Obama Plans To Abandon Hard-Won White, Working-Class Voters

[Texas_tea]

it was in all the papers and a number of threads here

Yes ... I read them. I was doing a little comparing and contrasting of the NDAA and the Nuremberg laws. Although the Nuremberg Laws are clearly directed at a particular race, the political implications of these laws are very scary. These laws were used to gain total control over Germany's politics and economy by denying citizenship and due process and arresting whoever they wanted.

 

[Texas_tea]

Pretty damn funny to watch a lib defend the policies they no doubt HATED and COMPLAINED about when a different president was behind them....

That very well may the case with Gitmo .... but, no President in the history of the United States has ever suspended due process, a clear and open violation of the US Constitution!

 

[Texas_tea]

I see this issue as a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" issue.

If this security measure was not in place, and a new act of terrorism (from within or from without) should occur, Obama would obviously be blamed.

If no new act of terrorism occurs, this security measure will continue to be spinned as an infraction of citizens' freedom. . .although it is quite possible that that security measure may already have stopped some act of terrorism.

I am not a big fan of it. . because I think terrorism is jsut a small threat, compare to the every day threats we all face, just by being alive, using our cars for commuting, and "cleaning our guns!"

But, wasn't Obama accused of "being soft on terrorism" a while back? And now that he does something about it, he is bashed for it!
Oh well, luckily, he has broad shoulder and is able to take all the crap that is thrown his way!

Nice try Openmind ... but, breaking the Presidential Oath of defending the Constitution, openly illegally violating the Constitution and suspending due process, not for terrorist but, for American citizens is simply not defendable!

You are defending the illegal actions of of a sitting President and Senate. This is the problem with liberal thinking. No matter how blatantly wrong or illegal the actions are, they continue to defend what is fundamentally wrong.

 

[dogtowner]

quote="Openmind, post: 182524, member: 3480"]Why don't you go and complain about that to your local prosecutor. . .
[/quote]

thats kind of the point, no one can complain about this to anyone. the administration answers to no one on this. as to how its working, its only just passed but how would anyone know ? people will just get taken and only if someone happens to notice this happening will it be known.

 

[Openmind]

quote="Openmind, post: 182524, member: 3480"]Why don't you go and complain about that to your local prosecutor. . .

thats kind of the point, no one can complain about this to anyone. the administration answers to no one on this. as to how its working, its only just passed but how would anyone know ? people will just get taken and only if someone happens to notice this happening will it be known.[/quote]

There is obviously room for excess. . .In my heart of heart, I know that Obama will not abuse this.
However, He doesn't make every nitty gritty decisions, and. . .as much as I hope he remains in the White House another 4 years, I am not (unlike so many of you GOP supporters who are so certain that he will be replaced by one of the GOP clowns) 100% convinced that he will overcome the hatred of the GOP and the extreme right.
And I would be concerned with extreme reactivists, like Santorum, who may just decide that any "non-christian" is suspect!

However, how does one balance this issue? Certainly not by criticizing and throwing the baby away with the bath water!

 

[Openmind]

Pretty damn funny to watch a lib defend the policies they no doubt HATED and COMPLAINED about when a different president was behind them....

Defending? didn't I state that I wasn't too keen on it, but that I do not have a solution to balance safety and concerns. And neither do you.
Pretty damn funny to watch a conservative attack the policies they no doubt LOVED and SUPPORTED when a different president was behind them. . .

 

[dogtowner]

There is obviously room for excess. . .In my heart of heart, I know that Obama will not abuse this.

a lot of people believed him when he said his plan would make unemployment from exceeding 8.5%. lets just say I'm not so sure.

However, He doesn't make every nitty gritty decisions

so any old bureaucrat is the real judge, jury and...
thats why I said administration

, and. . .as much as I hope he remains in the White House another 4 years, I am not (unlike so many of you GOP supporters who are so certain that he will be replaced by one of the GOP clowns) 100% convinced that he will overcome the hatred of the GOP and the extreme right.
And I would be concerned with extreme reactivists, like Santorum, who may just decide that any "non-christian" is suspect!

well its heartening to see you now recognize the situation

However, how does one balance this issue? Certainly not by criticizing and throwing the baby away with the bath water!

where is the need ? the government can already detain anyone so long as they go to a judge specifically directed to expedite such proceedings within a few days to validate the action.

this is akin to saying the IRS need not conduct audits but just start in with thier near unlimited powers of asset seizure.

 

[Texas_tea]

Defending? didn't I state that I wasn't too keen on it, but that I do not have a solution to balance safety and concerns. And neither do you.
Pretty damn funny to watch a conservative attack the policies they no doubt LOVED and SUPPORTED when a different president was behind them. . .

Not to present myself as a big fan of the GOP .... but, the GOP added an amendment to the NDAA to exclude American citizens. This amendment passed the GOP majority House and failed in the Democrat majority Senate and then was signed into law without the amendment by a Democrat President. Factually, you cannot blame this one on the GOP.

 

[Openmind]

Not to present myself as a big fan of the GOP .... but, the GOP added an amendment to the NDAA to exclude American citizens. This amendment passed the GOP majority House and failed in the Democrat majority Senate and then was signed into law without the amendment by a Democrat President. Factually, you cannot blame this one on the GOP.

Well, if you look at the history of the last few terrorist attacks on US territory. . .they were carried out by US Citizens. . .and the #1 Islamic terrorist after Ben Ladin's death was ALSO an American Citizen. . .so, if a low is met to protect us against terrorism, it is obvious that the law cannot exclude American Citizen!

 

[Texas_tea]

Well, if you look at the history of the last few terrorist attacks on US territory. . .they were carried out by US Citizens. . .and the #1 Islamic terrorist after Ben Ladin's death was ALSO an American Citizen. . .so, if a low is met to protect us against terrorism, it is obvious that the law cannot exclude American Citizen!

Either you really do not understand this or you simply cannot admit you are wrong. This administration wants to give due process to terrorist by trying them in the American court systems and now illegally passes a law to suspend due process for citizens. But, beyond that .... this President DOES NOT have the legal authority to ignore the Constitution which fundamentally protects us from tyrants like him and suspend due process for American citizens which means any citizen who he deems an enemy .....

 

[Openmind]

Either you really do not understand this or you simply cannot admit you are wrong. This administration wants to give due process to terrorist by trying them in the American court systems and now illegally passes a law to suspend due process for citizens. But, beyond that .... this President DOES NOT have the legal authority to ignore the Constitution which fundamentally protects us from tyrants like him and suspend due process for American citizens which means any citizen who he deems an enemy .....

Nice interpretation. So. . .you're okay with keeping people (including under age children) for ever in Gitmo on mere suspicion without due process, but you are against CITIZENS like the Fort Hood shooter being held without due process. And all of that because the "constitution says so?"

I wonder how many Indians and Blacks were held without due process ?

 

[Openmind]

ok so you are not wild about it as it is a miniscule threat as opposed to it giving the executive branch carte blanch to detain citizens without recourse.

Please allow me: I know that spell check will not catch this because it is a French expression, but I'm sure you would prefer to use it accurately:

It is Carte Blanche (an E at the end). And as I said before, I'm not wild about ANY of the anti-terrorists measures, as I think it create more fear among the American population than it is worth.

The fact is that we have a lot more chance to get killed in a car accident within five miles of our home, or to die by gun shot, especially if we own a gun, than we have to be the victims of a terrorist attack!

But. . .since the administration has to have a STRONG ANTI-TERRORIST policy to please the fearmonger addicts. . .there you go!

 

[Arbopa]

Funny.... and so true.

 

[Texas_tea]

Nice interpretation. So. . .you're okay with keeping people (including under age children) for ever in Gitmo on mere suspicion without due process, but you are against CITIZENS like the Fort Hood shooter being held without due process. And all of that because the "constitution says so?"

I wonder how many Indians and Blacks were held without due process ?

I didn't mention anything of my opinions of the detainees at Gitmo. But, regardless how I or you or anyone else feels about these prisoners they are enemy combatants. The US Constitution does not guarantee them due process. If you don't like it lobby to have it changed. The Constitution does grant rights to US citizens, including the Ft. Hood shooter. Obama has now illegally and unConstitutionally suspended these rights for citizens.

And, yes I agree many blacks, Japanese citizens, and others during WWII were illegal detained and held without due process. But, the difference is it was illegal then and now it is not! Even though they did it it was still illegal according to the US Constitution. Well, Obama just fixed that fundamental right with the signing of the NDAA.

Your comment does not justify Obama's actions. There is no justification for a sitting President to pass unConstitutional laws against the American people.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Many of them have been convicted of nothing

Many have been arrested on flimsy, unsubstantiated tip offs often extracted under torture

But of course this is OK as it is the USA man

I've had my brain taken out and replaced with a clockwork mouse man

Nobody fucks with 'Mericans

Well apart from the rich on the right in America who condemn loads of them to death and other fellow citizens who kill thousands of times as many Americans as any terrorists