Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
151. Actually makes more sense to have a civillian
Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:28 AM
Jan 2012

be in charge of any possible civillian detention rather than the military...the military mentality is a tad different.

Because O said he wouldn't use this power & the other side is worse. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #1
So we can shred the constitution here so they won't shred it over there FreakinDJ Jan 2012 #42
And who better to shred the Constitution than a constitutional scholar? CrispyQ Jan 2012 #147
Makes you wonder why any Lawmaker would think we need provisions like that FreakinDJ Jan 2012 #148
Makes you wonder why we vote for any of them. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #155
I on't believe politicians anymore. emilyg Jan 2012 #116
That's probably wise. Kablooie Jan 2012 #162
Stay home. nt JoePhilly Jan 2012 #2
Why pose the question as if you want an answer? Robb Jan 2012 #3
and yet........ Sherman A1 Jan 2012 #40
Because his opponent will do somethings which are much, much worse. baldguy Jan 2012 #4
I'm trying to imagine what that would look like. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #144
The part about future presidents is truely frightning. n/t Little Star Jan 2012 #5
Obama isn't about to do anything like the critics complain about bigtree Jan 2012 #6
Why sign a bill that is "positioned for a court review"? Besides the courts have done terrible rhett o rick Jan 2012 #21
veto wouldn't have stopped the bill bigtree Jan 2012 #26
He didnt need to sign the bill to tell everyone that he wasnt going to enforce it. If his veto was rhett o rick Jan 2012 #63
"he could have publicly explain his intention" SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #77
It's for the courts, not pr bigtree Jan 2012 #95
Good grief. You are desparately trying to rationalize why he should have signed that horrible bill. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #115
"Good Grief" well no, I didn't rationalize anything but stated fact. SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #120
Predicting what his critics would say isnt a fact. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #139
I stated what his Critics HAVE said SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #142
Because the clause putting Sec Def in charge of detentions was replaced with an elective position patrice Jan 2012 #47
If it's a bad bill, send it back. Force Congress to override. This rhett o rick Jan 2012 #64
Ooo, replaced the Secretary of Defense with the President, now that just inpires confidence, MadHound Jan 2012 #82
The court issues outlined in the signing statement were too arcane for me, but if patrice Jan 2012 #93
Wow, just wow, MadHound Jan 2012 #94
You display your prejudice that it is party interests and not considering that someone CAN patrice Jan 2012 #98
I'm not the one displaying here, but hey, carry on. n/t MadHound Jan 2012 #102
That's pretty funny given OP. So . . . if not display, what IS your purpose? nt patrice Jan 2012 #108
If you are not displaying, why don't you just be quiet and not vote? patrice Jan 2012 #109
Is there some reason I should not "display"? Pray, tell!! I missed it. Am I not qualified patrice Jan 2012 #110
So anyone who disagrees with you is anti-Constitution? There are major social justice sources like patrice Jan 2012 #107
Let's look at what Mother Jones has to say, shall we MadHound Jan 2012 #114
I don't dispute the criticisms. I dispute what to do about them, as though the whole path initiated patrice Jan 2012 #123
Maybe it's just me but it's ironic Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #146
A peace symbol does not mean that you forsake the struggle for truth. It does mean that you engage patrice Jan 2012 #149
Do you think most people, even those that vote, know or care what the NDAA is? CrispyQ Jan 2012 #136
Actually makes more sense to have a civillian Sheepshank Jan 2012 #151
Because more people will know more about the WHOLE thing because of court review. nt patrice Jan 2012 #50
I am sorry but no. How many people know where the courts stand on Hamdi and Padilla? rhett o rick Jan 2012 #65
You're making perfect the enemy of better. Increasing awareness is a good thing, especially patrice Jan 2012 #76
Did you read what you wrote? Seriously? MadHound Jan 2012 #80
Ilove the way you say you want a civil discussion and you lead your response with ridicule bigtree Jan 2012 #96
I love the way you try to slip out of questions and criticism by creating strawmen MadHound Jan 2012 #100
So whats your plan? Ohio Joe Jan 2012 #7
So don't vote for him, then. Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #8
You won the thread. Number23 Jan 2012 #59
So I guess, according to you, the RepubliCONs are better? RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #9
I think the OP is showing the frustration some have with a president rhett o rick Jan 2012 #61
How is it shallow and childish? RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #133
Bad selection of words. I am showing my frustrations. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #138
When someone smugly and arrogantly tells me I have no other choice, bvar22 Jan 2012 #160
Yes sir there is always another choice. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #164
That's bullshit & you know it. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #140
We do something by RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #157
Umm, nice thought and all that, MadHound Jan 2012 #181
reminds me of one of the supposed rationales for the '09 attack on Gaza: MisterP Jan 2012 #10
Then don't do those things. MineralMan Jan 2012 #11
Cute, but no--it isn't that simple SaintPete Jan 2012 #170
He's the lesser of 2 evils. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #12
This is a hard pill to swallow: CrispyQ Jan 2012 #143
Are you really looking for a response with a reason you might consider? Or just trying to win gateley Jan 2012 #13
why should we care about the particular unfactual hyperbole of a particular anonymous poster? grantcart Jan 2012 #14
I talk to you, don't I???? cliffordu Jan 2012 #23
It appears that no one can give you a good answer. Criticism, yes. A good answer, no. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #15
The signing statement makes it impossible for American citizens to be held indefinitely WonderGrunion Jan 2012 #16
couldn't a Democrat ignore it too? getdown Jan 2012 #45
It does no such thing. Obama himself is under no obligation to hold to it. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #73
To insert the sarcasm tag, CrispyQ Jan 2012 #145
Insofar as you seem to be complaining of a bill that contained waffle-language, to the effect struggle4progress Jan 2012 #17
What do you mean by "waffle-language"? ronnie624 Jan 2012 #158
As passed, HR 1540 (the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012," signed struggle4progress Jan 2012 #168
Whom does the legislation recognize as a "covered person"? ronnie624 Jan 2012 #169
That's defined in 1021(b) struggle4progress Jan 2012 #171
That is as I remember it. ronnie624 Jan 2012 #174
You shouldn't do anything you don't want to do. joshcryer Jan 2012 #18
Posting in detail about what he doesn't want to do Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #27
I'm perfectly fine with it. joshcryer Jan 2012 #29
Oh, me too. Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #33
I can't really speak for you. As for me... tkmorris Jan 2012 #19
You don't have to do anything. Lisa D Jan 2012 #20
Let your conscience be your guide. cliffordu Jan 2012 #22
WHY? elleng Jan 2012 #24
Anybody is more than one decision. TBF Jan 2012 #25
I think there's still a functional difference between parties, but that doesn't merit... joshcryer Jan 2012 #31
don't. Whisp Jan 2012 #28
The only kind of support he needs from the poster is a vote. ronnie624 Jan 2012 #159
Because with a Republican, you get the same decision plus a lot of crap that is far worse eridani Jan 2012 #30
Answer: alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #32
Please note: no one is seriously arguing with you. They're going limp. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #34
The question did not ask for argument. If asked "what convincing reasons might I have to vote?"... joshcryer Jan 2012 #35
that makes no sense getdown Jan 2012 #46
Feel free to substantiate why you do not believe it makes sense. joshcryer Jan 2012 #51
too squirrelly getdown Jan 2012 #52
K, I'll consider it unsubstantiated, then. joshcryer Jan 2012 #54
carry on getdown Jan 2012 #55
Yep. nt Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #36
That seems to be the norm around here recently! Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #41
+100000 nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #43
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. Jester Messiah Jan 2012 #167
Do you like pancakes? lonestarnot Jan 2012 #37
Whatevs... jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #38
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #39
Outstanding sig line!! CrispyQ Jan 2012 #156
Our founders had many faults, ronnie624 Jan 2012 #161
There are thousands of reasons to vote for him. Autumn Jan 2012 #44
It is a shitty position to be in as a voter who cares about the Constitution, but... Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #48
Very true. We have gone down the rabbit hole. Autumn Jan 2012 #53
because we've been reduced even further to pretending that our votes count. getdown Jan 2012 #49
Because LIFE is about degrees of "the lesser of two evils", that is, unless you support genocide patrice Jan 2012 #56
Exactly. Which is why the President should have chosen the lesser of two evils and VETOED it. nt Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #58
That is an absolutist and, hence, oppressive position.Whose evils? How much greater or lesser? When? patrice Jan 2012 #67
You mean absolutist like...a recess appointment? Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #69
Deflection. patrice Jan 2012 #71
Deflection- such as turning my distaste for an unconstituional law into an issue about veterans... Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #75
Not nearly the deflection of trying to turn it to Recess Appointment. BTW, NDAA = FUNDING, so patrice Jan 2012 #78
The answers to your questions is absolutely. Would I rather there be a delay in military spending TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #81
That's your right, but it's not your right to REQUIRE that of others. If you have a right to patrice Jan 2012 #88
Without the rule of law, there is no framework available for deciding for ourselves save strength of TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #187
But then perhaps I'm making a mistake in thinking your concern is freedom and not a patrice Jan 2012 #97
There is no freedom in being permently detained without charge, much less trial. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #188
Cool, let's defund the war, now, MadHound Jan 2012 #83
Yeah, just fuck the people we fucked-over with our little mistake, anyway. patrice Jan 2012 #90
Which fucked over people are you talking about? MadHound Jan 2012 #91
Apples & oranges. Both of course and with special focus on the SHIA patrice Jan 2012 #154
Everyone repeats that "lesser of two evils" line like there is great unquestionable wisdom in it. patrice Jan 2012 #70
This gives the ACLU a chance to fight it while it won't be used Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #57
I don't believe any court will hear the case until someone is victimized by it. Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #60
Because reducing voter turnout can be harmful to other voters' personal issues & to America. patrice Jan 2012 #62
Again, agreed! Which is why I was surprised to see so many telling the OP NOT to vote for Obama! Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #66
Agree. patrice Jan 2012 #72
"...why should I support or vote for somebody, anybody, who signs this kind of legislation?" unkachuck Jan 2012 #68
You ASSUME "blind", without finding out. Why do you do that? patrice Jan 2012 #74
I'm not sure what you're asking.... unkachuck Jan 2012 #79
Your Protest Could Make You An Actual American... WillyT Jan 2012 #84
Then Don't Vote For Him- Stay Home or Vote for Someone Else indykatie1955 Jan 2012 #85
Be nice to at least be able to throw out a signing statement, huh? TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #86
Legislation like this - others that happened under Bush - xchrom Jan 2012 #87
if you don't want to you shouldn't JI7 Jan 2012 #89
I'd be shocked if OP ever voted for Obama alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #92
You mean they're a troll pretending to have voted for him? Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #99
Can't you see the evidence? It's right there in the OP MadHound Jan 2012 #101
I suppose either "You're pleased with Obama's performance" or "You're a Republican dupe." Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #113
Watta ya mean, troll? alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #112
Oh, YAY, it's Wedge Issue Wednesday! Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #103
Ah yes, that pesky Constitution, such a wedge issue. MadHound Jan 2012 #104
The President was damned if he did and double damned if he didn't Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #105
It is we who are truly double damned, MadHound Jan 2012 #106
You understand this has been in play since the AUMF was passed, right? n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #117
Why do you need us to care about your not voting for Obama?...nt SidDithers Jan 2012 #111
Will YOU be voting FOR Obama in the coming election? bvar22 Jan 2012 #163
He would love to, but all he has is Harper, being a Conservative neo-liberal in Canada and all. Dragonfli Jan 2012 #173
Whatevah!! Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #118
Please do a lot more reading and research about "this" treestar Jan 2012 #119
Oh, I have, MadHound Jan 2012 #125
I think that LiberalAndProud Jan 2012 #121
Well, ProSense Jan 2012 #122
Well, looks like your options are vote for someone who has no chance of winning, or... MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #124
38 recs. A little short of what I would have anticipated. Anybody else? lamp_shade Jan 2012 #126
Do recs somehow contribute to the validity or worth of a post? MadHound Jan 2012 #127
I agree, some of those recs are clearly detractors. joshcryer Jan 2012 #128
Some of those recs are people who disagree but appear to rec for other reasons. joshcryer Jan 2012 #130
i think your claim is unfounded inna Jan 2012 #152
Where is unrec when you need it krawhitham Jan 2012 #131
i just became #51. ask, and you shall receive. inna Jan 2012 #153
Hey... thanks. lamp_shade Jan 2012 #172
The lesser of two evils argument seems to apply to you the most. joshcryer Jan 2012 #129
Actually, the poor, downtrodden, minorities, the afflicted MadHound Jan 2012 #182
That's due to voter suppression. In the end the Democrats get their vote... joshcryer Jan 2012 #186
You should probably read that constitution you're defending jeff47 Jan 2012 #132
It depends on why you're voting onenote Jan 2012 #134
It's partisan rivalry Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #135
You ask a good question, at the heart of what's wrong with the Democratic Party. Octafish Jan 2012 #137
+1 slay Jan 2012 #180
don't--vote for Romney or vote for someone on the left who has no chance of winning WI_DEM Jan 2012 #141
Stay the fuck home Sheepshank Jan 2012 #150
K&R Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #165
Mischaracterizations such as "fine with this bill" do nothing for any case. In fact, it is possible patrice Jan 2012 #177
Who is forcing you to do so? Jester Messiah Jan 2012 #166
Come on folks. 12 more recs needed. There's money in it for me. lamp_shade Jan 2012 #175
Takin' those marbles and goin' home, eh? DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #176
K&R (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #178
Good question slay Jan 2012 #179
Whatever you decide please let us know in the same dramatic fashion. great white snark Jan 2012 #183
Let's see how mighty thin the lesser of two evils argument is under President Santorum. ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #184
So don't. I'm done with trying to change minds on DU. Nt DevonRex Jan 2012 #185
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why should I endorse, or ...»Reply #151