General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmnesty International on NDAA: ""Trust me" is not enough of a safeguard"
"Despite expressing serious reservations, the Obama administration has paved the way for legislation that will authorize indefinite detention. The bill places enormous power in the hands of future Presidents, and the only answer the President has is to say "trust me."
"Once any government has the authority to hold people indefinitely, the risk is that it can be almost impossible to rein such power in. President Obama has failed to take the one action a veto that would have blocked the dangerous provisions in the NDAA. In so doing, he has allowed human rights to be further undermined and given Al Qaeda a propaganda victory."
Amnesty International and over 45 other organizations will protest the NDAA and Guantanamo in front of the White House on January 11--the 10th anniversary of the "war on terror" prison. Sign up at http://www.amnestyusa.org/jan11.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-not-enough-of-a-safeguard-says-amnesty-international-as-president-obama-signs-the-ndaa-i
mmonk
(52,589 posts)We have a winner.
Autumn
(45,927 posts)He had "serious reservations" about it and signed it anyway. Some times you just have to say, hell no I'm not doing this.
a simple pattern
(608 posts)citizens..." ... I'll leave that for all future Presidents whoever they may be... probably...
quinnox
(20,600 posts)The NDAA is a giant step towards this nightmare Orwellian vision coming to the USA. 1930s Germany is not something to strive to emulate.
Saying "My fellow Americans, I promise I won't use this" is meaningless, because Obama will be gone eventually, maybe sooner rather than later depending on the elections.
comipinko
(541 posts)I think "trust me" is good enough. Afterall, or government knows best.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)YOU may trust Obama (I don't think I do) -- but what about the next guy? Or the one after that?
We're supposed to be "a nation of LAWS, not men." So we don't have to rely on their good will.
comipinko
(541 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)they must hate Obama too.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)i_sometimes
(201 posts)Oh boy....LMAO!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)T S Justly
(884 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)So many good songs!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)His name will now always be at the bottom of this horrendous bill.
It IS the historical equivalent of "I APPROVE this message."
He SHOULD have refused to sign it,
and DARED Congress to pass it over his veto,
unless he was just bullshitting again about having "serious reservations."
That way, HIS Name would NOT appear at the bottom of this historical document.
[font size=6] ..Because ITS the LAW now![/font]
signing statements and other equivocations do not matter.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
theaocp
(4,358 posts)why this is such a hard concept to grasp, unless people just do not want to understand it. That might make some sense. What a clusterfuck.
SpiralHawk
(32,944 posts)k and r
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)Excellent article - EVERYBODY should be outraged over this. The apologists will regret this one day, mark my word.