BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.Sincerely,The Target
MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties. They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops. Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not. Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions. He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.Late 2012, Obama is reelected.Yesterday, Rand Paul filibusters, and demands an explanation from the DoJ specifically stating what those provisions allow the president to do. The president refuses to give an explicit answer about those provisions. The president also refuses to lend any support to the issues that Rand Paul is bringing up.Democrats are defending this course of events in the following ways (if I miss any, please let me know):1. It was congress's fault in the first place for adding those provisions to the bill.2. Obama could not veto the bill, due to political pressures. 3. It is congress's responsibility, not Obama's, to remove or alter the provisions in the law.4. Obama could not start a national dialogue about these provisions, or he would seam weak on defense and against the war on terror.5. There is no reason for Obama to start a national dialogue, as nothing would get done anyway.To which I respond:1. I concede the point, Congress should shoulder a large portion of the blame.2. I concede the point, it would have been a very politically dicey move to veto the bill - however, Obama could have certainly voice his opposition to the provisions louder, and brought more national attention to the issue.3. This is true in a technical sense, but Obama has the bully pulpit and completely refused to use it. To argue that Obama has no influence over congress (particularly when his party controls one house) is complete bullshiat.4. If this is the case, why even ...The truth of the matter is that Obama wants those provisions. If you can't see it, you're wearing blinders.
SpectroBoy: BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.Sincerely,The TargetPlease provide evidence that this has ever happened or is planned to happen. Otherwise you are asking people to defend a fiction.
somedude210: In fact the WH has stated that they don't intend to ever use it on US citizens on US soil.
MattStafford: BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.They are fighting the court case because they are afraid if it is heard, it will be upheld? That might be four dimensional chess.
MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties. They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops. Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not. Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions. He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.
MattStafford: You don't think Obama saying, in the State of the Union, "The Republicans have passed a bill..." would be useless?
somedude210: MattStafford: Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.show me any time since he the republicans passed this right before the election that he could without getting yelled at or impeached?better yet, show me where the bills from the Republicans in Congress put forth to take away this power
MattStafford: somedude210: Riddle me this, why would a president, who is hated soooo much by the goddamn opposing party that anything he advocates gets the party to support the exact opposite, would think that him going out of his way to say "look, I don't want to use drones. No president should use them" won't result in the party that controls congress to immediately sponsor a bill saying that all presidents should have the ability to use drones?Obama shouldn't stand up for what he believes in, or what the people who elected him believe in, because Republicans. I mean, he would totally do all of these great things we want him to do, but the Republicans currently control the House of Representatives (not the Senate, just the House). The fact that Republicans control half of the legislative branch completely neutralizes Obama, and we should not blame him for standing down or ignoring all of these issues, because Republicans in the House.
MattStafford: Wicked Chinchilla: Umm, no. In every post of mine I have stated I would like him to have done more. Every other person has said the same thing. The only person not seeing reality (or reading the entirety of people's posts apparently) is you since you keep insisting its all Obama's fault, which is just ridiculous on its face given how bills are created and passed.I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if Bush did the same thing, you wouldn't be saying "I would have liked to see him do more" and call that enough criticism.He needs a strong rebuke on this, and he needs it from his party. Saying you would have liked to see him do more is barely even criticism.
MattStafford: CPennypacker: That's pretty farking hypocritical right there.I'm sorry, are there a ton of left libertarians in office? The people I support don't do this kind of shiat.
Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up
WTF Indeed: What this filibuster was really about was Rand Paul's protection of militia groups that make up a lot of his voting block.
WTF Indeed: It's almost like a hypothetical scenario was used as a grandstanding event by Republicans not invited to dinner with the President. A scenario that, if came to pass, would be legal if the drones were given to the FBI or martial law was declared. What this filibuster was really about was Rand Paul's protection of militia groups that make up a lot of his voting block unquenchable thirst for attention.
MyKingdomForYourHorse: The Authorization for Use of Military Force allows enemies classified as enemy combatants that pose a risk against the US gives the executive branch WIDE authority in authorizing force against those targets.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 26 2017 17:13:53
Runtime: 0.443 sec (443 ms)