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?
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.
It expires at the end of his 1st term, I think that covers it.
His chance will be coming up with Iran. Ever since the 1979 embassy attack, Iran has been earning its comeuppance.This whole thing worries me. The biggest issue, aside from the unconstitutional law, is that Obama has no spine.
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 would tend to agree, while noting that his rhetoric will be irrelevant... his centrist actions have already betrayed him.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.
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.
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
I don't. I'm working to render political parties irrelevant.
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
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.
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
Now you're getting warm as to why the detainee section was inserted into this bill.[...] 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)
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
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?