Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    I had such high hopes for this man when I voted for him. I was so tired of seeing white men in office, even being white myself, that I wanted him to show people that they needn't conform to societal stereotypes. But he was a Trojan horse, and has now done more harm to this country than anyone President before him. I can no longer call him my president, as he has sold me into bondage. He has transformed the home of the free into a military dictatorship. It is now perfectly legal for him to come arrest me for even saying this; to lock me up without charge, detain me without recourse to trial or access to an attourney, even torture and assassinate me. And you as well, for reading this. Welcome to the rise of tyranny, my friends. I encourage you to disavow the rogue government and establish your own communal governments and police forces. No one in Washington, or commanded by them is any longer 'for the people, by the people.'

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westford, MA
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    All I can say is that I hope this hits the courts swiftly, and that the courts deem it unconstitutional.
    "... freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government

  3. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Honestly, I take issue that he was a "Trojan horse". I knew who he was, why didn't you? SCIU affiliations are not enough? Reverend wright is not enough? Who needs to be a major influence on someone before people understand... that those people have major influence? You can not possible go to a church like Reverend Wrights' for that long and not agree with a majority of the stuff he said.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Honestly, I take issue that he was a "Trojan horse". I knew who he was, why didn't you? SCIU affiliations are not enough? Reverend wright is not enough? Who needs to be a major influence on someone before people understand... that those people have major influence? You can not possible go to a church like Reverend Wrights' for that long and not agree with a majority of the stuff he said.
    Yes but MT, this is a classic form of Guilt by Association. You do not judge the character of an individual based on some obscene actions and statements made by people he chooses to affiliate with. You assess it based on his actions.

    There are plenty of reasons to call Obama's first term a very big disappointment (and I never bought into his flashy campaign slogans anyway), but I don't think you need to dig up dirt on the guy's past associates to ridicule his presidency. To put it simply, while you must responsibly choose who you affiliate yourself with, you ultimately cannot control the actions of your associates. I can bet you that if I knew everyone on ODN personally, I would find at least one questionable individual in their lives that has done something obscene with whom they've chosen to associate with. All I'm saying is you need to look no further than his record both as a junior Illinois Senator (where he had the most liberal voting record and was absent for so many roll calls) and as President where he has hypocritically engaged in the same political wheeling-and-dealing in Washington that he promised to reform.

    With that said, the signing of the NDAA will be yet another stain on Obama's reputation as President. The Act is perhaps the single, most blatant violation of civil liberties in the United States. It is unfortunate that both Congress and the Supreme Court have acquiesced to the usurpation of power by the executive branch especially since both branches are expected to check the power of one another.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    I don't think this law, as currently written, will pass the Constitutional test.

    Senator Rand Paul gave a good overview of the problems of this law on the Senate floor.



    This law is also an example of the apathy of Americans. If most Americans who value their freedom were even following what was just slipped into law, there would be an out cry.
    Last edited by eye4magic; January 1st, 2012 at 02:08 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  6. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by KING
    Yes but MT, this is a classic form of Guilt by Association. You do not judge the character of an individual based on some obscene actions and statements made by people he chooses to affiliate with. You assess it based on his actions.
    This is not a legal court. If you are o.k. with listening to someone spew hatred, it is not unreasonable for me to conclude that you yourself agree with it.

    In this case we are judging his character by who he chooses to associate with, and what position they are in, in his life.
    So here we have a person who is given the position of a spiritual leader and presumably a person given authority to influence the heart and mind of his followers.

    So then, it is absurd IMO to be surprised that such a person actually had an effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by king
    There are plenty of reasons to call Obama's first term a very big disappointment (and I never bought into his flashy campaign slogans anyway), but I don't think you need to dig up dirt on the guy's past associates to ridicule his presidency
    My response is not to the comments regarding his presidency, but to the "Trojan horse" comment.
    I find it impossible to accept the idea that a person looked at obamas life prior to the presidency and is not surprised by what they get.

    Quote Originally Posted by KING
    To put it simply, while you must responsibly choose who you affiliate yourself with, you ultimately cannot control the actions of your associates.
    It is the message he was listening to and accepted as acceptable to which I object and judge him for.

    Quote Originally Posted by KING
    I can bet you that if I knew everyone on ODN personally, I would find at least one questionable individual in their lives that has done something obscene with whom they've chosen to associate with. All I'm saying is you need to look no further than his record both as a junior Illinois Senator (where he had the most liberal voting record and was absent for so many roll calls) and as President where he has hypocritically engaged in the same political wheeling-and-dealing in Washington that he promised to reform.
    If you hang around with people who are known rapists, you can bet I will judge you in such a way so as to not trust you with my children or daughters.
    This is not an unreasonable approach or some fallacious reasoning.
    What is fallacious is to act as though the people he chose to put in authority over himself and whom he chose to follow were irrelevant to his thought processes.
    Unlike ODN, you are not putting any of us in any sort of authority over you.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Lovely... here is one where there is no way I'll be able to keep up with the replies....

    Let me start by saying I don't like the bill or the provisions for detention, nor am I happy Obama signed it. But...

    A. No one us usurping anything. If its unconstitutional it will be challenged and overturned. Congress passed this bill before the president signed it so they are together on this. Obama did not usurp the courts or congress. It in fact passed the Senate 93 to 7! In the house it was 322 to 96.

    B. The government already does this. Two Americans arrested on US soil were held in indefinite intention at Guantanamo during Bush's watch and I think continued to under Obama. Obama made some noises to take them to criminal trial and all hell broke loose as congress passed a series of laws making it near impossible to bring Guantanamo detainees to trial in the US. This bill was designed to make what they are already doing explicit rather than implicit in the war-powers act. I've always been against this kind of business but the right wing folks fought like hell for it and to keep it. Now they are all lining up to decry Obama for being a fascist for what the right already did. The left's anger I can understand but the right wingers are being hypocrites here.

    C. As loath as I am to try and defend such legislation, it is tied to anti-terrorism efforts. They are not authorized to simply detain anyone they like, you have to be working for a terrorist group that is actively hostile to the US and its war efforts. AKA you need to be a traitor to your country to be a legitimate target of the legislation. I understand the potential for abuse, but honestly all those voting for it most likely are just trying to be "tough on terrorism."
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #8
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    B. The government already does this. Two Americans arrested on US soil were held in indefinite intention at Guantanamo during Bush's watch and I think continued to under Obama.
    Could you support this?

    To be clear the current situation is that foreign combatants are detained in Guantanamo bay as part of on going military operations, not United States Citizens, certainly not US citizens arrested within the United States.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chamaeleon View Post
    I had such high hopes for this man when I voted for him. I was so tired of seeing white men in office, even being white myself, that I wanted him to show people that they needn't conform to societal stereotypes. But he was a Trojan horse, and has now done more harm to this country than anyone President before him. I can no longer call him my president, as he has sold me into bondage. He has transformed the home of the free into a military dictatorship. It is now perfectly legal for him to come arrest me for even saying this; to lock me up without charge, detain me without recourse to trial or access to an attourney, even torture and assassinate me. And you as well, for reading this. Welcome to the rise of tyranny, my friends. I encourage you to disavow the rogue government and establish your own communal governments and police forces. No one in Washington, or commanded by them is any longer 'for the people, by the people.'
    Could you please provide a link that would explain "NDAA" and thus allow readers not familiar with that acronym to evaluate your characterization of the law? Thanks.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westford, MA
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    C. As loath as I am to try and defend such legislation, it is tied to anti-terrorism efforts. They are not authorized to simply detain anyone they like, you have to be working for a terrorist group that is actively hostile to the US and its war efforts. AKA you need to be a traitor to your country to be a legitimate target of the legislation. I understand the potential for abuse, but honestly all those voting for it most likely are just trying to be "tough on terrorism."
    Clearly, you haven't read the actual text of the bill.

    Here's one of the more troubling sections: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112...id=t0:enr:5443


    Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

    SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

    (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or 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 has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

    (emphasis mine)
    Read the emphasized part.

    Awfully vague, isn't it?

    Makes you wonder what constitutes a "belligerent act", doesn't it?

    Could it be construed to apply to... say... the Occupy protesters?

    What about the incidents of police brutality that happened over the holiday? Perhaps the (off duty) California officer that declared, "I'm a cop. I can do anything I want" prior to shooting and killing an innocent civilian was merely stating what the establishment collectively believes? (See: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/off-...arts-comments/ )

    There are an awful lot of questions and not enough straight answers.
    "... freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government

  11. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Could you please provide a link that would explain "NDAA" and thus allow readers not familiar with that acronym to evaluate your characterization of the law? Thanks.
    Here is the full text of the bill/law.
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

    Here's a A Review of the Senate Armed Services Committee Version of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Bill

    And here's a clear summary and detailed analysis and history of the bills, now law:
    Summary: Detainee Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bills

    Both House and Senate bills competing to become the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 contain a subtitle addressing issues related to detainees at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and more broadly, hostilities against Al Qaeda and other entities. At the heart of both bills’ detainee provisions appears to be an effort to confirm or, as some observers view it, expand the detention authority that Congress implicitly granted the President via the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, P.L. 107-40) in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

    H.R. 1540, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 26, 2011, contains provisions that would reaffirm the conflict and define its scope; impose specific restrictions on the transfer of any non-citizen wartime detainee into the United States; place stringent conditions on the transfer or release of any Guantanamo detainee to a foreign country; and require that any foreign national who has engaged in an offense related to a terrorist attack be tried by military commission if jurisdiction exists.

    Shortly before H.R. 1540 was approved by the House, the White House issued a statement regarding its provisions. While supportive of most aspects of the bill, it was highly critical of those provisions concerning detainee matters. The Administration voiced strong opposition to the House provision reaffirming the existence of the armed conflict with Al Qaeda and arguably redefining its scope. It threatened to veto any version of the bill that contains provisions that the Administration views as challenging critical executive branch authority, including restrictions on detainee transfers and measures affecting review procedures.

    In June, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported its initial version of the bill, S. 1253. The bill included many provisions similar to the House bill, but also included a provision requiring the military detention of certain terrorist suspects. After the White House and the chairs of other Senate committees objected to some of the provisions, Senate Majority Leader Reid delayed consideration of S. 1253 pending a resolution of the disputed language. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported a second version of the authorization bill on November 15, 2011, addressing some, but not all of the concerns. The new bill, S. 1867, would authorize the detention of certain categories of persons and require the military detention of a subset of them; regulate status determinations for persons held pursuant to the AUMF, regardless of location; regulate periodic review proceedings concerning the continued detention of Guantanamo detainees; and continue current funding restrictions that relate to Guantanamo detainee transfers to foreign countries. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill would not bar the transfer of detainees into the United States for trial or perhaps for other purposes.

    Despite the revisions to the detainee provisions, the Administration threatened to veto “any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation.”

    This report offers a brief background of the salient issues raised by H.R. 1540 and S. 1867 regarding detention matters, provides a section-by-section analysis of the relevant subdivision of each bill, and compares the bills’ approaches with respect to the major issues they address.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41920.pdf
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Manise, the NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, which is renewed yearly, but which this year contains some absolutely unconstitutional amendments. Here are some of the nastier sections of the bill (it's over 900 pages long). I have bolded the parts that are quoted directly from the bill, and added some commentary on the legal interpretations of the wording. These are not my own interpretations, they are paraphrased from comments by lawyers that I have picked up in various places.
    .
    .
    Quoted directly from section 1031

    "(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."

    "(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or 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 has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

    "(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."

    .
    .
    Notice that sub-section (a) has just granted military jurisdiction inside the United States, completely ignoring Posse Comitatus. It's also important to note that there's some tricky wording in this section. The term "covered persons" is loosely defined in sub-section (b), but then sub-section (f), which along with (d) and (e) I dis-included for brevity, goes on to say that "The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2)." So the term may be amended at will. The DOJ has since gone on record saying that they will NOT LET THE PUBLIC SEE a more thorough definition of the term! There is also a stipulation in sub-section (c) of the next section, 1032, that says "The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows: (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) [which refers to the term "covered person" in section 1031] and the process by which such determinations are to be made." So the Secretary of Defense isn't going to be the only person who can adjust the meening of "covered person," nor do we know yet what the guidelines for changes to that definition will be. Moreover, the term is already very flexible, as it includes anyone who has "committed a belligerent act" deemed to be aiding terrorist forces.
    .
    .
    Sub-sections (d) and (e) of 1031 stipulate that nothing in section 1031 is intended to affect existing law regarding the detention of US citizens, or legal resident aliens, UNLESS of course they have been deemed "covered persons." It is worth noting that the London police have just classified the Occupy protestors as terrorists. I don't think our government will be far behind in doing the same thing, at which point existing laws regarding detention no longer apply to them (I wrote this synopsis weeks ago, and since then our government has classified Occupy protestors and Tea Partiers as terrorists, which is the same thing as "covered person").
    .
    .
    Quoted directly from section 1032

    "(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
    (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
    (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—
    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
    (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States."

    "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

    .
    .
    Again with the tricky language here. Note from sub-section (b) that the only part of this section that does not apply to American citizens, or legal resident aliens, is the "requirement" of detention. This is entirely different from saying they are not allowed to detain us. They just don't have to. Many people suspect the precise wording was meant to fool us into believing that none of this applies to American citizens, but it most certainly does. A slew of qualified lawyers have posted reviews of the legal terminology, explicitly confirming this.

    Sections 1033, 1034 & 1035 also have some interresting tidbits in them regarding the detainment, transfer and categorization of suspected terrorists, but they are not new. Among other things, they essentially say that once a person has been detained as a terrorist, it is up to the military to decide when they no longer pose a threat. They have carte blanche to lock people up as long as they want, even if they have already been acquitted at trial.
    .
    .
    There is also a stipulation that gives the Department of Defense permission to wage OFFENSIVE, COVERT CYBERWARFARE to "defend our nation, allies, and interests..." Here is the quote from section 954.

    "Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct
    offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to--
    (1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the
    law of armed conflict; and
    (2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
    [...]


    Here is a legal analysis of why that means covert, offensive cyberwarfare is now legal.


    If you want to read more of the bill, here's where I got it:
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/​pkg/BILLS-...112s1867es.pdf
    Last edited by Chamaeleon; January 2nd, 2012 at 03:32 AM.

  13. #13
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Okay, from a clarity standpoint the concern is that the US military can detain US citizens within the United States (provided that their mission is authorized) and detain them indefinitely without trial right?

    As a military officer I read the US Citizens clause as saying that there is no mandate to detain US citizens. In military parlance its a "may" (IE I have discretion) as opposed to a "shall" (a directive). When I put that against my Constitutional and former executive orders against detaining US citizens which are directives, the latter tend to win out. Would it be possible to provide a little more analysis that the Executive branch believes it has this power now (which is of course the fundamental question)?


    Also, I'm not sure what the concern is about offensive cyber operations, could you elaborate?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Congress passed this bill before the president signed it so they are together on this. Obama did not usurp the courts or congress. It in fact passed the Senate 93 to 7! In the house it was 322 to 96.
    I agree...Even though I don't like the fact that Obama signed this bill, it did pass (by very comfortable margins) in the House and Senate before he signed it, so I really don't think we should be putting all the blame for this on the President.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    I don't mean to put the onus entirely on Obama; he's just a figurehead. The problem is the entire government. There are people saying that this may not pass the constitutionality test of judicial review, but after seeing how readily the other two branches of government betrayed us, I have no hope for this bill being declared unconstitutional. Besides, it is law right now, and judicial review takes time.

    Squatch, there's a lot more than just the one problem you mention. First of all, the military is now allowed to opperate with impunity inside the States, which contradicts the Posse Comitatus Act. This bill has declared the whole world a battleground in the war on terror, including the US, and a war on terror can never be won. It is literally a war on fear. It reminds me of this quote: "It does not matter if the war is not real, for when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. Hierarchial society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principal, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And it's object is not victory over Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact." You know what that quote was from? 1984. If you've never seen it, I can't recommend it enough. Modern-day America stinks of the ideology demonized in the book/movie.

    Another aspect of the problem is the grounds on which people can be detained. It's so loosely defined that anyone can be arrested for merely seeming to support someone who disagrees with the US government. As I mentioned, you can be considered a terrorist for even looking at this thread, and that's not hyperbole; it's literal. When this was signed into law, we lost our freedom of speech, our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, our right to an attourney and a trial. The problem is, as you mentioned, that all these actions are now up to military discretion, and there's something wrong with the military being able to decide that I should be spirited away, never to be seen or heard from again, because I want to talk about the Occupy protests or the Tea Party. The executive branch clearly does believe it has this power already because it has excersized it. Remember Anwar Al-Awlaki? He was an american citizen, and he was assassinated by American military drones without a trial. Our government only had suspicion that he was a terrorist. The Homeland Security Act made the assassination lawful because he was taken out in Yemen, but the NDAA means it's legal everywhere! Congress has given the executive branch worldwide jurisdiction and exempted itself from oversight.

    That's also the problem with the online warfare; there's no specificity about what cyberwar entails, or what warrants it; they just grant themselves the right to do it. And, just as with the definition of "covered person," you can rest assured they will not tell us exactly what it means or exactly the extent of their powers, which essentially means their powers are unlimited, as is their right to employ that power. This government is supposed to be of the people and for the people, not inspite of the people and agains the people! THIT IS OUTSIDE THEIR MANDATE TO DECLARE WAR ON US! But that's exactly what they've done. We are now enemy combatants and can be treated as such, at the discretion of this rogue government.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westford, MA
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chamaeleon View Post
    I don't mean to put the onus entirely on Obama; he's just a figurehead. The problem is the entire government. There are people saying that this may not pass the constitutionality test of judicial review, but after seeing how readily the other two branches of government betrayed us, I have no hope for this bill being declared unconstitutional. Besides, it is law right now, and judicial review takes time.
    So... here's a question...

    Let's take a quick poll.

    Did your Senator or Congressman vote for NDAA? Of those who voted for NDAA, how many of you voted for getting this person elected?

    I'm curious to see how many members of ODN contributed to getting NDAA passed.

    Here's the voting records: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/votes

    I'm also curious to see how many members of ODN are willing to vote exclusively third party or write-in in the 2012 elections as a way to voice their lack of confidence with established career politicians.
    "... freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    I'm done participating in this government's farces. Obama was the only vote I ever cast, though now I wish I hadn't. I'm ashamed to admit that I was caught up in the sparkle of his big lie. I only started paying attention to politics during Bush jr's Presidency, but I'm young, so I was too stupid to give a **** about that stuff before. Now that I'm paying attention, I'm disgusted at what I see.

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is not a legal court. If you are o.k. with listening to someone spew hatred, it is not unreasonable for me to conclude that you yourself agree with it.
    To be fair, Obama never stated that he agreed with everything Jeremiah Wright said and certainly not the 'hatred' Wright was spewing. Many of the controversial statements made by Wright were repudiated by Obama. He even resigned his membership from the Trinity church that Wright was part of. To equate everything negative that Wright preached and claim Obama accepted all of it (and therefore, he accepts those beliefs) is disingenuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In this case we are judging his character by who he chooses to associate with, and what position they are in, in his life.
    So here we have a person who is given the position of a spiritual leader and presumably a person given authority to influence the heart and mind of his followers.
    There is no indication of the extent to which Obama was influenced by Wright, nor is there is there a correlation between Wright's beliefs and Obama's actions as president. Anything short of this is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So then, it is absurd IMO to be surprised that such a person actually had an effect.
    It's clear you're attempting to draw a casual link between Wright's 'hatred' and Obama's 'decisions' as President. To what extent has Wright's (former) pastorship affected the decision-making ability of Obama? If you do not have even the slightest indication, then is it really relevant?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My response is not to the comments regarding his presidency, but to the "Trojan horse" comment.
    I find it impossible to accept the idea that a person looked at obamas life prior to the presidency and is not surprised by what they get.
    But what relevance does it have on his presidency? We do not know how Obama was influenced by any one individual or how great of an impact an individual had on him, and there certainly isn't any correlation (let alone causation) to point and say that negative influence from questionable associates is a factor for Obama's lackluster first term.

    What I'm saying is there is more than enough of Obama's failed promises and renewed policies from his predecessor to point to as a factor for his presidential shortfalls. There is no need to point to his past associates because the extent to which he was influenced by them and the extent to which his decision-making ability is affected by these associates is merely conjecture and incalculable.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  19. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chamaeleon View Post
    I'm done participating in this government's farces.
    Well, I don't think this is meant to be a government civics debate, but the U.S. government is not the enemy nor is it all bad. The founding fathers were really brilliant men and they put together a very sound and workable framework for government based on noble and moral principles. In that we've wavered away from many of those principles, does not mean government is all bad. America actually has one of the longest surviving constitutions. A constitution whose founders (writers) knew could not survive if the majority of the people it governed were not moral.

    Now that I'm paying attention, I'm disgusted at what I see.
    You're sense that something is wrong is healthy and more and more people are waking up to this fact. So what are you going to do about it?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  20. #20
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama signs the NDAA and ends democracy in America: R.I.P. America (1776-2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chamaeleon View Post
    Squatch, there's a lot more than just the one problem you mention. First of all, the military is now allowed to opperate with impunity inside the States, which contradicts the Posse Comitatus Act.
    Can you support this? The NDAA does not officially retract Posse Comitatus nor does it give free reign for the military to act in any theatre it chooses.
    COCOMs (Combatant Commands) must have executive authority to conduct operations in any military theatre or region.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chamaeleon
    You know what that quote was from? 1984. If you've never seen it, I can't recommend it enough.
    I would recommend the book, it is far better and I definitely wouldn't argue this point. I would also recommend Brave New World which I think portrays us a bit more accurately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chamaeleon
    Another aspect of the problem is the grounds on which people can be detained. It's so loosely defined that anyone can be arrested for merely seeming to support someone who disagrees with the US government. As I mentioned, you can be considered a terrorist for even looking at this thread, and that's not hyperbole; it's literal.
    I will certainly grant that the language is vague, but do you have any evidence that this would be a legal interpretation of the act?
    The military can detain you now very easily, but their physical ability to do that action is irrespective of the legislation passed. Is there a legal opinion out there that the NDAA authorizes the military to detain anyone for any of the reasons you've suggested.
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I would just like you to offer a bit more support that your interpretations are mainstream legal interpretations of this law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chamaeleon
    That's also the problem with the online warfare; there's no specificity about what cyberwar entails, or what warrants it;
    Can you point me then to the legislation that defines what constitutes armored warfare or airborne warfare?


    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast View Post
    To be fair, Obama never stated that he agreed with everything Jeremiah Wright said and certainly not the 'hatred' Wright was spewing. Many of the controversial statements made by Wright were repudiated by Obama. He even resigned his membership from the Trinity church that Wright was part of. To equate everything negative that Wright preached and claim Obama accepted all of it (and therefore, he accepts those beliefs) is disingenuous.
    No more disingenuous than President Obama's claims to not have known what the church stood for. He did after know Rev. Wright for nearly 30 years before withdrawing from the Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by KOE
    There is no indication of the extent to which Obama was influenced by Wright, nor is there is there a correlation between Wright's beliefs and Obama's actions as president. Anything short of this is irrelevant.
    Can you support this? Wright preached condemnation for the US for years, President Obama has apologized for the US on virtually every occasion offered, that is a correlation.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Wrong for America
    By onalandline in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: October 31st, 2008, 11:29 AM
  2. Obama Wrong for America
    By onalandline in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 15th, 2008, 12:40 PM
  3. America?
    By AmbiguousLight in forum Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 31st, 2006, 08:26 AM
  4. Blacks in America...
    By Swedish in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: March 29th, 2004, 03:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •