National Defense Authorization Act...

[Ben]

Thoughts? Opinions?

National Defense Authorization Act Provision Update - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0EBEvoSXY&feature=relmfu)

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

[Ben]

Obama Insisted on Indefinite Detentions of Citizens - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tO2irR2Wj8&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=4&feature=plcp)

[hippifried]

Glen Greenwald & his prophet Noam Chomsky have been on a total rampage since Robert Gibbs called out the "professional left" as the flakes they are.

[onmyknees]

Glen Greenwald & his prophet Noam Chomsky have been on a total rampage since Robert Gibbs called out the "professional left" as the flakes they are.




LMFAO>>>>>> Now that's funny

[Ben]

Joe Rogan & Duncan Trussell on the National Defense Authorization Act - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaeZoufcFW8)

[Ben]

[/URL][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgMRBqWEKFU"]SPECIAL EDITION: Indefinite Detention Bill Passes Both Senate and House - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgMRBqWEKFU&feature=player_embedded#)

[BellaBellucci]

We're too late.

~BB~

[trish]

It was over when half the U.S. population applauded the first indefinite detentions. That was the moment the Military-Industrial-Information Complex understood this new power could be extended indefinitely.

[KarinaGiselle]

We're fucked. This + SOPA + PATRIOT Act = New World Order :/

I think those conspiracy nuts weren't so wrong after all huh?

So... who's gonna give guns to those OWS dudes?

[trish]

The NRA of course.

[beandip]

Read this about two or three hundred times, until it sinks in:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/11/a-dangerous-woman-indefinite-detention-at-carswell/?fb_ref=.Tuz1uBdnWgU.like&fb_source=profile_oneline

Then look at when it happened.

Now think who signed this into Law and made it LEGAL

Obama 2012.

Hope and change.......


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

[robertlouis]

It was over when half the U.S. population applauded the first indefinite detentions. That was the moment the Military-Industrial-Information Complex understood this new power could be extended indefinitely.


You American fuckwits have had this going on under your noses since 2001 and the establishment of that offence against moral decency and commonsense called Guantanamo, where hundreds of untried people, many probably innocent, have been chained up and imprisoned incommunicado for ten years. And now because it's likely to affect US citizens, suddenly you care. Fucking hypocrites.

[Prospero]

"You American fuckwits have had this going on under your noses since 2001 and the establishment of that offence against moral decency and commonsense called Guantanamo, where hundreds of untried people, many probably innocent, have been chained up and imprisoned incommunicado for ten years. And now because it's likely to affect US citizens, suddenly you care. Fucking hypocrites."

A lot of anger directed at our pals across the water from an oleaginous, unctious brown-nosed ass licker . You are in danger of losing your credibility here Robertlouis.

Mind you, didn't Obama promise to close Guantanamo? Ahhhh yes, he didn't say when.

[Stavros]

The government of Northern Ireland introduced internment without trial in 1971, and it was a disaster. Because it targeted Catholics, it became one of the causes for an increase in the membership of the IRA (as it was then, under Ruairi o'Bradaigh and Daithi o'Connaill). Internment was later scrapped and the Northern Ireland pariament dissolved with direct rule imposed from London. The damage was done. In the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings Labour tried to extend the detention without trial period to 90 days, and was defeated on this in the Commons, yet detention without trial is practised here, and in some cases the 'accused' have never been told what it is they have been charged with, or what the evidence is. Add to this the extraordinary rendition of some 'suspects' to Cairo, Bucharest or wherever they need to be 'interrogated', the presence of MI5 officers in Guantanamo and Baghram and Labour long ago lost its right to represent the people of this country and should have done the decent thing and dissolved itself in shame.

It happened on this side of the Atlantic, I hope it never happens on the other side.

[beandip]

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hope and change Bitchez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

Wow...asshole liberals are all butt hurt now that the Emperor has no clothes....

Obama, the Constitutional Scholar?

Obama Insisted on Indefinite Detentions of Citizens - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tO2irR2Wj8)

[Ben]

The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

[robertlouis]

"You American fuckwits have had this going on under your noses since 2001 and the establishment of that offence against moral decency and commonsense called Guantanamo, where hundreds of untried people, many probably innocent, have been chained up and imprisoned incommunicado for ten years. And now because it's likely to affect US citizens, suddenly you care. Fucking hypocrites."

A lot of anger directed at our pals across the water from an oleaginous, unctious brown-nosed ass licker . You are in danger of losing your credibility here Robertlouis.

Mind you, didn't Obama promise to close Guantanamo? Ahhhh yes, he didn't say when.

Now Prsopero, you old shit-stirring rogue. Oleaginous and ass-kisser, ok, but unctuous is just a lexicographic step too far..... lol

[trish]

Fuckwits!? Well I gotta say you're right about that one...fuckwits since 2001. Hi Robert, good to see you, though haven't much time to chat. Traveling...over the river and through the woods etc.

[hippifried]

Fuckwits!? Well I gotta say you're right about that one...fuckwits since 2001. Hi Robert, good to see you, though haven't much time to chat. Traveling...over the river and through the woods etc.
You traveling in style or staring at a horse's ass like in the song?

[Stavros]

I don't think its home on the range, dude, more like Across the River and into the Trees...

[Silcc69]

Read this about two or three hundred times, until it sinks in:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/11/a-dangerous-woman-indefinite-detention-at-carswell/?fb_ref=.Tuz1uBdnWgU.like&fb_source=profile_oneline

Then look at when it happened.

Now think who signed this into Law and made it LEGAL

Obama 2012.

Hope and change.......


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

ALl it did was mention how your beloved republicans so wanted to push their agenda.

[hippifried]

I don't think its home on the range, dude, more like Across the River and into the Trees...
But... ...The horse knows the way to carry the sleigh through the white & drifting snow...
...Hooray for the fun! Is the pudding done?
Hurrah for the pumpkin pie...

[Ben]

Obama's failed human rights moment by Jonathan Hafetz.
Jonathan Hafetz is a professor at Seton Hall Law School....

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011121873043304695.html

[Stavros]

But... ...The horse knows the way to carry the sleigh through the white & drifting snow...
...Hooray for the fun! Is the pudding done?
Hurrah for the pumpkin pie...

Ok I admit it, I have never eaten Pumpkin Pie, I have no idea what it tastes like, and haven't been encouraged to try it given that usually a pumpkin looks like a lantern on Halloween, not very appetising. In the UK this time of the year we consume a ridiculous amount of Mince Pies, with or without lashings of whipped cream, and slightly doused in cognac. And we don't eat apple pie with a slab of cheese like they do in Canada.

[trish]

MMMMM I love pumpkin pie. Mince too. Not to big on the shoo-fly-pie. Like my apple pie in a bowl of milk though...sans the cheese.

[fred41]

The smell of pumpkin pie is considered somewhat of an aphrodisiac.
I love pumpkin pie, pumpkin cheese cake...pumpkin spice lattes...the list goes on.

All hail the great pumpkin.

[hippifried]

MMMMM I love pumpkin pie. Mince too. Not to big on the shoo-fly-pie. Like my apple pie in a bowl of milk though...sans the cheese.
Soooo... If you're already at Grandma's, You're just getting started on a week long eating binge?

Careful:

Fruit Harvest fat dog advert / commercial "I've fed muffin" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY-1Sw40uUs&feature=g-hist&context=G22f4649AHTvE0rgAYAA)

[trish]

Soooo... If you're already at Grandma's, You're just getting started on a week long eating binge?

Careful:

Fruit Harvest fat dog advert / commercial "I've fed muffin" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY-1Sw40uUs&feature=g-hist&context=G22f4649AHTvE0rgAYAA)You guessed it. But there's a dozen kids here keeping us busy burning those pie-calories. Did the children's museum, the zoo and tomorrow the aquarium. Hope almost everyone ( you know who you aren't:) ) is having a wonderful holiday season.

[beandip]

Hoax and Chains bitchez.

Obama 2012

[Faldur]

You guessed it. But there's a dozen kids here keeping us busy burning those pie-calories. Did the children's museum, the zoo and tomorrow the aquarium. Hope almost everyone ( you know who you aren't:) ) is having a wonderful holiday season.

Well I am sure I am on your "naughty" list, but still not so small I wouldn't wish the best for you this season. To both sides of the isle, Merry Christmas!!

[trish]

Well I am sure I am on your "naughty" list, but still not so small I wouldn't wish the best for you this season. To both sides of the isle, Merry Christmas!!

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Merry Christmas Faldur.

[robertlouis]

And as a lurker these days rather than an active member, I'll join the spirit of seasonal bonhomie and wish everyone a happy festive season and a new year in 2012 that fulfils all your dearest wishes.

Slainthe!

[Stavros]

Season's greetings to you as well Robert, I am thinking seriously about an investment in a distiller's edition of Talisker for Christmas, as I will not make it to Edinburgh for Hogmanay -something I have on my to-do list before I die.

[Faldur]

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Merry Christmas Faldur.

Hey when you have skills, no matter how obscure, you gotta put em to use.. :geek:

[Ben]

New Military Detention Powers Threaten Basic Rights - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd4eUrpXxLY&list=UUrmm_7RDZJeQzq2-wvmjueg&index=3&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Do anti-terrorism laws protect the public or protect corporate profits? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=remHRe4HeQE)

[robertlouis]

Season's greetings to you as well Robert, I am thinking seriously about an investment in a distiller's edition of Talisker for Christmas, as I will not make it to Edinburgh for Hogmanay -something I have on my to-do list before I die.

Make sure you do it, Stavros. Even my inbuilt anti-Embra sensors as a Weegee have to admit that seeing in the new year in Princes St Gardens below the castle is a never to be forgotten experience. George Square in Glasgow just isn't the same. Mind you, seeing it in alongside the Sydney Harbour Bridge which I've done three times is quite something too - when those fireworks go off it looks, feels and sounds as if the old coathanger is taking off!

I've invested in another bottle of 21-year old Springbank for Hogmanay, so I'll raise a dram or two to all my HA friends, acquaintances and occasional enemies as the chimes ring out.

[Stavros]

Hmmm a 21-yr old Springbank...now that's expensive!!

[robertlouis]

Hmmm a 21-yr old Springbank...now that's expensive!!

I have my sources! ;)

[Ben]

Loom of the Jackboot: Obama Gives Military Extreme Powers


by Alexander Cockburn (http://www.commondreams.org/author/alexander-cockburn)


Too bad Kim Jong-il kicked the bucket last weekend. If the divine hand that laid low the North Korean leader had held off for a week or so, Kim would have been sustained by the news that President Obama had signed into law a bill that puts the United States not immeasurably far from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in contempt of constitutional protections for its citizens or constitutional restraints upon criminal behavior sanctioned by the state.
At least the DPRK doesn't trumpet its status as the least-best sanctuary of liberty. American politicians, starting with the president, do little else.
A couple of months ago, came a mile-marker in America's steady slide downhill towards the status of a Banana Republic with Obama's assertion that he has the right as president to secretly order the assassination, without trial, of a U.S. citizen he deems to be working with terrorists. This followed his 2009 betrayal of his pledge to end the indefinite imprisonment without charges or trial of prisoners in Guantanamo.
After months of declaring that he would veto such legislation, Obama has now crumbled and will soon sign a monstrosity called the Levin/McCain detention bill, named for its two senatorial sponsors, Carl Levin and John McCain. It's snuggled into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.
The detention bill mandates — don't glide too easily past that word — that all accused terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; this includes U.S. citizens within the borders of the United States.
All onslaughts on potential sedition like to cast as wide a net as possible, so the detention act authorizes use of military force against anyone who "substantially supports" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." Of course, "associated forces" can mean anything. The bill's language mentions, "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." That's language that can be bent, at will, by any prosecutor. Protest too vigorously the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki by American forces in Yemen in October and one day it's not fanciful to expect the thump of the military jackboot on your front step, or on that of any anti-war organizer, or any journalist whom some zealous military intelligence officer deems to be giving objective support to the forces of evil and darkness. Since 1878, here in the U.S., the Posse Comitatus Act has limited the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. The detention bill renders the Posse Comitatus Act a dead letter.
Governments, particularly those engaged in a Great War on Terror, like to make long lists of troublesome people to be sent to internment camps or dungeons in case of national emergency. Back in Reagan's time, in the 1980s, Lt. Col. Oliver North, working out of the White House, was caught preparing just such a list. Reagan speedily distanced himself from North. Obama, the former lecturer on the U.S. Constitution, is brazenly signing this authorization for military internment camps.
There's been quite a commotion over the detention bill.
Civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have raised a stink. The New York Times denounced it editorially as "a complete political cave-in." Mindful that the votes of liberals can be useful, even vital in presidential elections, pro-Obama supporters of the bill claim that it doesn't codify "indefinite detention." But indeed it does. The bill explicitly authorizes "detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities."
Will the bill hurt Obama? Probably not too much, if at all. Contrary to widespread belief, liberals are never very energetic in protecting constitutional rights. That's more the province of libertarians and other wackos actually prepared to draw lines in the sand for matters of principle.
Simultaneous to the looming shadow of indefinite internment by the military for naysayers, we have what appears to be immunity from prosecution for private military contractors retained by the U.S. government, another extremely sinister development.
The U.S. military has been outsourcing war at a staggering rate. Even as the U.S. military quits Iraq, thousands of private military contractors remain. Suppose they are accused of torture and other abuses including murder?
The Centre for Constitutional Rights — a U.S. non-profit organization — is currently representing Iraqi civilians tortured in Abu Ghraib and other detention centers in Iraq. They seek to hold accountable two private contractors for their violations of international, federal and state law. In the words of Laura Raymond of the CCR, "By the military's own internal investigations, private military contractors from the U.S.-based corporations L-3 Services and CACI International were involved in the war crimes and acts of torture that took place, which included rape, being forced to watch family members and others be raped, severe beatings, being hung in stress positions, being pulled across the floor by genitals, mock executions and other incidents, many of which were documented by photographs. The cases — Al Shimari v. CACI and Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla and L-3 — aim to secure a day in court for the plaintiffs, none of whom were ever charged with any crimes."
But the corporations involved are now arguing in court that they should be exempt from any investigation into the allegations against them because, among other reasons, the U.S. government's interests in executing wars would be at stake if corporate contractors can be sued. And Raymond reports, "They are also invoking a new, sweeping defense. The new rule is termed 'battlefield preemption' and aims to eliminate any civil lawsuits against contractors that take place on any 'battlefield.'"
You've guessed it. As with "associated forces", an elastic concept discussed above, in the Great War on Terror the entire world is a "battlefield." So unless the CCRs suit prevails, and a ruling of a Fourth Circuit federal court panel stands, private military contractors could be immune from any type of civil liability, even for war crimes, as long as it takes place on a "battlefield."
Suppose now we take the new powers of the military in domestic law enforcement, as defined in the detention act, and anticipate the inevitable, that the military delegates these powers to private military contractors. A company owned by, say Goldman Sachs, could enjoy delegated powers to arrest any U.S. citizen here within the borders of the USA, "who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces," torture them to death and then claim "battlefield preemption."
Don't laugh.


© 2011 Alexander Cockburn


Alexander Cockburn is co-editor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch.

[Ben]

ACLU statement on Obama's signing of NDAA



President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

[Ben]

National Defense Authorization Act...

[beandip]

Obama Justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians !!! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7mwP5Di5NE&feature=player_embedded)

[trish]

The GOP was fighting for an even stronger form of the act making it easier for the military and homeland security to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens. The current form of the act is a compromise between no legal indefinite detentions and easy to legally obtain indefinite detentions (which is what the GOP wanted). If indefinite detention is your single issue and you don't like indefinite detentions, then why would you vote GOP?

[beandip]

The GOP was fighting for an even stronger form of the act making it easier for the military and homeland security to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.

Bullshit. You lying shit bag.



Despite reports that Obama is planning to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, Senator Carl Levin has revealed it was the administration itself that lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.
“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,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levine, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”
Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. The bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.


http://ronpaulnews.net/2011/12/obama-administration-demanded-power-to.html

I just happened to pick the source from ronpaulnews. If you do a google search of the above quote.......you'll see 20 other sources.










But while the president’s signing statement includes several references that suggest that the new law, if interpreted broadly, might threaten core American values, Obama himself arguably helped open the door for this legislation earlier this year with his executive order on the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo.
When future historians inquire into how the practice of indefinite military detention without trial became formally entrenched in a country with such strong constitutional safeguards and stringent criminal justice guarantees, they will find that it did not happen all at once, but rather via a series of incremental steps. President Obama is now responsible for three of them.
The first was to justify indefinite detention in litigation opposing the release of detainees held at Guantanamo; the second was to issue an executive order on indefinite detention, and the third was to sign the NDAA.[p/quote]


http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained



and here.....


[quote]Over weeks, the Obama administration has carried out an effective campaign against the military detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act. They have dispatched high level security officials to warn Congress that the bill would harm counterterrorism efforts.

http://www.nationofchange.org/will-obama-veto-national-defense-authorization-act-1323883448


President Obama signed (https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law) the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (http://www.aclu.org/ndaa) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention).

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-law




How funny is this: MLK marched for our civil rights....and Obama signed them away.

Can't blame whitey for this!!!!

LOL

[Faldur]

Bullshit. You lying shit bag.

I'm sorry but if this is the best you got, you don't belong in this forum. I don't care which political side your on. People come here to express political views, and it can get heated. But calling someone a "shit bag" is beyond acceptable.

[trish]

Here is the signing statement

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

One part says,
"Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world. Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. "

Who are the "some in Congress"? Of course libertarians Ron and Rand were resistant. A lot of Dems were resistant. Indeed the progressives are the most upset. You don't hear a lot GOPers ranting against powers of indefinite detention. After all it was Bush's baby. If GOPers weren't for it, how did it pass the GOP owned Congress?

Without the signing statement, it's easier for the military to indefinitely detain citizens. The signing statement involves civil government in the decision through the executive branch. Not ideal (imo). Not even close. But...

if indefinite detention is your single issue, and you don't like indefinite detentions, why would you vote GOP?

[Jonny29]

Here is the signing statement

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

One part says,
"Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world. Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. "

Who are the "some in Congress"? Of course libertarians Ron and Rand were resistant. A lot of Dems were resistant. Indeed the progressives are the most upset. You don't hear a lot GOPers ranting against powers of indefinite detention. After all it was Bush's baby. If GOPers weren't for it, how did it pass the GOP owned Congress?

Without the signing statement, it's easier for the military to indefinitely detain citizens. The signing statement involves civil government in the decision through the executive branch. Not ideal (imo). Not even close. But...

if indefinite detention is your single issue, and you don't like indefinite detentions, why would you vote GOP?

Well if its your "SINGLE ISSUE" on whom to vote for President, then you must vote Ron Paul--GOP.

But how many voters really have only a single issue?

[trish]

Well if its your "SINGLE ISSUE" on whom to vote for President, then you must vote Ron Paul--GOP. That's assuming Ron Paul is a choice. A big if. There are also a lot a seats up in the two houses. Many of them occupied by GOPers who are in favor a GITMO, indefinite detentions, torturish treatment etc.


But how many voters really have only a single issue? Exactly why I'm not voting for Ron Paul; he's wrong on sooo many other issues. There are a few single issue voters out there, but not many of them are dems or independents. Abortion, Gay Marriage etc. tend to be the issues that have a single minded following.

[giovanni_hotel]

It's hilarious to me when right wingers vent their outrage against a Democratic President who governs like his Republican predecessor.

Apparently their disgust isn't about indefinite dentention being signed into law by BHO, it's that the POTUS has been shown to be a hypocrite.....for signing into law a conservative ideology and their domestic 'world view' that terrorists are everywhere and have no rights under the Constitution, even if they're inconveniently citizens of this country.


You guys are a piece of work.

[onmyknees]

It's hilarious to me when right wingers vent their outrage against a Democratic President who governs like his Republican predecessor.

Apparently their disgust isn't about indefinite dentention being signed into law by BHO, it's that the POTUS has been shown to be a hypocrite.....for signing into law a conservative ideology and their domestic 'world view' that terrorists are everywhere and have no rights under the Constitution, even if they're inconveniently citizens of this country.


You guys are a piece of work.

GH....To say BO governs like his predessor is just this side of
hyperbole, and really isn't anywhere near accurate. If you're talking about some of his moves on the War on Terror, ( conservatives still call it that) indeed he has continued some of the Bush policies, which either makes him a quick pragmatic learner, or a bombastic promise breaker....take your pick. If you took 20 issues, ranging from deficit spending to health care, to Iraq, to immigration, to tax policy, to regulation, to abortion, gay marriage, he's still way over there in your camp on 19 of them. To say he's governing like his predecessor is about 1/20th correct. And in the end, you left wing two timers will fall in love with him all over again...you're just plain' hard to get for the moment.

[Ben]

From the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/president-signs-controversial-defense-bill,26928/

[onmyknees]

From the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/president-signs-controversial-defense-bill,26928/


So what are we to make of all this Ben? Here we have the Far Left Constitutional Law Professor, now President who bashed the incumbent Republican on every single one of his efforts on the war on terror from drone attacks near civilian areas, to The Patriot Act, to civilian trials for enemy combatants, to closing Gitmo. Then it came time to become Commander in Chief and put the campaign to rest. I would have liked to been a fly on the wall when Obama met with his National Security team for the first time and got a look at the raw intelligence that Bush was privileged to for 8 years, because something changed dramatically. Some might conclude he's just another politician who's flip flopped, and that's fine to think that..Liberals should hope that's all it is, because if it's something more,and I happen to think it is.... it's an indictment on the failure of the entire left wing philosophy with respect to national security. If this guy for whatever the reasons failed to implement his pre-election promises and life long ideology, that I venture to say no liberal who comes after him, regardless of what they promise, will either. . And for the record, I'm not entirely comfortable many of the provisions of the Act, but apparently BO is.

[Ben]

The always entertaining Alex Jones [albeit I've big disagreements with him] with the conservative economist Paul C. Roberts:

Murder of The Constitution in Full Public View by Congress & Obama: Paul Craig Roberts 1/2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4dTOxHXQ_M&feature=channel_video_title)

Murder of The Constitution in Full Public View by Congress & Obama: Paul Craig Roberts 2/2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sEBTcduLis)

[Dino Velvet]

I would have liked to been a fly on the wall when Obama met with his National Security team for the first time and got a look at the raw intelligence that Bush was privileged to for 8 years

Any room for a second fly? I'll get coyote'd from LA in the back of a Monte Carlo.

[ed_jaxon]

Originally Posted by onmyknees

"I would have liked to been a fly on the wall when Obama met with his National Security team for the first time and got a look at the raw intelligence that Bush was privileged to for 8 years"


Bush said as much on his way out. I cannot remember the exact quote but it was to Clinton and basically was wait till he gets a load of the shit we dealt with every day.

Obama is a skilled orator, politician and if the right thinks he is doing what the fuck he wants now, let him get elected again and not have to worry about re-election; he has shown he will do just what he thinks is right. I think the strategy of NO and blocking him at every turn is going to backfire big time.

[Ben]

Originally Posted by onmyknees

"I would have liked to been a fly on the wall when Obama met with his National Security team for the first time and got a look at the raw intelligence that Bush was privileged to for 8 years"


Bush said as much on his way out. I cannot remember the exact quote but it was to Clinton and basically was wait till he gets a load of the shit we dealt with every day.

Obama is a skilled orator, politician and if the right thinks he is doing what the fuck he wants now, let him get elected again and not have to worry about re-election; he has shown he will do just what he thinks is right. I think the strategy of NO and blocking him at every turn is going to backfire big time.

That presupposes that Obama is a magnanimous leader, as it were.
This book (pic below -- :)) by Paul Street shows that Obama isn't a left leaning leader that everyone thinks he is. And, too, as Street points out: you cannot advance in Chicago politics by being of the left.
And here's Obama on Reagan:

Obama: Reagan Changed Direction; Bill Clinton Didn't - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA)

[ed_jaxon]

That presupposes that Obama is a magnanimous leader, as it were.
This book (pic below -- :)) by Paul Street shows that Obama isn't a left leaning leader that everyone thinks he is. And, too, as Street points out: you cannot advance in Chicago politics by being of the left.
And here's Obama on Reagan:

Obama: Reagan Changed Direction; Bill Clinton Didn't - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA)


I was real careful with my words to not use leader. He is a politician and a very skilled one. Whether one feels he is a leader depends on your perspective.

LA is full of actors.....Chicago is full of politicians. I am from Chicago btw.

[Ben]

I was real careful with my words to not use leader. He is a politician and a very skilled one. Whether one feels he is a leader depends on your perspective.

LA is full of actors.....Chicago is full of politicians. I am from Chicago btw.

I agree. He's a politician.
And a skillful politician is: the one who gets elected -- :) Now, well, one has to perform as a so-called politician. What does that mean? Well, a great deal of acting is involved. (Hence Ronald Reagan becoming President; Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming Governor.)
Now, a politician has to, um, gauge the mood of his or her constituents, as it were.
Obama was very smart about gauging what Americans wanted in 2008. So, he assessed the overall mood of the American populace and smartly realized that Americans wanted Change.
And, too, there was a general sense of despair and despondency in the American air, as it were. So, well, invoke the word: Hope. It was brilliant. Obama is a very smart campaigner.
It'll be interesting to see what happens this time around. How will he campaign? What catchphrases will he use.

[TranSexpot]

I will be discussing this on my live web talk show this sunday guys. make sure you tune in. im trying to bring this to the attention of the trans community which probably would not hear about it otherwise. too busy gettin surgeries and pumping silicone ( a alot of them anyways) lol
tune in this sunday

[hippifried]

I am from Chicago...
Awwww... Sorry to hear that.
Where should I send the flowers?

[ed_jaxon]

Awwww... Sorry to hear that.
Where should I send the flowers?

In lieu of flowers please make a cash donation to the Ed Jaxon Save a Ho Foundation.

Because escorts can be expensive.