HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Post removed

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 02:13 PM

 

Post removed

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Post removed (Original post)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 02:36 PM

1. He signed it because it was already LEGALLY empowered by the AUMF & the NDAA WAS VETO PROOF.

He could have done the politically beneficial thing of VETOING the NDAA and looked real good to all of the extremists out there, RIGHT & Left, knowing full well that his veto would NOT survive and that the NDAA would then succeed in congress in its original form still intact, WITH THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MAKING THE DETENTION ORDERS AND WITH NO EXCEPTION FOR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. And he'd be able to say TTE "Don't blame me. I VETOED it" while the constitutional crimes in the AUMF spread further into law.

Instead, he took the politically costly position of threatening that VETO in order to leverage amendments #1 An EXCEPTION to indefinite detention for American citizens & #2 Making the President - a politically dependent office - the one who makes the decisions about who, excluding American citizens, gets detained and under what circumstances.

His signing statement also very clearly establishes the LEGAL framework in which DOJ will work on the legal issues as the NDAA and related legislation evolves.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 02:43 PM

2. When has ANY spending for "Defense", as in NDAA, ever been anything but VETO PROOF???

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:07 PM

3. thanks for the input

It seems to me that he was actually rolling over. I don't see how it is extremist to want him to have at least tried, beating a veto is far from guaranteed and would have called attention to the issue. It wouldn't have been a bs maneuver but an actual push back.

I see your point but also recognize a trend of his adding to a decline of civil liberties, which causes me to lean away from you position- for instance, the signing of the extension of the Patriot Act.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RitchieRich (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:16 PM

4. So you would have taken the RISK of putting 100% indefinite detention decisions under an APPOINTED

office.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:19 PM

5. and you would have taken that risk FOR POLITICAL benefits.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:21 PM

7. please post a link

Please post a link to this, as I am under the impression that he has only strengthened it.

"...
IN THE New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal wrote, "It's stunning that the president is willing to sign a bill that might effectively turn the right of habeas corpus into a mere privilege--even for citizens."

But it's not so "stunning" once you compare this measure with the Democrats' record on civil liberties over the past several years--from capitulation to the Bush administration on the USA PATRIOT Act and similar abuses to their own measures during the Obama years.
..."
http://socialistworker.org/2012/01/04/obama-versus-civil-liberties

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RitchieRich (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:31 PM

9. couldn't find the link

its been a while, but I remember reading on ACLU that he had actually strengthened the provisions. I feel silly that I can't get more specific than that, but am very willing to research.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RitchieRich (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 04:52 PM

11. I am not saying that at least some of that is not true. The REAL question is *H*O*W* to deal with

the problems created by the AUMF: through his executive power to veto or not - which would NOT have done one damn thing about any of it other than progress the crimes geometrically IN NEW LAW, the NDAA - or - through saying NO to that by the only means available to him and then to address the problems in a wider arena of constitutional law that relates the NDAA to AUMF.

And, though this line of reasoning is out there in the ethersphere, including here on the DU, and basic logic is its own justification, you CAN google key terms in the issue or go to Thomas and read the various forms NDAA 2012 took as it evolved from what JOHN MCCAIN & CARL-never-met-a-bank-deregulation-he-didn't-like LEVINE wrote, to what it became after the President threatened veto and Senator Feinstein proposed and then achieved amendments to that original legislation.

The differences between you and our President are about calculation of that RISK + whatever tools he has available to him, or NOT, to address the same, though qualitatively different, problems had a Presidential veto been over-ridden.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:21 PM

6. Screw Ron Paul.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:25 PM

8. I agree...

I agree that he is mostly nutty, and intolerant, which sucks. I just see this as a greater issue. The rumor of his teaming up with Romney was the final nail in the coffin for me. I wish there were another option- anti war, balanced budget, and civil liberties. I don't see this coming from either party.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RitchieRich (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 05:04 PM

12. Balancing a budget that historically been so HEAVILY weighted toward "defense" spending is a non-

starter for a lot of us, especially since what we are talking about is "balancing" figures that represent NOTHING, which as a Ron Paul supporter you should appreciate quite clearly. Nothing but ARBITRARY nothing, PRIVATE 0s and 1s processed in PRIVATELY designed "accounting" processes, inside of secret networks of PRIVATELY owned domestic AND FOREIGN computers.

Please be clear about my emphasis upon the PRIVATE nature of money defining and controlling the PUBLIC commonweal.

NO thank you!!! Balance that fucker on someone else's back, say . . . that of those who CREATED the problem in the first place, REAGANITE FUNDAMENTALISTS and their PRIVATELY engineered Social Darwinism.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 04:29 PM

10. K&R n/t

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Northerner (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 06:24 PM

13. Q. WHO has "absolute power"? A. Not Presidents.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 08:25 AM

14. 1st time posting a story-

Before I take the time to thoughtfully respond to everyone, I want to point out that this is the first time I've posted a story here, or anywhere, other than commenting. I'm very pleased to have DU as a forum, and that people can disagree with me without being nasty or using personal attacks.
Thank you guys for genuinely informing me and responding.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink