FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama’s Indefinite Detention of US Citizens





jmi256
I can’t understand why anyone would think is a good policy. The Obama Administration has recently signed into law a provision that allows the government to arrest and detain US citizens indefinitely without trial, even if they are arrested in the US. The need for Gitmo created because of non-affiliated enemy combatants captured on foreign soil, because we couldn’t cut them loose to attack us again, but bringing them to the US would given them the rights afforded under the US Constitution. However, Obama has gone uber-totalitarian, and has now given himself the ability to block the rights afforded under the US Constitution from those who are even here. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a reckless and dangerous person like Obama to lead a country like the US, but I guess there are crazies in every group.


Quote:
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial
Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill


Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.

The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".

Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.

"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."

Graham added that it was right that Americans should be subject to the detention law as well as foreigners. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next," he said. "And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.'"

Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.

But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won".

"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts."

Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

"Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."

Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it.

"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"

Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities". They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue.

The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would "cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers.

But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military.

Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.

Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.

"The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."

In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military.

"The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress.

Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the "underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber".

Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court.

Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed. "The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said.

Source = http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama?newsfeed=true
Ankhanu
Yeah, I couldn't believe it when I heard that he was signing on that bill. As bad as my government is, and as disconnected as they are from what is good for my nation, THIS trumps what they've managed! This is clearly not the guy who campaigned for election and won. This isn't just disappointing, it's scary.


I'm not convinced that your pet political party would have done any better (especially since John McCain was a co-sponsor of the bill), but it's still hideously disappointing. Another reason to be glad I'm not living in the USA.
deanhills
Makes his Presidential campaign of 2008 where he was going to completely nix Gitmo hypocritical and a lie. I'd imagine he doesn't see himself as reckless and dangerous though. He would see it as a noble cause in the interest of public safety and security. I wonder how many evil laws have been created in the interest of public safety and security? Twisted Evil
hw3patch
Even if Obama vetoed the bill, it looks like his veto could have been overridden. These links show which Representatives and Senators voted for and against the bill (74% and 93%, respectively).

The fact that the US already tortures people who aren't even terrorists makes me sick. Now it's only a matter of time before they torture a US-born citizen. And that's not a comforting thought, considering that so many people stuck in the corrupt court system are innocent. I was hoping for a law that went in the other direction, giving alleged terrorists the same rights that the accused in the US have, but it looks like the US is just as evil as the ones they're fighting against.
deanhills
I have a friend from Sudan who once had to visit Sudan for liaising with the University of North Carolina. He had to go through rigorous interviews in Abu Dhabi to get a Visa, including reference letters from the University of North Carolina, which are all OK and understandable. That part was good. But then after all of that, the worst happened in the US. They had failed to warn him at the Embassy in Abu Dhabi that there were reporting arrangements in place for citizens from Sudan (and most countries from the Middle East). AND there was no reporting office at the Raleigh Airport where he arrived. So had to go through further interrogation at the airport. Then told he had to get a stamp from another office which he had to research where it was on top of a heavy itinerary from his host at the University. Embarrassment and inconvenience. Get the feeling that citizens from Sudan and select countries from the world that fall in the same "terrorist" category are already detained in a way when they enter the US.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
Yeah, I couldn't believe it when I heard that he was signing on that bill. As bad as my government is, and as disconnected as they are from what is good for my nation, THIS trumps what they've managed! This is clearly not the guy who campaigned for election and won. This isn't just disappointing, it's scary.

Yes, some people fell for Obama and the Democrats’ empty campaign promises, but many of us saw this coming. The national media really played a part in the deception as it fawned over Obama and never really challenged him or his policies in the way they do other candidates.



hw3patch wrote:
Even if Obama vetoed the bill, it looks like his veto could have been overridden. These links show which Representatives and voted for and against the bill (74% and 93%, respectively).

Not necessarily. The way it works in the US is not that if a vote is over the threshold to override a veto, then it is passed regardless whether a veto is issued. Even if a vote is 100% in both chambers, if it is vetoed it goes back to the Senate and House for a second vote. Sadly many politicians will vote for/against something if it looks like it is already going to pass or fail, not because it is the right thing to do. Also, the Democrats (Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan was the primary sponsor) added this provision to a defense bill so that the Democrats could attack any Republicans who voted against the bill as “soft on defense.” That is Democrat-style politicking for you.
jmi256
By the way, here is an article that outlines just some of the disconnects between Obama and the Democrats’ empty campaign promises and the reality in how they have governed.


Quote:
Trashing the Constitution: Obama and executive power

WASHINGTON, January 8, 2011—Promises abound in elections. Then-Senator Obama promised a lot in 2008, catering to the yearnings of an electorate disillusioned with the American political system. He was the unifier, the inspirational personage representing the solution to a failed decade guided by a rowdy Texan in the White House who squandered America’s capital in foreign lands.

The next four years, and surely the next eight, would see the start of a robust economic recovery, ushering in a dramatic decline in poverty and, of course, a resurgence of confidence in America’s position in the world. None of these have materialized. In fact, in each case the opposite result has been obtained, pointing to an increasingly appropriate referendum of what President Obama so aptly called a one term proposition at the inception of his presidency.

Throughout his first term, Obama has learned much, whether or not that knowledge satisfies or angers his staunchly liberal base and his detractors. As his presidency has progressed, however, the issue on which he has shifted course most dramatically from his campaign rhetoric is that of counterterrorism.

Pre-January 20, 2009, there were grand vows of shuttering the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and dramatically bettering relations with the Muslim world. Obama added endless assurances that he'd improve the perception of America throughout the world, as if this were the number one job of the Commander-in-Chief. And because President Bush had abandoned any concern for this in the course of an utterly disastrous foreign policy and national security strategy—at least according to Obama’s tale of what would, under him, be described as a foreign policy dictated by “a new spirit, not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence”—Obama appeared to plant the seeds for a more internationalist agenda. What happened?

Woe to the peaceniks and the gullible progressives who had reveled in dreams of a dramatic shift from the Manichean Mr. Bush to the judicious Mr. Obama.

Today veteran Democrats ignore their previously boisterous calls for a less aggressive foreign policy. They express at best a timid concern for the ironic reality that a president from their own party—one that has over the years claimed a monopoly on representing the downtrodden and the ideals of democracy—is implementing the most expansive targeted killing campaign in the history of the nation. The scope of drone strikes has increased from one country—Pakistan—under big, bad Bush, to five more—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen—under Obama’s Camelot. In number, too, the strikes have grown significantly, from 42 under Bush to nearly 250—just in Pakistan—under Obama.

Secrecy like that for which the Bush White House was criticized enshrouds the current administration’s drone campaign against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. The president orders the killing of selected individuals—U.S. citizens included—anywhere in the world without checks on his executive authority or oversight of any nature. Washington is well aware of this filthy secret, yet only a few who once indulged the president's legal views now openly critique his decision to cast aside his oath to uphold the law of the land as he tramples the sovereignty of those nations ravaged by the decisions of Bush, who supposedly embarrassed America with his machismo.

What was to be the most transparent administration in the history of the country—in Obama’s own words an “administration ... committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government”—has resisted disclosing any details about the structure of the drone program, or even the names of those who have been assassinated. Colin Powell was isolated within the Bush White House for his dissent on the Iraq War? Well, thus was the fate of the director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, fired promptly by Obama last year following his efforts to raise debate within the White House on the drone program.

Unmanned successes abroad? Undoubtedly. Gone are the days of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. And relegated to oblivion are hundreds of al-Qaeda operatives and affiliates throughout the Greater Middle East.

But well and alive are claims of a nuanced counterterrorism strategy driven by the needs of the day. Apparently, it’s not that Obama, former University of Chicago constitutional law professor extraordinaire, fails to stand for human rights or the rule of law. It’s just that he finds sacrificing some of these conveniently frivolous fixtures necessary to perform his most important task: protecting the country and her allies.

Simply put, in his own interpretation, Obama embarked on an expansion of the drone campaign to protect the country and her allies. He did what he thought was right and strategically effective. After all, increasingly advanced technology in the form of unmanned aerial vehicles prevents the loss of American blood while efficiently taking out scores of the enemies of America and her allies.

Despite the quantifiable successes of the drone campaign, what should puzzle every witness to the past three years is the brazen nature of Obama’s eager criticism of Bush’s handling of counterterrorism. The president and his proponents continue to claim that Bush-era policies like waterboarding and Guantanamo undermined our security, violated fundamental American legal doctrine, and crossed an historic line of morality. But the same criticisms can just as easily be cast upon Obama’s own counterterrorism strategy. Admittedly, drones are one aspect of the administration’s strategy, but they do, after all, kill, not torture.

Obama has, by his own standards, failed in his vision to “lead in the observance of human rights, and the rule of law, and civil rights and due process.” His expansion of the drone campaign, in conjunction with his extension of the Patriot Act—roving wiretaps and the infamous library provision quite intact—despite his vehement opposition to it while serving in the Senate; his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, which extends the Guantanamo transfer restrictions and codifies the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial; and his apparent acceptance of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws, for which he lambasted Bush, have reinforced a well-established lesson: For Obama, the constitution is sacrosanct, except when he feels it’s not in the best interest of the country. To move from a position of claiming that he would not “use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress” to using them 20 times already is telling.

A world of difference—no, change—executive power certainly does make.

Source = http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/mugged-reality/2012/jan/8/trashing-constitution-obama-and-executive-power/
Ankhanu
I notice you glossed over the fact that John McCain was a sponsor of the bill and went right into the disconnect of Democrats Razz News flash, they're all politicians, they don't have your interest in mind.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
I notice you glossed over the fact that John McCain was a sponsor of the bill and went right into the disconnect of Democrats Razz News flash, they're all politicians, they don't have your interest in mind.

McCain was a co-sponsor of the Defense bill (most of it deals with appropriating money for defense, etc.), but did not insert the language about detaining US citizens. This was inserted by Democrats, specifically section 1031 by Levin at the behest of Obama. Of course Obama tried to play both sides by asking for the language to be inserted, then threatening to veto it because of the language, to only have a last-minute ‘change of heart.’ Obama definitely does not have our best interests in mind.


Quote:
President Obama asked for indefinite detention language in defense bill.

Today we learned that President Obama is the one who asked for the language contained in section 1031 of the Defense Authorization Bill that Civil Libertarians find so ominous. Lawyer and columnist Glenn Greenwald and Sen. Carl Levin on the floor of the senate confirm that the language that Obama had threatened to veto was language he had actually asked for. If true, this will provide even more impetus for Progressives to fall in behind the third party candidacy of Rocky Anderson, Progressive former mayor (2000-2008) of Salt Lake City who just announced his candidacy and the start of the Justice Party.

Despite what our national media will try to get us to believe it seems that the defense authorization bill still contains language that can be construed to mean that Americans can be held in violation of our rights to Habeas Corpus among other things. Obama's statement on this issue would be laughable if it weren't so critical when he says that if this bill, " will negatively impact our counter-terrorism professionals and undercut our committment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems."

The bipartisan dissent on this bill puts the lie to claims that Americans rights are protected from Obama's apparent power grab while pretending to be a progressive yet again. You need only look at the comments of some of the dissenters. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) stated the bill would turn our military into a domestic police force. Rand Paul (R-KY) warned the provisions in this bill put, "every American at risk of being sent to Guantanamo Bay." His father Ron Paul (R-Tx) has been a long term critic of "big Government" expansion over the war on terror in this bill and The Patriot Act. Tom McClintock (R-CA) states, "this section (1031) specifically affirms that the president has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any "associated forces" whatever that means." The government does not need to prove anything they only need to make the allegations and the person can be held indefinitely with no charges and no trial.

Civl liberties groups believe this bill puts significant cracks in the very foundation of American liberty. I am amazed that there isn't far more protest than there is. Aparently, small government only applies to the 1% and their profits because it sure doesn't seem to apply to anything else in government. At the end of the day however, it seems that we continue to discover that the Obama who ran for president is not the man in the oval office. The inspiration we all got from 2008 increasingly looks like a hollow promise.

Source = http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-philadelphia/president-obama-asked-for-indefinite-detention-language-defense-bill
Ankhanu
Aye, I don't disagree, but, my point was that the other presidential candidate was a supporter and would have also passed the bill. You guys were in a no-win... and still are in the upcoming election.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
I notice you glossed over the fact that John McCain was a sponsor of the bill and went right into the disconnect of Democrats :P News flash, they're all politicians, they don't have your interest in mind.

McCain was a co-sponsor of the Defense bill (most of it deals with appropriating money for defense, etc.), but did not insert the language about detaining US citizens. This was inserted by Democrats, specifically section 1031 by Levin at the behest of Obama. Of course Obama tried to play both sides by asking for the language to be inserted, then threatening to veto it because of the language, to only have a last-minute ‘change of heart.’ Obama definitely does not have our best interests in mind.


Examiner.com? So now a loony conspiracy theory that somehow Obama did this in order to hurt himself. Mostly this was a trap for Obama: Either reject the military funding bill for 2012 and make a huge political mess, or sign it and both disappoint the progressives while inflaming the loonies who think he's going to put them into concentration camps for being gun owners and Christians or whatever. Obama signing this did not help him politically, but simple facts don't compute in far-right circles that Jmi256 goes around and around in.

Obama and the progressive Dems did insist on putting this in the act, that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force" and "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." Obama also made this signing statement: "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Indefinite_detention_without_trial:_Section_1021

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-signs-defense-bill-pledges-to-maintain-legal-rights-of-terror-suspects/2011/12/31/gIQATzbkSP_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Quote:
Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of U.S. citizens
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

Awful lot of loopholes left in that statement, assuming it isn't a complete lie in the first place.
(Old joke: How can you tell when a politician is lying? ... His lips are moving.)

What about the next administration*?
What about long (say, 40 years) (but not indefinite) detention?
What about detention 'not authorized by my administration'?
What about indefinite 'non-military' detention?
And, importantly, what about non-US citizens?



*That's a big problem with such power-granting laws... even if you trust the current politicians with that power, sooner or later, some will get elected that shouldn't be trusted with that power, and it will be abused.
hw3patch
jmi256 wrote:

hw3patch wrote:
Even if Obama vetoed the bill, it looks like his veto could have been overridden. These links show which Representatives and voted for and against the bill (74% and 93%, respectively).

Not necessarily. The way it works in the US is not that if a vote is over the threshold to override a veto, then it is passed regardless whether a veto is issued. Even if a vote is 100% in both chambers, if it is vetoed it goes back to the Senate and House for a second vote. Sadly many politicians will vote for/against something if it looks like it is already going to pass or fail, not because it is the right thing to do. Also, the Democrats (Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan was the primary sponsor) added this provision to a defense bill so that the Democrats could attack any Republicans who voted against the bill as “soft on defense.” That is Democrat-style politicking for you.


I think you misinterpreted my post. What I was saying is that since over 2/3 of Congressmen in both chambers voted for the bill, if Obama vetoed it and they decided to try to override it, it wouldn't be unexpected or surprising if once more, over 2/3 of Congressmen voted for the bill. It's one of those bills that had strong and broad support.
deanhills
hw3patch wrote:
I think you misinterpreted my post. What I was saying is that since over 2/3 of Congressmen in both chambers voted for the bill, if Obama vetoed it and they decided to try to override it, it wouldn't be unexpected or surprising if once more, over 2/3 of Congressmen voted for the bill. It's one of those bills that had strong and broad support.
That puzzles me! In the same way that it puzzled me when Bush got elected the second time and the American people hated him at the same time. Something is not that good with the political system as people don't seem to get what I find in Forums and in the media. Obama's is supposed to be the leading party, and supposed to be liberal. Sort of does not make sense at all.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Obama and the progressive Dems did insist on putting this in the act, that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force" and "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."

Really? Or are you lying again? Because according to Levin, the Obama administration actually demanded to have language that protected Americans removed:






handfleisch wrote:
Obama also made this signing statement: "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

LOL. And you believe Obama? First of all, signing statements have no real enforcement authority. It is the segment that Obama demanded be inserted that allows for indefinite detention that has force of law. But the Progressives/Democrats/Brown Shirts/whatever they are calling themselves now are too easily distracted and placated by Obama’s smoke and mirrors as he tells them he is against the law all the while demanding the authority to detain suspects forever if he chooses and signing the law. Obama doesn’t have the character nor principles to do what is right, but he needs to appear to have some to his followers so they can at least pretend to have some dignity. I find it hard to believe that they actually believe him, but they need to rationalize their poor choice in a leader somehow.

Second of all, Obama has been shown to just make it up as he goes and willing to say whatever he has to in order to get what he wants. Remember how the Obama administration claimed that the “stimulus” bill would keep unemployment below 8%, but it instead shot up over 10% while wasting a trillion dollars of taxpayer money? Remember how he said how the money was spent would be transparent, yet it somehow found its way into the pockets of Obama and the Democrats’ campaign contributors? Remember how Lefties claimed the Obamacare bill was going to reduce premiums for those paying for healthcare, but it instead jumped double digits? Remember how the very same people claimed that Obamacare would reduce the deficit, but instead we have seen historic deficits under Obama? Remember how Obama said Gitmo was a “disgrace” and he would close it, but now he is expanding its mission to include even US citizens and those here in the US and protected by the US Constitution? The list goes on and on.

And third of all, don’t you at least think it is ironic that Obama would use a signing statement, in which he criticized Bush for using and promised not to use, to make another promise? Do you really not see the folly in believing a president that uses one broken promise to make another?
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
[are you lying again?

LOL. You are the most discredited person in these forums, and you start out by accusing someone of lying "again"? Then you show a one-minute youtube vid of a Congressional debate all out of context, edited by Putin's anti-American "Russia Today"! Do you do stand-up?

jmi256 wrote:
Progressives/Democrats/Brown Shirts/whatever they are calling themselves now


Hmm, I would say comparing the Democratic party of the USA to the Nazi Brown Shirts pretty much defines your non-existent veracity.

jmi256 wrote:
Remember how the Obama administration claimed that the “stimulus” bill .......... The list goes on and on.


The list is limitless when your BS factor is likewise. But I have to hand it to you for making a list that nearly 100% hogwash.

Please, post again! I'm surprised you haven't started a thread on the voter fraud stunt by your hero James O'Keefe.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
hw3patch wrote:
I think you misinterpreted my post. What I was saying is that since over 2/3 of Congressmen in both chambers voted for the bill, if Obama vetoed it and they decided to try to override it, it wouldn't be unexpected or surprising if once more, over 2/3 of Congressmen voted for the bill. It's one of those bills that had strong and broad support.
That puzzles me! In the same way that it puzzled me when Bush got elected the second time and the American people hated him at the same time. Something is not that good with the political system as people don't seem to get what I find in Forums and in the media. Obama's is supposed to be the leading party, and supposed to be liberal. Sort of does not make sense at all.


The alternative to Bush was Kerry Confused A robotic monkey could have won that election lol

This situation isn't too puzzling though. You sign the bill and allow ridiculous destruction of personal liberty and human rights, or you don't sign the bill and get cast as a politician who "doesn't support military families or active military." Any "career politician" knows what choice to make. And with an overall 9-10% approval rating already, they don't have much to lose. Most voters probably couldn't even begin to describe what the NDAA is, so from a politician's standpoint they're not giving up much by voting for the bill anyway. At least, they're not giving up as much as they would by not signing the bill.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

The alternative to Bush was Kerry Confused A robotic monkey could have won that election lol

But, didn't because people are so worried about voting against the other guy, they've lost sight of who they're voting for.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
LOL. You are…..blather, blather

If you say so. It is simple enough; you were caught in another lie, this time trying to claim Obama tried to have language inserted in the bill to protect Americans, when it has been shown that he actually fought to have it removed so that Americans would be threatened. And if you don’t like being lumped in with the company you keep, then don’t do it. Again, simple enough. Even the liberal Daily Kos isn’t buying the Left Wing’s song and dance about Obama’s Indefinite Dentition Bill:

Quote:
Obama not only signed legislation to detain Americans indefinitely, but asked for it!!!!
President Obama promised us he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act if the indefinite military detention provision remained, yet Senator Carl Levin on the floor of Congress reported:

Quote:
"The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved ... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."


The NDAA's historic assault on American liberty: By signing into law the NDAA, the president has awarded the military extraordinary powers to detain US citizens without trial, Jonathan Turley, The Guardian, January 2, 2012.

Quote:
President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.


Obama promising to veto the bill and then signing it with a phony fig leaf of a signing statement that claimed he was against indefinite detention rings doubly duplicitous, knowing that his administration demanded the language to protect Americans from indefinite detention be removed in the first place.

Jonathan Turley debunks Obama's spin rationalizing signing this odious bill:

1. Funding the troops.

Since it was the White House who insisted that language exempting American citizens from being subject to indefinite detention by the military, without charges or a trial, Obama's claim that he only voted for the bill to keep funding the troops rings hollow.

Furthermore, how is it beneficial or respectful "for the troops," who take an oath to defend the Constitution, to do away with habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial?


2. Obama has no intention of using the provision that allows indefinite detention of American citizens.

Whether or not Obama plans to use the provision is irrelevant. Signing the bill allows the provision to be used in the future.


3. NDAA only codifies what is already law.
Quote:
That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the constitution.


4. Changes made to NDAA have exempted American citizens from indefinite detention.

Quote:
The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

Quote:
The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.


Spin can not alter the fact that waterboarding is torture and that NDAA is a bad bill that threatens every American with indefinte detention without charges.

How can any of us feel that we can safely exercise our freedom of speech or assembly now?

We just lost America.

I'm sorry, but I can't stand up and cheer a President who signed this unAmerican bill into law that strips us of our rights and freedom. To discover how this administration had a hand in not exempting American citizens from military detention without end/charges/trial while Obama claimed that he would veto it, only to sign it into law with a meaningless statement professing his displeasure adds insult to injury.

And as for the bullies who call us names for speaking the truth and patriotically defending our Constitution, I ask them, do you "hate" our freedom, our Bill of Rights, our democracy, our country enough to throw them to the wind? How can you love our Constitution and not demand that this bill be struck down? How can you be so well satisfied with an administration who insisted we be threatened with indefinite military detention for no tangible reason and no hope of a trial?

Source = http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/03/1051057/-Obama-not-only-signed-legislation-to-detain-Americans-indefinitely,-but-asked-for-it!!!!


ocalhoun wrote:
But, didn't because people are so worried about voting against the other guy, they've lost sight of who they're voting for.

?huh? Are you saying people were voting against Kerry? Left Wingers love to revise history, but it was Bush who was under constant attack and smeared. Despite that, most voters actually voted for Bush instead of Kerry and the policies he presented.
Ankhanu
Gods, you two sound like children.
handfleisch: You're a liar!
jmi: no, you're a liar!
handfleisch: you are!
jmi: no, you are!
handfleisch: here's something showing you're a liar!
jmi: oh yeah? that's a lie!
handfleisch: way to lie, liar!
... etc.

Does it get old to you guys at all?
deanhills
I don't think the Politics Forum would ever be the same without these jmi-handfleisch discussions. I miss them when they are not around. Cool
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
I don't think the Politics Forum would ever be the same without these jmi-handfleisch discussions. I miss them when they are not around. Cool

I tend to skip the posts when I see this occurring. But you're right, it wouldn't be the same if I could stand reading all the posts Razz
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't think the Politics Forum would ever be the same without these jmi-handfleisch discussions. I miss them when they are not around. Cool

I tend to skip the posts when I see this occurring. But you're right, it wouldn't be the same if I could stand reading all the posts Razz
I checked myself over the last few days and it's not entirely true. I don't read all of the posts. I do notice all the titles, but I skip some of the ones that don't appeal to me. I skim through the ones that look interesting. I read more carefully through the posts I respond to.
handfleisch
Ankhanu wrote:
Gods, you two sound like children.
handfleisch: You're a liar!
jmi: no, you're a liar!
handfleisch: you are!
jmi: no, you are!
handfleisch: here's something showing you're a liar!
jmi: oh yeah? that's a lie!
handfleisch: way to lie, liar!
... etc.

Does it get old to you guys at all?


1. If you think there's an equivalency, you are not paying attention.
2. I think you are not in the USA, am I right? You don't seem to understand the effect this far right delusion spread through the media is having in the USA. It led to the invasion of Iraq, with a majority of the country believing pure nonsense about WMD. More recently, we had our political debate spending time on the "Birther" issue, a purely insane and subtly racist diversion about whether Obama was a US citizen. This is why it's important to confront this stuff and I won't be called out on it by you. What have you done to help lately, anyway?
ocalhoun
Maybe we could get back a little closer to being on-topic?

Pretty Please?
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
If you say so. It is simple enough; you were caught in another lie, this time trying to claim Obama tried to have language inserted in the bill to protect Americans, when it has been shown that he actually fought to have it removed so that Americans would be threatened. And if you don’t like being lumped in with the company you keep, then don’t do it. Again, simple enough. Even the liberal Daily Kos isn’t buying the Left Wing’s song and dance about Obama’s Indefinite Dentition Bill:

LOL. From Putin's Russia Today to the Daily Kos. Try using a single real news source. Oh, I forgot, far-right fantasists can't do that; facts interrupt their special little world. It's awesome the Internet exists so that fringey head-cases can rant and rave nonsense.

The fact is, the bill's wording was complicated, its effect is unknown, its legal standing is murky. Kind of like your conspiracy theory, JMI. Are you really afraid Obama wants to put you in a concentration camp?
liljp617
Ankhanu wrote:
Gods, you two sound like children.
handfleisch: You're a liar!
jmi: no, you're a liar!
handfleisch: you are!
jmi: no, you are!
handfleisch: here's something showing you're a liar!
jmi: oh yeah? that's a lie!
handfleisch: way to lie, liar!
... etc.

Does it get old to you guys at all?


It's good to have a non-politician example of exactly why the current political system sucks horribly. People are so mentally isolated in their corners that nothing worthwhile is said.
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Gods, you two sound like children.
handfleisch: You're a liar!
jmi: no, you're a liar!
handfleisch: you are!
jmi: no, you are!
handfleisch: here's something showing you're a liar!
jmi: oh yeah? that's a lie!
handfleisch: way to lie, liar!
... etc.

Does it get old to you guys at all?


It's good to have a non-politician example of exactly why the current political system sucks horribly. People are so mentally isolated in their corners that nothing worthwhile is said.


1. Your reply is another example, the rampant use of false equivalencies.
2. When worthwhile things are said on lowgrade Internet forums, they are ignored.
3. You're blaming the sucking of the system on people who shine a light on the far right nonsense that has warped American politics out of recognition? Are you sure you aren't part of the problem?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

3. You're blaming the sucking of the system on people who shine a light on the far right nonsense that has warped American politics out of recognition? Are you sure you aren't part of the problem?

Yes.

To help prevent the system from sucking, you have to shine a light on all the nonsense that has warped American politics out of recognition... Not just the nonsense from the far right.

Yes, the individual parties suck, but what sucks worse is the system that forces us to choose one of only two choices... both of which suck.
Focusing on just how one party sucks detracts attention from how the system as a whole sucks, and is therefore part of the problem.


*edit*
Oh, and I take (somewhat personal) offense at the implication that Frihost is a low-grade internet forum.
Frihost is at least mid-grade.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Yes, the individual parties suck, but what sucks worse is the system that forces us to choose one of only two choices... both of which suck.
True. That's probably how Ron Paul ended up with the Republican Presidential nominees. He'd never have made it on his own as an independent. Forcing him to find one of the two evils that he is least uncomfortable with and make a compromise.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

3. You're blaming the sucking of the system on people who shine a light on the far right nonsense that has warped American politics out of recognition? Are you sure you aren't part of the problem?

Yes.

To help prevent the system from sucking, you have to shine a light on all the nonsense that has warped American politics out of recognition... Not just the nonsense from the far right.

Yes, the individual parties suck, but what sucks worse is the system that forces us to choose one of only two choices... both of which suck.
Focusing on just how one party sucks detracts attention from how the system as a whole sucks, and is therefore part of the problem.


This isn't about "just how one party sucks". You have changed the subject to the two-party system in the USA, which is not the point. The point was about the influence of right wing reactionary propaganda in the USA. If you want to discuss the point, please do.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

3. You're blaming the sucking of the system on people who shine a light on the far right nonsense that has warped American politics out of recognition? Are you sure you aren't part of the problem?

Yes.

To help prevent the system from sucking, you have to shine a light on all the nonsense that has warped American politics out of recognition... Not just the nonsense from the far right.

Yes, the individual parties suck, but what sucks worse is the system that forces us to choose one of only two choices... both of which suck.
Focusing on just how one party sucks detracts attention from how the system as a whole sucks, and is therefore part of the problem.


This isn't about "just how one party sucks". You have changed the subject to the two-party system in the USA, which is not the point. The point was about the influence right wing reactionary propaganda in the USA. If you want to discuss the point, please do.


Actually, the subject of this thread is Obama’s Indefinite Detention of US Citizens. It’s right there in the title, so I am not sure exactly how you missed that. If you want to discuss the point, please do. However, you have made the claim that:

handfleisch wrote:
Obama and the progressive Dems did insist on putting this in the act, that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force" and "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."

As usual you provide zero proof for your laughable claim, and I quickly and easily showed this to be another of your blatant lies. I even provided a YouTube video of the Democrat sponsor of the bill and language that provides for indefinite detention of US citizens where he very clearly admits that it was the Obama administration that insisted that any language that would have protected US citizens be removed. It is quite funny to watch you continue in your spiral of lies, distortions and smokescreens, but it is sad and troubling that you would brush aside the fact that Obama is destroying rights and protections outlined in the US Constitution instead of admitting to your lie and continuing to carry water for such a failure as Obama and the Democrats have been for the American people and our rights.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

As usual you provide zero proof for your laughable claim, and I quickly and easily showed this to be another of your blatant lies. I even provided a YouTube video of the Democrat sponsor of the bill and language that provides for indefinite detention of US citizens where he very clearly admits that it was the Obama administration that insisted that any language that would have protected US citizens be removed. It is quite funny to watch you continue in your spiral of lies, distortions and smokescreens, but it is sad and troubling that you would brush aside the fact that Obama is destroying rights and protections outlined in the US Constitution instead of admitting to your lie and continuing to carry water for such a failure as Obama and the Democrats have been for the American people and our rights.


You're kind of a psycho, aren't you? You have a history of totally ridiculous threads, and now you accuse me of "blatant lies". You should ask your doctor to increase your medication so you will be less of a sociopath. And with a stable mind you might understand that a one-minute video edited by the Russia Today propaganda channel is not proof of caca.
silverdown
Oh wow.... just wow... Shocked Shocked Shocked
ocalhoun
Oh, look... ad hominem.

Do continue.
I'm sure that'll win the argument.
jmi256
It looks like Americans at least have a glimmer of hope that Obama’s Indefinite Detention policy will not remain in force as a federal judge has stuck down his provision that basically calls for anyone, anywhere to be held without trial –or even without being charged. Hopefully the Obama Administration will accept the federal judge’s ruling that his policy violates our Constitutional rights and not attempt to fight for the provision to be reinstated, but I have a feeling that might not be the case. I don’t often agree with Amy Goodman (I listen to her show on the radio every morning in the shower), but it is nice to see that a small minority on the Left has decided to stand up to Obama and his oppressive policies. I don’t care if you call yourself a Republican or a Democrat, I cannot understand how someone can support Obama’s un-Constitutional Indefinite Detention policy or pretend that it is nothing to worry about. Obama may have claimed he won’t use his provision, but as we have seen with this president, he often says one thing and does another.







Quote:
Journalist, Plaintiff Chris Hedges Hails "Monumental" Ruling Blocking NDAA Indefinite Detention


In a rare move, a federal judge has struck down part of a controversial law signed by President Obama that gave the government the power to indefinitely detain anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial — including U.S. citizens. Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York ruled the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of U.S. citizens. We speak with Chris Hedges, a journalist who filed the suit challenging the NDAA along with six others, and Bruce Afran, the group’s attorney. "This is another window into ... the steady assault against civil liberties," Hedges says. "What makes [the ruling] so monumental is that, finally, we have a federal judge who stands up for the rule of law."

Source = http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/17/journalist_plaintiff_chris_hedges_hails_monumental
Nozoom
USa
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
It looks like Americans at least have a glimmer of hope that Obama’s Indefinite Detention policy will not remain in force as a federal judge has stuck down his provision that basically calls for anyone, anywhere to be held without trial –or even without being charged. Hopefully the Obama Administration will accept the federal judge’s ruling that his policy violates our Constitutional rights and not attempt to fight for the provision to be reinstated, but I have a feeling that might not be the case. I don’t often agree with Amy Goodman (I listen to her show on the radio every morning in the shower), but it is nice to see that a small minority on the Left has decided to stand up to Obama and his oppressive policies. I don’t care if you call yourself a Republican or a Democrat, I cannot understand how someone can support Obama’s un-Constitutional Indefinite Detention policy or pretend that it is nothing to worry about. Obama may have claimed he won’t use his provision, but as we have seen with this president, he often says one thing and does another.

...

Thank you Obama, for getting die-hard republicans to be against Guantanamo and against such detentions.

With a Republican in office, we'd never get them to speak out against such things.




(Still though, Y U no fulfill your promise to close Gitmo?!?)
Related topics
A Husband is pissed off today!
Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
Indo Us nuclear Deal
The guilt-by-association game
Congratulations President Obama
do u agree with obama decision?
Time for USA to stop giving $3billion/year to Israel?
Bush's Last Press Conference
US soldier suicides over torture, Iraq
Obama decision - build up in Afghanistan?
Obama Fails US Citizens in Libya
Ron Paul Preemptively Wins Iowa + Minnesota
Obama gets "Official" approval to start killing US
Who to blame for US Government shut down
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.