Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: David Swanson: Obama Crowned Himself King on New Year’s Eve [View all]
no_hypocrisy
(55,313 posts)15. OK, help me out here. I don't get it.
Obama didn't draft the odious law. The law somehow got passed without his intervention by a republican-dominated House and democratic-dominated Senate with enough votes to overcome a veto. Obama went on record against the indefinite detention of American citizens up to the Signing Statement. From his words on record, it doesn't sound like he's too excited about being given this new authority.
How does Swanson extrapolate that Obama is reveling in his new power to imprison (gasp!) republicans who disagree with him? And isn't that what it boils down to? You think Swanson would have a problem with Muslims (domestic and international), democrats, socialists, communists, etc. being indefinitely detained (and without access to a tribunbal and due process) by the U.S. Military pending the orders of the Commander in Chief?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
162 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
David Swanson: Obama Crowned Himself King on New Year’s Eve [View all]
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
OP
Why would that be? Obama likes the insurance cartel and "uniquely American" bogus solutions.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#42
So's his analysis of the BFEE and Prescott Bush's role in the fascist Wall Street Coup Against FDR.
Octafish
Jan 2012
#129
Which article of the Constitution precludes the issuing of a signing statement?
Dewey Finn
Jan 2012
#73
No part of the Constitution permits Presidential signing statements, and no part of the
sad sally
Jan 2012
#97
"Not prohibited" is not the test, nor could it be, as the "not prohibiteds" are INFINITE.
WinkyDink
Jan 2012
#133
Wasn't me who "insinuated" anything. I merely cut in to respond (something allowed in threads).
JackRiddler
Jan 2012
#155
Amazingly, we still live in a country where one could write such things about the Prez with no
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#14
How do you know Swanson isn't on some FBI "subversive" or "radical" surveillance list?
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#20
Because he's a dissident and critic of the federal government. That's reason enough today.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#61
But while you have no proof of that Swanson is still a free man making $$$$ by writing articles.
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#64
What does that have to do with government spying on and surveillance of dissidents.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#119
Not to mention all of those evil teabaggers. You'd a thunk they'd be the first to go.
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#81
So you deny that our civil liberties and Constitution are under attack?
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#132
You will probably find the answers to your questions if you read the entire article by Swanson.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#25
Are you telling DU'ers when and how to post on Democratic Underground?
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#63
On record is the veto, the signing statements are nothing. They aren't law but the bill signed is.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#80
What? You don't pass out from joy when stupid, uninformed people call YOU the stupid one?
Number23
Jan 2012
#144
He has no such inclination and outcomes indicate the position of a small increase was phony
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#48
"Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty speech!", "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty speech!", "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty sp
JoePhilly
Jan 2012
#104
Many Democratic Senators supported the Bush regimes actions such as the Patriot Act.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#56
He wrote quite a bit about Bush's imperial presidency and then an entire book about it.
Luminous Animal
Jan 2012
#75
Yanno, why doesn't an idiot like this just find another line of work. Cab driver or somthin'. They
deacon
Jan 2012
#45
The statement is a fat nothing. It isn't binding even to the guy who signed it much less
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#82
Seems essentially accurate to me. Circumventing the entire basis of the law and one man's
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#85
the drafters did NOT empower an *elected* legislature to declare war (or any of those other things)
fishwax
Jan 2012
#76
That may be true but that didn't prevent Obama from vetoing the legislation.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#141
Hey, don't go yet. Stick around a bit. I just got an e-mail from King Barack I.
Ikonoklast
Jan 2012
#103
"In the absence of progressives with backbones, more Libertarians like Paul would be welcome"
ProSense
Jan 2012
#120
"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jan 2012
#157