View Full Version : Obama the constitutional law scholar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/guantanamo-bay).
"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
Yes, both the idiot houses voted on this bill.
Why is the crap allowed to continue??? :nope:
Oh hey, that's a good idea! Fight fear with more fear!
(Seriously, call Queen Elizabeth II, apologize for the whole revolution thing and ask if UK would take you guys back :O:)
Rockstar
12-15-11, 11:29 AM
What? Cable Beach is nice, good marina, airport, lots of goats and iguanas.
mookiemookie
12-15-11, 11:36 AM
"You need to let us do this because of the threat of terrorism."
"Yeah, but isn't this against the Const..."
"TERRORISM! Don't you want to be safer? Don't you want to be a patriot? TERRORISM!"
"But how is taking away our rights going to make us...any..."
"NINE ELEVEN! NINE ELEVEN! NINE ELEVEN! TERRORISM" *fingers in ears* "LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOOOOOOOU TERRORISM TERRORIST SHOE BOMB SAFER YES SAFER NINE ELEVEN."
Penguin
12-15-11, 11:38 AM
Oh hey, that's a good idea! Fight fear with more fear!
More like: "They want to destroy our freedom! We won't let this happen, so we'll destroy our freedom by ourselves!" :nope:
Penguin
12-15-11, 11:57 AM
:haha:
More faux sensationalism brought to you by those who havent read the measure and/or don't have command of the english language.
So please enlighten us, Mr. Commander of the English language: what does Sec. 1031 c 1 in subtitle D mean:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:6:./temp/~c112k6Dbex:e578148: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:6:./temp/%7Ec112k6Dbex:e578148:)
What part of "detention without trial" do the sensationalists fail to understand?
That's really strange coming from Obama:hmmm:
It doesn't seem populist too.
Hey Maddog, you're harshing their anti-government buzzes... :DL
Takeda Shingen
12-15-11, 12:24 PM
Hey Maddog, you're harshing their anti-government buzzes... :DL
Oh, the irony.
Penguin
12-15-11, 12:26 PM
Yes, the bill changed over the course and excludes now US citizens, which wasn't specified in previous drafts.
There is still the "detention without trial" included.
Check out Boumediene v. Bush for an example how this is seen by the US Supreme Court.
Another point: if an individual "substantially supported/"directly supported" hostilities, it should be easy to prove at a trial.
AVGWarhawk
12-15-11, 12:27 PM
Funny how things change after a good solid briefing of what is really going on. :hmmm:
flatsixes
12-15-11, 01:27 PM
Notice I highlighted parts of sec 1031 where it states who are 'covered persons', so unless you are al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces of al-Qaeda, the Taliban you have nothing to fear.
...Also note detention does NOT apply to U.S. Citizens under sec 1032 even IF you are al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces of al-Qaeda, or the Taliban.
Almost. But as long as we're discussing plain English, Sec. 1032 only exempts U.S. citizens (and lawful foreign nationals) from Sec. 1031's requirement that "covered persons" be kept in military detention. It does not prohibit such detention of U.S. citizens (or lawful foreign nationals). So it looks like President Bush... I mean President Obama, still gets to make the call.
Sailor Steve
12-15-11, 01:31 PM
Why is the crap allowed to continue??? :nope:
Because Congress is a law unto itself - literally. It has to be to function. The only way to stop it is to elect new fools, and you already know that won't work. If the President and Congress agree on something, it will happen, no matter what you or I think.
Because Congress is a law unto itself - literally. It has to be to function. The only way to stop it is to elect new fools, and you already know that won't work. If the President and Congress agree on something, it will happen, no matter what you or I think.
True. It's only Raison d'être is to write laws..... (you know what I mean)
flatsixes
Almost. But as long as we're discussing plain English, Sec. 1032 only exempts U.S. citizens (and lawful foreign nationals) from Sec. 1031's requirement that "covered persons" be kept in military detention. It does not prohibit such detention of U.S. citizens (or lawful foreign nationals). So it looks like President Bush... I mean President Obama, still gets to make the call. Precisely.
August
Hey Maddog, you're harshing their anti-government buzzes...Weren't we really worried that a certain US citizen ate a hellfire missile rather than getting due process?
Whats to say that the POTUS cannot use this in conjunction with revocation of citizenship to take away a person's 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th amendment rights.
I thought our founding fathers did not want to be subjected to tyranny.
The potential for abuse is way too great for this.
Sailor Steve
12-15-11, 03:54 PM
I thought our founding fathers did not want to be subjected to tyranny.
They also didn't want us involved in any kind of foreign policy at all, outside of trade agreements and peace treaties.
They also didn't want us involved in any kind of foreign policy at all, outside of trade agreements and peace treaties.
Well, do you blame them sometimes?
Well, do you blame them sometimes?
Certainly not. But we learned in 1941 that we can isolate ourselves either, though I wish we could.
Certainly not. But we learned in 1941 that we can isolate ourselves either, though I wish we could.
It could be argued that we were truly never isolationist. FDR did nearly as much as humanly possible to support the Allies, the numerous naval and maritime laws that were passed. Lend Lease act, reflagging 50 US tankers to GB, constructing the Archer, and others.
Tribesman
12-15-11, 06:35 PM
It could be argued that we were truly never isolationist.
It would be pretty hard to try and argue that they were really isolationist at all, especially by the time August mentions.
Sailor Steve
12-15-11, 06:38 PM
Very true. Part of the problem was that we did try isolationism in the previous World War, and rightfully so. Most of the countries in that one got involved because of treaties promising to help each other.
We don't need to be isolationist, but we also don't need to be interventionist. We try to help when asked, but if we help someone with enemies then those enemies decide we're the bad guy too, and they respond in kind. It's that old Orestes thing: Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Sea Demon
12-15-11, 06:48 PM
We don't need to be isolationist, but we also don't need to be interventionist. We try to help when asked, but if we help someone with enemies then those enemies decide we're the bad guy too, and they respond in kind. It's that old Orestes thing: Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Very true. I agree. I wish our nation would approach foreign policy this way. Even though, I still think we need to use our naval and air forces to ensure freedom on navigation and the free flow of goods on the world's waterways. That means global deployment of CSG's and subs. Not sure if that would be considered "interventionist" or just looking out for our own economic security.
Very true. I agree. I wish our nation would approach foreign policy this way. Even though, I still think we need to use our naval and air forces to ensure freedom on navigation and the free flow of goods on the world's waterways. That means global deployment of CSG's and subs. Not sure if that would be considered "interventionist" or just looking out for our own economic security.
There is nothing wrong with protecting your assets or citizens, Russia used that very same argument when they invaded Georgia.
SS, I agree with almost every point you brought up. The danger of that though is how much help, who gets help, to what extent and reason that we put our men and women in harms way. Very tough to decide, does it come down to our own best interest.....
Tribesman: had FDR not been embroiled in his reelection, than I can almost guarantee aid would have been provided a lot sooner.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.