatever ever international treaties we've signed. This is all to be determined by judicial review -- not the president.
 
2012-01-01 11:36:38 PM  

DarnoKonrad: They can't hold you if you're not a combatant. And you're deemed to be a combatant under the Geneva Convention and whatever ever international treaties we've signed. This is all to be determined by judicial review -- not the president.


9/11 AUMF:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It's war powers. They don't need a warrant, they don't need judicial review to determine you're a combatant. Review processes are entirely internal and voluntary. Strictly speaking, the President can determine that the person that cut him off in traffic is a terrorist and tell the secret service agents in the car to shoot to kill.
 
2012-01-01 11:38:15 PM  

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: sprawl15: If you actually are a US citizen turned terrorist, there would be no reason for them not to hold you indefinitely.

That's the whole point of being able to challenge your status. Which goes for citizens and non-citizens alike. Yes, they can hold you indefinitely, *if* they can establish you're a combatant -- which is based on things like the Geneva Convention. Not the whims of the President.

9/11 AUMF:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
It's war powers. They don't need a warrant, they don't need judicial review to determine you're a combatant. Review processes are entirely internal and voluntary. Strictly speaking, the President can determine that the person that cut him off in traffic is a terrorist and tell the secret service agents in the car to shoot to kill.



Yeah, well, the current legislation reinforces the above, removes restrictions that the alleged activities need be related to 9/11, and specifies that these powers can be used against "suspect" US citizens, as well as foreign combatants.

It's a marvelous and powerful tool in the "War On Terror".

It's also a central authoritarian's wet dream.
 
2012-01-01 11:43:07 PM  

DarnoKonrad: sprawl15:

Now, the President independently determines you are a target, and authorizes them to pick you up. They hold you without trial indefinitely. If you wish to contest your combatant status, you appeal to the Judicial branch who will hear your pleas and determine if they made a mistake.

My problem is with the first two sentences. Hamdi's change has nothing to do with those sentences.

They can't hold you if you're not a combatant. And you're deemed to be a combatant under the Geneva Convention and whatever ever international treaties we've signed. This is all to be determined by judicial review -- not the president.



t2.gstatic.com

I just want to wish you both good luck.

We're all counting on you.
 
2012-01-01 11:47:35 PM  

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: They can't hold you if you're not a combatant. And you're deemed to be a combatant under the Geneva Convention and whatever ever international treaties we've signed. This is all to be determined by judicial review -- not the president.

9/11 AUMF:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
It's war powers. They don't need a warrant, they don't need judicial review to determine you're a combatant. Review processes are entirely internal and voluntary. Strictly speaking, the President can determine that the person that cut him off in traffic is a terrorist and tell the secret service agents in the car to shoot to kill.


No they can't per Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention

"We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
 
2012-01-01 11:49:16 PM  

DarnoKonrad: No they can't per Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention


Before, the President independently determined you were a target, and authorized them to pick you up. They held you without trial indefinitely. If you wished to contest your combatant status, you appealed to the Executive branch who would hear your pleas and determine if they made a mistake.

Now, the President independently determines you are a target, and authorizes them to pick you up. They hold you without trial indefinitely. If you wish to contest your combatant status, you appeal to the Executive Judicial branch who will hear your pleas and determine if they made a mistake.

My problem is with the first two sentences. Hamdi's change has nothing to do with those sentences.

I can do this all night, or you can read what I'm posting. You choose.
 
2012-01-01 11:58:34 PM  

sprawl15: My problem is with the first two sentences. Hamdi's change has nothing to do with those sentences.


Yes it does, they can't hold you indefinably if you're not a combatant. And you have the right for a court to review that status.
 
2012-01-02 12:04:27 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Yes it does, they can't hold you indefinably if you're not a combatant. And you have the right for a court to review that status.


If the government decides the 9/11 AUMF gives them authority to fark your wife if they don't like your taste in music, and they go ahead and fark her, that you can contest it later isn't a protection of your 4th and 5th. Proper protection would be preventing the violation of your (or your wife's) rights in the first place, which Hamdi in no way does. Which is why I said it was irrelevant.
 
2012-01-02 12:20:02 AM  

sprawl15: DarnoKonrad: Yes it does, they can't hold you indefinably if you're not a combatant. And you have the right for a court to review that status.

If the government decides the 9/11 AUMF gives them authority to fark your wife if they don't like your taste in music, and they go ahead and fark her, that you can contest it later isn't a protection of your 4th and 5th. Proper protection would be preventing the violation of your (or your wife's) rights in the first place, which Hamdi in no way does. Which is why I said it was irrelevant.



I don't even know what any of this shiat means, but Hamdi v. Rumsfeld explicitly states people CAN NOT be held by "the will of the executive." They can only be held as a combatant persistent to the rules of war. And that detention CAN NOT be indefinite. It can only last the duration of hostilities. And being classified as a combatant must have a "factual base" that can be reviewed by a court. There's no shiat in there about farking my wife or taste in music.
 
2012-01-02 12:29:52 AM  
just imagine Newt Gingrich with this kind of authority...
 
2012-01-02 12:49:12 AM  

DarnoKonrad: I don't even know what any of this shiat means


Simply,

Before, the President independently determined you were a target, and authorized them to pick you up. They held you without trial indefinitely. If you wished to contest your combatant status, you appealed to the Executive branch who would hear your pleas and determine if they made a mistake.

Now, the President independently determines you are a target, and authorizes them to pick you up. They hold you without trial indefinitely. If you wish to contest your combatant status, you appeal to the Executive Judicial branch who will hear your pleas and determine if they made a mistake.

My problem is with the first two sentences. Hamdi's change has nothing to do with those sentences.
 
2012-01-02 12:50:41 AM  
I'm glad DarnoKonrad is here to spin for this bullshiat. Someone needed to do it.
 
2012-01-02 12:58:49 AM  

muck4doo: I'm glad DarnoKonrad is here to spin for this bullshiat. Someone needed to do it.


He's not even doing that, he just has no farking idea what Hamdi actually did, what the 9/11 AUMF is assumed to authorize, or how judicial review works. He honestly thinks Hamdi somehow stops the government from being able to blackbag you or requires review beyond Presidential to authorize detainment of individuals. He's an optimist.
 
2012-01-02 12:59:14 AM  

Amos Quito: You seem very confident that the Supreme Court will trash this garbage. I hope you're right, but even if you are I have to ask why the Congress and the President would try to float something like this in the first place?

Are they so stupid that unlike you and I, they can't see that it has no chance of passing SCOTUS scrutiny?

What would be their motive?


/Incidentally, I don't share your blind faith in SCOTUS


I have absolutely no faith in SCOTUS whatsoever anymore, let alone the other branches of government. I've been watching supreme court rulings, and none of them lately have come down in defense of constitutional rights, unless that means the rights of corporations. Sometimes they get inventive in the way they apply the law in favor of the government or corporations as opposed to the people, but it all amounts to the same thing. They're getting paid for favorable decisions. He who has the gold makes the rules, yet again.

None of our elected or federally appointed officials can be relied upon any longer to represent the interests of citizens. It's sad, but hardly unforeseeable. How do we get back on track, short of pulling them all and electing new ones? I think some of them certainly belong behind bars for their many assaults on democracy.
 
2012-01-02 01:21:48 AM  
for the first, and God-willing -only- time in my life, I can't wait for the ACLU to sue this travesty into oblivion.
 
2012-01-02 01:24:33 AM  

CitizensUnited: for the first, and God-willing -only- time in my life, I can't wait for the ACLU to sue this travesty into oblivion.


Sadly, because of the language put in to try to mitigate the impact of the NDAA, the ACLU will have to directly attack the 9/11 AUMF, which is a farking monumental task.
 
2012-01-02 01:27:15 AM  
i703.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-02 01:29:06 AM  
There's that farks legacy. "I was the least worst of the most atrocious bunch of corporate game reserve filth, but I still ended up a traitor to the spirit and letter of the constitution"
 
2012-01-02 01:38:49 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-01-02 01:41:14 AM  
i703.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-02 02:09:35 AM  

Amos Quito: Congress Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

President's Oath of Office:""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"


Obama and every member of Congress who voted for this constitution-wrecking bill has flagrantly violated their Oath of Office.

Do your duty, Americans.


No. Dancing with the stars is on.
 
2012-01-02 02:32:42 AM  
Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch

I'm getting a little tired of the cherrypicking that goes on with the "but thats unconstitutional!" cries people let out anytime something is done they don't personally care for. Just because something isn't detailed in the constitution does not make it inherently unconstitutional. Congressional committees and procedural rules aren't spelled out, congress is free to work out the specific details of *how* they do their duties which are spelled out in the document. The Air Force isn't mentioned anywhere in the document but rational people can figure out it falls well within the "raise and support armies" clause. If it were possible for a document to cover every possible contingency we wouldn't have needed a president, congress, or SCOTUS, we'd just open up the massive Constitutional Manuals and check the tables like it were a holy Gygaxian writ, but no we expect that thinking beings would be put into place to figure the the minutia of day-to-day operations of the federal government within the broad framework of the constitution as its actually written.

The president has authority over executive branch departments that congress approves of and funds. That authority includes directing those departments how to specifically perform their functions. If Congress passes a law making X illegal and the president tells his departments to focus on Y and Z first, that is within his scope of power. That simply does not violate constitutional law.

I'm not commenting on the NDAA issue itself, thats a topic well worthy of its own debate. What I am saying is, there is no way one one can start a debate with such a flawed premise as this "its unconstitutional!" cry.
 
2012-01-02 02:43:28 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: The president has authority over executive branch departments that congress approves of and funds. That authority includes directing those departments how to specifically perform their functions. If Congress passes a law making X illegal and the president tells his departments to focus on Y and Z first, that is within his scope of power. That simply does not violate constitutional law.


Direction does not require a signing statement, merely direction. Signing statements are intended to modify the legislation's impact. There are many grey areas in the Constitution, but the sole authority of the Legislative branch to legislate is not one of them. This is why the line item veto was struck: the President is absolutely not allowed to legislate, he simply executes the orders of Congress. By giving him the final say to rewrite laws - without any Congressional confirmation - one violates a fundamental tenet of separation of powers.

It's not a "ammo isn't in the second amendment" technicality, it's a clear as day line.
 
2012-01-02 02:49:00 AM  

DarnoKonrad: but Hamdi v. Rumsfeld explicitly states people CAN NOT be held by "the will of the executive."


Now it's not just "the will of the executive" anymore.

Congress has just officially defined the United States as a battlefield in a time of war and explicitly granted the executive the power to lock up anyone it likes without charges and without a trial.
 
2012-01-02 02:50:05 AM  
HEY, MORONS WHO DON'T ACTUALLY READ THE BILLS, READ THE DETAINEE SECTION OF THE NDAA AND STOP SPREADING BULLshiat RUMORS ABOUT INDEFINITE DETENTION FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/nezik/the_end_of_america_ h ouse_and_senate_pass_final/c38qzza?context=3


SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(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.


(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.


(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(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 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.


(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
 
2012-01-02 02:54:57 AM  

skatr9xfarku: HEY, MORONS WHO DON'T ACTUALLY READ THE BILLS, READ THE DETAINEE SECTION OF THE NDAA AND STOP SPREADING BULLshiat RUMORS ABOUT INDEFINITE DETENTION FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!


notsureifserious.jpg

Copypasta from a conspiracy subreddit of really old, tired arguments that have been shot down a hundred times? Fantastic contribution, senor.
 
2012-01-02 03:51:14 AM  
Of course Obama won't do this. It's not like he's broken any campaign promises before!

/The above statement is sarcasm (some misinterpret it on the internet).
 
2012-01-02 04:21:37 AM  
I heard it would probably go this way. Probably the best case scenario, under the circumstances. A veto would like result in a military version of the government shutdown fight we had last summer.. weeks of standoff with unpaid soldiers, what a mess..
 
2012-01-02 04:39:33 AM  
But seriously, Obama's gonna bring the Hope n Change sometime before he leaves Office.
 
2012-01-02 06:20:20 AM  

Alphax: I heard it would probably go this way. Probably the best case scenario, under the circumstances. A veto would like result in a military version of the government shutdown fight we had last summer.. weeks of standoff with unpaid soldiers, what a mess..


Why would Obama veto this? He has wanted the power to throw people in prison without charges and without a trial from the very beginning of his administration.

Only weeks after he took office he stood in front of the Constitution in the National Archive and gave a speech laying out his case that he should be allowed to do just exactly that. Throw anyone he likes into prison without a trial.

Quit pretending this isn't something he has wanted to be able to do right from the start.
 
2012-01-02 07:04:15 AM  
Can the Republicans pretend like they were totally against the NDAA all along even as they voted for it?

It seems to have worked for the Democrats and the Patriot Act.
 
2012-01-02 07:19:09 AM  
Obama could has locked 2012 if he would have done the following:

1) Sign the bill into law

2) Have all who voted for it arrested for treason

3) Say you could deny those arrest trial under the statues of the new law

It would have seen it repealed in record time and sent a strong chilling message to Congress to quit this shiat out and get back actually running, instead of ruining, the country.
 
2012-01-02 07:19:58 AM  

randomjsa: Can the Republicans pretend like they were totally against the NDAA all along even as they voted for it?

It seems to have worked for the Democrats and the Patriot Act.


Well the democrats did vote for it shorty after the largest terrorist attack on America. That can cloud judgement- what's your excuse for the GOP?

/I'm not worried. Farming Quito thinks there won't be another President. That's retarded.
 
2012-01-02 07:22:28 AM  
I've alot of mixed things on this bill regarding the implications. Can we get one of farks resident lawyers to offer an opinion?
 
2012-01-02 07:26:13 AM  

cmunic8r99: Possible tranlations:

I don't agree with what's in this bill, but I don't disagree with it enough to actually veto it.

I don't agree with what's in this bill, but I don't have the balls to veto it.

/wishes it was the former
//knows it's probably the latter
///dammitsomuch


Well, you've got to keep in mind that it was a military funding bill, which is kind of a big deal. It's not as though Obama could just up and veto the one or two provisions that he didn't like.
 
2012-01-02 08:41:18 AM  

cmunic8r99: Possible tranlations:

I don't agree with what's in this bill, but I don't disagree with it enough to actually veto it.

I don't agree with what's in this bill, but I don't have the balls to veto it.

/wishes it was the former
//knows it's probably the latter
///dammitsomuch


Actually, what it really means is "I am a fascist liar who wants to get another term as America's first Affirma black President using the same dishonest bullshiat that got you suckers to vote for me in the first place."

This is what you get for voting in a President because of his race: the same thing you get for voting in a President because of his racism. And this is the best example yet of the need to restrict the vote to people who can read and understand the Constitution and pass the same citizenship tests the US gives to immigrants. If that still leads to this shiat then I'll be wrong about bad voting choices being due to stupidity; in either case it'll still be true that Americans get the misgovernment they deserve.

Compared to Obama both Nixon and Reagan were liberals. I expect his second term to prove he's worse for America than either Bush as well.

But then you people won't vote for a third party because your TVs tell you a third party can't win because nobody will vote for it because your TVs tell you a third party can't win because...

And you won't revolt because you're cowardly little masochists who really don't want the abuse to stop. "Whip me harder Daddy!" is the real US motto. It's better to be tortured to death than to even consider standing up for yourselves.

I can't help cackling at how badly my fellow Americans exceed my previous worst expectations. Day after day you prove I still give you too much credit.
 
2012-01-02 09:15:30 AM  

Why Yes I Am A Wizard: 2) Have all who voted for it arrested for treason


That's not how the bill works. At all.
 
2012-01-02 09:17:32 AM  

sprawl15: Why Yes I Am A Wizard: 2) Have all who voted for it arrested for treason

That's not how the bill works. At all.


True, it doesn't need a reason.
 
2012-01-02 09:20:50 AM  

skatr9xfarku: HEY, MORONS WHO DON'T ACTUALLY READ THE BILLS, READ THE DETAINEE SECTION OF THE NDAA AND STOP SPREADING BULLshiat RUMORS ABOUT INDEFINITE DETENTION FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!..


you're the moron

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-passage-final-transcript-from - senate-floor/

"The disagreement arises from different interpretations of what the current law is. The sponsors of the bill believe that current law authorizes the detention of U.S. citizens arrested within the United States, without trial, until "the end of the hostilities" which, in my view, is indefinitely."
 
2012-01-02 09:35:29 AM  

GhostFish: Seems to me that Obama is pragmatic above all else, and that's a double edged sword.

If he vetoed the NDAA, he would have maintained the respect of many people but he would have gained nothing else from it. Congress would have inevitably overridden the veto, and his opponents would use the opportunity to say that he's soft on terror and doesn't support the troops and veterans.

Yeah, you want to see him stand up and fight for what you think is right. You want him to stand firm and not take this shiat. It's the principle of the thing, right? Even if it doesn't do any good.

I don't particularly care for Obama, or anyone that willingly joins up with the Rs and Ds. But I certainly don't envy him his position and all the bullshiat he's had to put up with since way back when he announced he was running for President.


The problem is that Obama's pragmatism has set up the country for a big, huge problem. Even if Obama doesn't use this new power, Obama isn't going to be President forever; either next year or in 5 year's time, we'll have someone else in that office. You may feel comfortable enough with Obama's assurances he will not use this power, but would you feel the same if Bush had it? Or Gingrich, who already made noise about arresting judges? Or perhaps Rick Perry, Christian dominionist idiot?
 
2012-01-02 09:57:41 AM  

Alphax: sprawl15: Why Yes I Am A Wizard: 2) Have all who voted for it arrested for treason

That's not how the bill works. At all.

True, it doesn't need a reason.


No, it does. The justification needs no review or objective basis, but someone does have to shout "turrist" and point at you.
 
2012-01-02 10:27:05 AM  
DarnoKonrad: You can't hide from the law and be expected to be protected by it. He was a wanted man hanging out with America's enemies. It doesn't matter if they're terrorists or Nazis, if you want to extricate yourself from that dangerous position, you give yourself up and get a lawyer. You DON'T continue to hide with America's enemies who congress has authorized to be killed by our military.

I just want to be sure I'm understanding you correctly. It seems like you're suggesting that it was acceptable to execute him without a trial because the fact that he was a wanted criminal who refused to submit himself to the authorities means that he is no longer afforded the protections granted in the US constitution. I find it hard to believe that anyone honestly thinks that's the case, because it would mean that anyone who had a warrant out for their arrest and didn't turn themselves in would also not be able to expect to to be afforded the protections of our law since they are hiding from it. Once they don't turn themselves in and submit themselves to our laws and therefore lose the rights and protections of our laws, we can just execute them without a trial? If they want their rights, like due process and a trial, then they must surrender themselves to the authorities?

Maybe you want to clarify that or walk it back a bit? If that is, in fact, what you are suggesting, then I think you should probably give some serious considerations to just what the implications of that would be.
 
2012-01-02 10:40:51 AM  
Surely, this will never be abused in the way that

IRS audits
Permits and licenses
Construction Contracts
Industry Regulations
Criminal Investigations
Criminal Prosecutions
Wiretapping
Search and Seizure

get abused.
 
2012-01-02 11:29:33 AM  
Maybe we should start electing constitutional scholars to the presidency so this sort of thing doesn't happen.

Maybe have them teach a couple classes about the constitution as a pre req for running for president.

It would also help if they had experience overseeing a.... I don't know what to call it...maybe a "law review" or something in the past.
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report