100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: NDAA - No More Sweet Land of Liberty | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
© washingtonpeacecenter.net
With instant news coming at us continuously on cable and online, there may well be Americans who are unaware of the strong reaction to Barack Obama's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. The law impelled Kenneth Roth, the executive director of the respected Human Rights Watch, to declare: "President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention (imprisonment) without trial in U.S. law" ("U.S.: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill a Historic Tragedy for Rights," hrw.org, Dec. 15, 2011). This includes U.S. citizens. Just as ignited is Judge Andrew Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst at Fox News, who, irrespective of his ultimate employer, is TV's most compellingly informed protector of the Constitution. He warns: "Essentially, this legislation would enable the president to divert from the criminal justice system, and thus to divert from the protections of the Constitution, any person he pleases" ("Can Congress Steal Your Constitutional Freedoms?" townhall.com, Dec. 1, 2011). As if he were our king. Sounds like typical election year bombast, doesn't it? But as I reported last week, the president, without going to court, can cage a U.S. citizen only "suspected of association" with our terrorist enemies ("Congress, Obama Codify Indefinite Detention," Sheldon Richman, The Future of Freedom Foundation, fff.org, Dec. 27, 2011). The Tenth Amendment Center adds: "The indefinite military detention of any person in the United States without charge or trial violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States (and) Article III of the Constitution of the United States" ("NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act," tenthamendmentcenter.com). when bush did this, he was the worst criminal in the world... but now it is ok? hope and change at it again... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing in the bill specifies this can be done, the debate is that nothing was in the bill saying it cant be done
as much of the populace seems to not understand or ignore about bills is that they contain MANY provisions,,,and rarely will anyone voting on them be in agreement with EVERY provision, but they will sign off based upon those provisions they do agree with OBAma issued the following statement regarding the provisions he did not agree with and why' http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill-signing-statement/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing in the bill specifies this can be done, the debate is that nothing was in the bill saying it cant be done as much of the populace seems to not understand or ignore about bills is that they contain MANY provisions,,,and rarely will anyone voting on them be in agreement with EVERY provision, but they will sign off based upon those provisions they do agree with OBAma issued the following statement regarding the provisions he did not agree with and why' http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill-signing-statement/ Agree or disagree, the 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing in the bill specifies this can be done, the debate is that nothing was in the bill saying it cant be done as much of the populace seems to not understand or ignore about bills is that they contain MANY provisions,,,and rarely will anyone voting on them be in agreement with EVERY provision, but they will sign off based upon those provisions they do agree with OBAma issued the following statement regarding the provisions he did not agree with and why' http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill-signing-statement/ Agree or disagree, the
i know, right? if he didn't agree with it, he wouldn't of signed it...duh... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 05/07/12 02:19 PM
|
|
as did McCain and the majority of Congress,,,,
until the republicans began to run for office again and this suddenly became 'controversial'..... ,, can we say 'spin doctors'? oh and lets not forget he merely 'signed it',, so much like OSAMA,,,it doesnt really mean he should receive the acknowledgement , because CONGRESS did most the 'work' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as did McCain and the majority of Congress,,,, until the republicans began to run for office again and this suddenly became 'controversial'..... ,, can we say 'spin doctors'? oh and lets not forget he merely 'signed it',, so much like OSAMA,,,it doesnt really mean he should receive the acknowledgement , because CONGRESS did most the 'work' there is your "least veto president" at work again... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as did McCain and the majority of Congress,,,, until the republicans began to run for office again and this suddenly became 'controversial'..... ,, can we say 'spin doctors'? oh and lets not forget he merely 'signed it',, so much like OSAMA,,,it doesnt really mean he should receive the acknowledgement , because CONGRESS did most the 'work' there is your "least veto president" at work again... and your 'pass the buck' congress(future presidents) too 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as did McCain and the majority of Congress,,,, until the republicans began to run for office again and this suddenly became 'controversial'..... ,, can we say 'spin doctors'? oh and lets not forget he merely 'signed it',, so much like OSAMA,,,it doesnt really mean he should receive the acknowledgement , because CONGRESS did most the 'work' there is your "least veto president" at work again... and your 'pass the buck' congress(future presidents) too
i've never disagreed with you on that... just about obama... |
|
|
|
|
