Latest Breaking News

cstanleytech

(28,332 posts)

125. And he is doing so because SCOTUS so far has

Reply to dflprincess (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:48 AM

Jan 2012

(wrongly imo) ruled that the detention laws as applied to those who arent US citizens are legal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

174 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 [View all] xocet Dec 2011 OP

blah blah blah, on with the Police State. ixion Dec 2011 #1

You got it izquierdista Dec 2011 #22

*Change* we can believe in, right? Donnachaidh Dec 2011 #71

Correct. I won't bother emilyg Dec 2011 #73

A signing apology? Fuck you! Fuddnik Jan 2012 #144

blah blah blah, on with the tyranny of those who have no responsibility to protect millions of lives patrice Jan 2012 #146

If you're somehow positing that people with no power (i.e. 'responsibility') are capable of tyranny, ixion Jan 2012 #147

False dichotomy/zero-sum = with power:"with no power". Your self-characterization is somewhat in patrice Jan 2012 #154

power as motive? Hardly. I post to express my concern over the loss of civil liberties. ixion Jan 2012 #157

If nothing else LanternWaste Jan 2012 #169

thanks Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #2

Thanks for posting this. demosincebirth Dec 2011 #3

This part: jaxx Dec 2011 #4

Agree, but future presidents may not be so thoughtful. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #7

Doesn't this have to be renewed annually? Ruby the Liberal Dec 2011 #80

"we are only continuing to enforce laws already on the books" quakerboy Jan 2012 #131

Don't believe it does. Authorizations acts primarily couple with Appropriations laws to allocate 24601 Jan 2012 #143

"my administration" JDPriestly Dec 2011 #13

Exactly right. colorado_ufo Dec 2011 #67

Why detain, if he can just kill them without trial? Does he say anything about Fool Count Dec 2011 #70

That comment made me LOL. jaxx Dec 2011 #104

well said Charlemagne Dec 2011 #105

Bingo. And the logic that AUMF trumps constitutional rights is THE SAME. DirkGently Jan 2012 #164

This message was self-deleted by its author DirkGently Jan 2012 #165

well, bless his heart Donnachaidh Dec 2011 #72

Yeah, and once upon a time he said he'd veto this bill. dflprincess Dec 2011 #93

Watch what they do, not what they say. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #101

Exactly. dflprincess Dec 2011 #116

Obama said he'd veto the bill IF the language was not changed, and Tx4obama Jan 2012 #132

The ACLU remains against this bill dflprincess Jan 2012 #162

I find this terribly disturbing. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #5

"existing court interpretations that allow the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens" boppers Dec 2011 #12

Ssh. Hamdi is inconvenient to the narrative. Robb Dec 2011 #24

I dont find these words very reassuring. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #41

Padilla got his due process, trial, and sentence. boppers Dec 2011 #94

What framework? He was still arrested and detained illegally. That still needs to be rhett o rick Dec 2011 #98

Okay, lets discuss this. boppers Dec 2011 #102

I am sorry but your point is lost on me. Are you suggesting that what happened to Padilla rhett o rick Jan 2012 #151

So you are ok with the courts decision that our liberty is protected by rhett o rick Jan 2012 #152

In hamdi v. rumsfeld the court required due process. That's why Bush admin set up the tribunals. limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #74

Then, the point being made needs to reflect that. boppers Dec 2011 #88

what should they call it then? limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #103

Damn, well stated Charlemagne Dec 2011 #107

Well put. boppers Dec 2011 #120

In Hamdi the court said it was ok to skip due process if ok via an rhett o rick Jan 2012 #161

Cannot agree with the "Bravo" part. truedelphi Dec 2011 #18

I understand. It is a small victory. At least he says he wont arrest and detain American citizens rhett o rick Dec 2011 #42

"At least" doesn't mean anything. "At least" is forever - unless there is a chance in peacetalksforall Dec 2011 #84

I agree it isnt much. But unlike a lot of other things, he did speak out. Whether he sticks to it rhett o rick Dec 2011 #100

Veto discocrisco01 Dec 2011 #6

Agree. But his own party was against him. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #8

I know. This is not the bill Obama would have written. Shameful that he didn't have gateley Dec 2011 #60

Just think with a GOP majority what the next bill will look like. freshwest Dec 2011 #109

+ 1. n/t truedelphi Dec 2011 #19

Its less than a year till the elections so do you really think it wise to make it easier for the GOP cstanleytech Dec 2011 #21

So by your reasoning, we elect A Democat to serve as the President but he must truedelphi Dec 2011 #25

You raise an excellent point RC Dec 2011 #36

If so many democrats in the senate and congress hadnt supported it he probably could have. cstanleytech Dec 2011 #40

That is why the President has veto power over Congress. RC Dec 2011 #45

Not an infinite version though as cstanleytech Dec 2011 #51

So a Congress of right leaning (D)'s & (R)'s does not scare you? RC Dec 2011 #54

No it doesnt scare me......concern, yes but hopefully we can fix the problem eventually. cstanleytech Dec 2011 #82

Please see comment #133 n/t Tx4obama Jan 2012 #134

Its an issue of pragmatism or can you honestly say that if he had vetoed it that cstanleytech Dec 2011 #37

The problem with your argument is that truedelphi Dec 2011 #56

Well your entitled to that opinion of course however I dont believe cstanleytech Dec 2011 #113

No, they are hopelessly idealistic and everything is a battle to the brink treestar Dec 2011 #106

Ive seen Op-Eds on Faux News Charlemagne Dec 2011 #108

He took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution dflprincess Dec 2011 #118

Sadly we live in an age of pragmatic politicans, though truedelphi Jan 2012 #121

And he is doing so because SCOTUS so far has cstanleytech Jan 2012 #125

You are right. We have to deal with the reality of the situation. nt gateley Dec 2011 #62

And by going along with it, they will not run ridiculously false ads against the president? quakerboy Jan 2012 #138

For many people, personal and ethical convictions outweigh political conveniences LanternWaste Jan 2012 #170

Integrity..........in politics? Since when? cstanleytech Jan 2012 #173

Ah, but you're forgetting this important point ... Tx4obama Jan 2012 #133

Expediency over constitution - got it. TBF Jan 2012 #140

By signing it, Obama goes along with it. RC Jan 2012 #141

ask Anwar al -Awlaki's 16 year old (& a US citizen) son,murdered in separate drone attack on Obama's stockholmer Dec 2011 #9

Just giving the man what he wants. Robb Dec 2011 #26

That young man's death resonates with me the same way truedelphi Dec 2011 #27

I think perhaps some research is in order so that you'll have the facts. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #47

By that logic, my very good friend in the seventies, KW, truedelphi Dec 2011 #53

I was suggesting that YOU go and do some research. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #57

research says...... extrajudicial murder stockholmer Dec 2011 #63

My real name Charlemagne Dec 2011 #110

You say: truedelphi Jan 2012 #122

Anwar al -Awlaki's 16 year old son was NOT the target of that drone, A TERRORIST WAS Tx4obama Dec 2011 #31

Don't you just love the lengths the Obama excusers go to justify our atrocities? RC Dec 2011 #38

Yes, he did know they were his father's terrorists buddies Tx4obama Dec 2011 #46

What are WE doing "fighting terrorism" in other countries? If you look at the history, the RC Dec 2011 #52

Standing Ovation OKDem08 Jan 2012 #129

RC makes a good point Charlemagne Dec 2011 #112

The 16 year old son was NOT assassinated and he was NOT the target of the drone. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #117

but his dad was Charlemagne Dec 2011 #119

His dad was also posting video online advocating for jihad if I recall cstanleytech Jan 2012 #126

"I dont see him turning himself in if he was working with bin ladens people, do you?" Charlemagne Jan 2012 #128

Well feel free to update us when the SCOTUS cstanleytech Jan 2012 #130

"do not HANG AROUND with al Qaeda terrorists!" unless of course they are Libyan 'freedom fighters' stockholmer Dec 2011 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Dec 2011 #85

Sorry, in my opinion, your statement is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to address it. n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #86

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Dec 2011 #90

He never got a trial Charlemagne Dec 2011 #111

I think it sounds reasonable and prudent OKNancy Dec 2011 #10

to put trust in any politician is a mistake bowens43 Dec 2011 #14

I feel the same way. And politicians are more "politicians" than truedelphi Dec 2011 #23

Eliminating Posse Comitatus and Habeus Corpus is prudent and reasonable? Uhm, no, it isn't. ixion Dec 2011 #15

Over and over again, Obama shows us that he is a truedelphi Dec 2011 #28

Agreed....and once you give "it" up you're not gonna get it back. Magoo48 Dec 2011 #55

Dateline, 2008 Charlemagne Dec 2011 #114

Well then, you will agree to be the first when he, or another President, do not? webDude Dec 2011 #16

LOL - yes I'm a super-duper agent here to OKNancy Dec 2011 #20

The signing statement is posturing. The legislation is what matters. ixion Dec 2011 #32

Not true. Igel Dec 2011 #69

Yes, it true, I'm afraid. ixion Dec 2011 #83

Well done. I anticipate repubs in congress will soon have their knickers all in a twist over this. lamp_shade Dec 2011 #11

The truly horrifying question about our democracy Gringostan Dec 2011 #17

You Are N-A-I-L-I-N-G truedelphi Dec 2011 #30

so he has reservations because of restrictions on his options magical thyme Dec 2011 #29

What about past administrations? boppers Dec 2011 #35

They didnt always say no, check out Executive Order 9066 cstanleytech Dec 2011 #49

Stare decisis. boppers Dec 2011 #99

Its even harder to defend cstanleytech Jan 2012 #127

As predicted the signing contests restrictions on the executive branch. Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #33

This: FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #34

Obama signed this unconstitutional dreck, which is evidence he needs to be primaried. RC Dec 2011 #43

Yup. Looks like a few folks here didn't bother to read the whole thing. lamp_shade Dec 2011 #44

So he signs our warrants Charlemagne Dec 2011 #61

sounds like extortion limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #68

"seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Admin" stockholmer Dec 2011 #75

"seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Admin" Charlemagne Dec 2011 #79

Obama ur not JFK, Clinton, FDR or anything of the above.... BenYehuda Dec 2011 #39

None of them have been perfect sadly. cstanleytech Dec 2011 #48

A signing statement? A friggin signing statement? James48 Dec 2011 #50

as long as he can still blow up middle eastern people with drones, he is good..... IamK Dec 2011 #58

Of COURSE he voted for it. He has to do what his masters on Wall Street tell him to do. lib2DaBone Dec 2011 #59

Should have been vetoed - TBF Dec 2011 #65

This is not what I voted for Pavlo Dec 2011 #76

I just said I disagreed with passing this legislation in it's present form - TBF Dec 2011 #81

Me either. joshcryer Dec 2011 #95

It's far deeper than one president - TBF Dec 2011 #96

I was genuinely pissed that he threatened the veto and then pulled back. joshcryer Dec 2011 #97

Please see comment #133 n/t Tx4obama Jan 2012 #135

wait till the spring when the real protests begin... Javaman Dec 2011 #66

where this is really gonna kick the US citizens in the teeth is under Jeb Bush in 2017 (or 2013, if stockholmer Dec 2011 #78

were the Charlemagne Dec 2011 #77

Click the link below if you want to read a GREAT article regarding Obama's signing statement & bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #87

So he won't detain and torture Americans but other administrations might, ahhh OK, sure. just1voice Dec 2011 #89

BUT RON PAUL SAYS HE'S ANTI WAR. joshcryer Dec 2011 #91

Should have been veto'd but had no doubt it wouldn't. Obama has governed the same as the harun Dec 2011 #92

Please see comment #133 on the current thread. Tx4obama Jan 2012 #136

"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it." RUMMYisFROSTED Dec 2011 #115

Weaselly indeed Charlemagne Jan 2012 #123

To veto, or not to veto the appropriation bill funding our national defense cheapdate Jan 2012 #124

that's one of the greatest OPPORTUNITIES handed to the president in decades... mike_c Jan 2012 #149

Good point... cheapdate Jan 2012 #153

And on a minor note. fasttense Jan 2012 #137

Health care provisions are in Title VII of the bill. cheapdate Jan 2012 #155

I don't see references to Sec 1031 & 1032 fredamae Jan 2012 #139

I think they got renumbered in the final version. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #142

Ahh, Thanks..That could be it as the fredamae Jan 2012 #145

lame.... mike_c Jan 2012 #148

THIS is what supposedly makes it okay? He's griping it doesn't give ENOUGH power to the Executive. DirkGently Jan 2012 #150

Yes but not in the same way Bush wanted more powers. cstanleytech Jan 2012 #156

Nothing wrong with the sentiment. But he never says the law doesn't permit indefinite detention DirkGently Jan 2012 #159

I thought he addressed that in the part where he said cstanleytech Jan 2012 #160

Not when it's argued AUMF allows indefinite detention, and summary execution, of American citizens. DirkGently Jan 2012 #163

Perhaps I am mistaken will you quote please where it says in the AUMF cstanleytech Jan 2012 #166

REALLY? humbled_opinion Jan 2012 #158

Odd. There's nothing humble about your ability to predict "reality". patrice Jan 2012 #167

Do you deny that humbled_opinion Jan 2012 #168

He is a CONSTITUtional Lawyer!!! lovuian Jan 2012 #171

Come up to speed. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #172

Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #174