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.

(WorldNetDaily)   US district court judge rules against Obama administration's law that allows the suspension of civil rights and indefinite detention of citizens suspected of terrorism, because that was only okay when Bush was in office   (wnd.com) divider line 67
    More: Ironic, George W. Bush, district court, President Obama, indefinite detention, U.S. Senate, civil rights, Daniel Ellsberg, ndaa  
•       •       •

887 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 May 2012 at 8:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-18 10:55:27 AM
Yes, clearly a bill written by John McCain and Carl Levin deserves to be known as "The Obama Administration's law".

Then again, I guess it would be a touch harder for the GOP to criticize if they referred to it as the "McCain-Levin bill" that was passed into law by the Obama Administration.

For one thing, it might cast some doubt in the GOP's claims that President Obama is never willing to "compromise" with them, and instead always chooses to "politicize" everything.


/If the US hadn't already been doing this for the last 8-9 years, I might be a little more concerned about this "new" law than I am.
 
2012-05-18 11:09:50 AM

MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.


The correct response to everything the GOP does is call thief bluff. The consequences be damned I'm tired of Obama caving into the tea party's temper tantrums
 
2012-05-18 11:21:57 AM
Why the hell does Fark send some much traffic to WingnutDerpy?
 
2012-05-18 11:41:45 AM
Baby steps.
 
2012-05-18 11:45:03 AM

Cubicle Jockey: This is a fantastic first step.


This. Shiatty link and shiatty posters making themselves out to be the real victims in all of this notwithstanding.
 
2012-05-18 12:08:15 PM

Zasteva: MyRandomName: MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.

Are you ignoring the actual White House memo based on the NDAA provision? Really?!?

Well, you are ignoring the signing statement which was Obama's last word on the matter, which includes the following.

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation."

It's seems pretty clear that Obama didn't agree with that part of the law.

Glad to see the judges ruling, and I hope it is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.


LOL. Signing statements mean jack shiat. They are not upgrades to a law, they are efforts to the administration to ignore certain laws. He can undo that signing statement any time he wants. SIGNING STATEMENTS ARE NOT LEGALLY BINDING. stop with your idiocy.
 
2012-05-18 01:27:31 PM
The shortest measurable unit of time: Length of time from a GOP president entering White House until WND reverses its position on this. They *loved* that "president can do anything he wants because TERROR" crap until January 2009.

I won't soon forget the 2003-2005 "You're either with us totally or a FARKING TRAITOR" mindset.

My position won't budge. Wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever.
 
2012-05-18 01:30:09 PM

Tatsuma: I love this headline.

The Obama Administration is trying to further keep on eroding the civil rights of American based on horrible precedents, it is overturned by the court, and the only thing submitter can say about that is raging about 'BUUUUUSH'

Also, written by an obviously illiterate dyslexic.


Makes sense it was greenlit.


Ah, to be a young idealist again.
 
2012-05-18 01:39:43 PM

Kibbler: The shortest measurable unit of time: Length of time from a GOP president entering White House until WND reverses its position on this. They *loved* that "president can do anything he wants because TERROR" crap until January 2009.

I won't soon forget the 20039/12/01-2005 "You're either with us totally or a FARKING TRAITOR" mindset.

My position won't budge. Wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever.


FTFY.
 
2012-05-18 01:46:10 PM

MyRandomName: Are you ignoring the actual White House memo based on the NDAA provision? Really?!?

Zasteva: Well, you are ignoring the signing statement which was Obama's last word on the matter, which includes the following.

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation."

It's seems pretty clear that Obama didn't agree with that part of the law.

Glad to see the judges ruling, and I hope it is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

MyRandomName: LOL. Signing statements mean jack shiat. They are not upgrades to a law, they are efforts to the administration to ignore certain laws. He can undo that signing statement any time he wants. SIGNING STATEMENTS ARE NOT LEGALLY BINDING. stop with your idiocy.


I didn't claim the signing statement was legally binding.

I claimed it was a reflection of his opinion about that part of the law. That's further supported by his actions leading up to the passage of the bill: his veto threat based on the original wording, and his willingness to sign the bill only after the passage of the Feinstein amendment, which clarified that section 1021 was not intended to give new powers to detain citizens.

Again, the signing statement is clearly intended to explain his rationale for signing it.

But perhaps you believe that's all just a lie, that he just threatened a veto and then wrote the signing statement as cover for his real intent to incarcerate large numbers of citizens in FEMA death camps?

You might also want to take a look at which party supported this more heavily:

House Dems: 93, GOP: 190
Senate Dems: 45, GOP: 40
 
2012-05-18 01:56:34 PM
STFU Tats. Just STFU.
 
2012-05-18 02:39:24 PM
People sure are selective of when they get upset about stuff like this. Where were they for the last Democrat President?

indefinite detention

Reno Blocks Palestinian's Release
Dec. 12 2000

"Attorney General Janet Reno today blocked the release of a Palestinian man jailed for three years without charges, federal officials said".

"The government maintains that Mazen Al-Najjar, 43, had links to Mideast terrorists and was a threat to national security. Al-Najjar denied the allegations. Not even his lawyers have ever seen the evidence against him. "

"Anwar Haddam, who has been held on secret evidence for four years in Fredericksburg, Va"

"Al-Najjar and Haddam are among about 20 immigrants, mostly Arabs living in America, who have been held in U.S. jails without criminal charges on the basis of classified evidence. "
 
2012-05-18 04:37:58 PM

MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.


Also, let's ignore the fact it wasn't okay during the Bush administration, and everyone left of Hitler's uncle was opposing it after it went into effect (see Hamidi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld); and that some of us right here on Fark were saying this would be the effect of that provision being signed into law and it was probably what Obama intended all the time?
 
2012-05-18 04:47:19 PM

MyRandomName: Those are the administration's own farking works. They supported the damn measure.


I don't think you know how words work.

The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. . .

Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.
 
2012-05-18 07:11:18 PM
"Obama's Law"?This was an equal-opportunity abomination that Congress created and attached to the defense budget, and was totally opposed by Obama. He's probably drinking a farking beer and toasting that judge for striking it down, as I type this.

Fark you in the ass with a rusty chainsaw, WingNutDaily.
 
2012-05-18 09:25:56 PM
Better late than never.

Also it was a Republican creation only some democrats opposed it Obama said he was going to veto it but couldn't politically and all that shiat.

But no one cares about that because BABSVR! Say it like EXCELSIOR!
 
2012-05-19 01:16:46 AM

PonceAlyosha: A Non Derpy Link to a different source's take on the story.


Weeks after Obama signed the law, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges filed a lawsuit against its so-called "Homeland Battlefield" provisions. Several prominent activists, scholars and politicians subsequently joined the suit, including Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg; Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky; Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir; Kai Wargalla, an organizer from Occupy London; and Alexa O'Brien, an organizer for the New York-based activist group U.S. Day of Rage.
They call themselves the Freedom Seven.


I...did not know that, Ed.
 
Displayed 17 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report