Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  and the fight for habeus corpus goes on

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   and the fight for habeus corpus goes on
katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 8862
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 01:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/

funnily the nasty issue of indefinite detention of american citizens is laid at the door of "obama's administration".

technically i guess that is what they are, you know, the republican congress who have vowed to have him out by january since they came into power of the house..

and the senate too.

both houses passed this bill with a small handful of dissenting votes. though obama did not veto it (it already had the super majority that would be required to override such a veto) he added a rider voicing disagreement with the contested clauses.

it is bouncing back and forth between judges who uphold and want to strike the section nullifying habeus corpus...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5894
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 01:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Let state the truth here katatonic...if you can steel yourself to actually tell the truth.

Republicans hold the majority in the US House of Representatives.

demoscats hold the majority in the US Senate.

A demoscat...Barack Hussein O'Bomber is president...so demoscats hold the White House.

So, 2 of the 3 deciding parties on legislation are held by demoscats and they were behind and helped passed this bill. Period. End of the story.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6673
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 02:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Republicans also passed that bill.

I don't care for the inflammatory wording in that article. It's been clear from the start that Obama is against the unlawful detainment of Americans. I'm quite sure that this isn't the power they're seeking in seeking the stay.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 8862
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 02:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yes, obama OFFICIALLY added his disapproval of the habeas clauses...

however the bill was passed by a huge majority of both houses, with a few dissenting voices who tried to amend that section and were voted down, again by a huge majority.

of course he could have vetoed it, but given the determination of both houses to pass it it would have been a lame gesture and held up the funding for the military that the bill is OSTENSIBLY about.

@jwhop, i don't recall making this a party issue...BOTH HOUSES passed it with a HUGE majority. BOTH PARTIES guilty as all get-out.

i have said i think this bill stinks. YOU on the other hand, think it is fine and dandy and that the constitution will protect you if they come nab you and throw you in the clink and swallow the key. good luck with that!

IP: Logged

iQ
Moderator

Posts: 4041
From: Chennai, India
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 02:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for iQ     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If Obama is personally against this anti American Citizen bill, then he will get re-elected by Karmic Right.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 21564
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 02:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If Obama were against it, he would have vetoed it--as he promised he would. Anything else is just lip service and BS (two of Obama's favorite pastimes).

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6673
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 02:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's not true, Randall. Bills often contain lots of provisions making it very easy to be against some provisions and not others. It's hardly lip service when both before and after it passed Obama expressed reservation about that clause. That bill contained national defense appropriations.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 21564
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 02:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
He said he would veto it. Period. By signing, he not only signified his approval, but he lied. Saying otherwise is lip service. His signing says it all. I'm not sure how you define lip service, but saying one thing while doing another is a good example in my book. Expressing reservation before and after it passed is exactly just that--since it passed due to him signing it into law!

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6673
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 03:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NDAA is passed every year. A super majority passed it (86-13 in Senate; 283-136 in the House). The President's senior advisors advised against a veto.

I think a veto threat is a veto threat. Even if it's definitive, if the provisions asked for are then included, there's no need for a veto. I think calling it a "lie" is a stretch. Version one he threatened veto. Version two, he threatened veto. Reconciled version three he removed the veto threat.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 21564
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 03:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Agreed that he removed the veto threat. Despite the provision he objected to remaining in it. His objections were lip service to placate the electorate. He was pleased with its passing. What king wouldn't be?

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 21564
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 03:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Read through the "7 Ways To Get Yourself Indefinitely Detained." A couple are in jest. But pay attention to the answers by Obama's attorneys. You have to scroll down on each one to see their responses to the judges' questions. Yes, I would say it's quite clear Obama wholeheartedly supports it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/indefinite-detention-ban-_n_1893652 .html#slide=more228606

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6673
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 04:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Reading.

Reading that left me in the same state as the lawyers, which is to say I'm not sure. With language so vague is the judge likely to side with the party promoting vague language, or the party against vague language? I would think the inherent pragmatism of judgeship would compel him/her to side against vague language as the judge did when striking the law down.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5894
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 04:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hahahaha It's just the usual. O'Bomber talking out of all sides of his mouth at the same time.

Yeah, Republicans in the House voted for the Bill and passed it...so what?

demoscats in the US Senate voted for the bill and passed it and O'Bomber signed it into law.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6673
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 04:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Yeah, Republicans in the House voted for the Bill and passed it...so what?

So don't say, "So, 2 of the 3 deciding parties on legislation are held by demoscats and they were behind and helped passed this bill," if you mean to say that Republicans were every bit as much behind this as anyone else.

The party of personal responsibility shouldn't always be trying to run away from it's actions.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 8862
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 18, 2012 06:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
when his objections are written into the bill, even tacked on as they are, they are not lip service.

of course, they do not stop future presidents from making use of that section, but then there is time to reverse it - a process already started in the courts, the only place right now that can deal with it, since a super majority of congress is not expected to change its minds.

but considering the support in congress for the bill, a veto would have been a lame gesture. and stalled the appropriations part of the bill...which was, after all the main show.

i am glad my reps and senators were NOT for that section and in fact feinstein was one of those who moved to amend it.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 2034
From: 1,981 mi East of Truth or Consequences NM
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 19, 2012 10:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
kat said:
quote:
of course, they do not stop future presidents from making use of that section

I cannot help but think this is the reason many 'powers' were not dialed back by this admin. The opportunities have been few and far between, granted.

Once it is in, it is rarely [if ever] stripped away.

Probably why the USSC, though judicial not executive, did their -one and only- ruling for the 2000 presidential race. Wouldn't want to have a precedent on the books in case it's needed in 2012.

While proposed amendments are at an all time high by the supposed party of constitutionalists few talk about how the bill of rights has eroded.

If blame were to be shared ? I would include the fear mongers, and those who feed there. So much fear was flung around like monkey poo. Having the trials on US soil. We were led once again with that one.
The objections [ by those who want trials] were diverted, again, and again.

------------------
Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy.~George Carlin

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5894
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 19, 2012 12:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I said Republicans only held 1/3 of the power necessary to pass that law acoustic and demoscats held 2/3rds.

Now, do you want to contest that acoustic?

Because if you do, I'll be happy to give you another lesson in Constitutional reality.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6673
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 19, 2012 12:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I posted what you said, Jwhop.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 8862
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 19, 2012 06:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IQ, i agree with you except for one thing. elections are not just about the candidates' karma, but that of all the rest of us.

so much time is wasted by stalling tactics in congress it makes perfect sense to me that the president would not veto - creating more time wasting - a bill that was obviously going to get the required majority when returned to congress.

i suspect the right are so desperate to get this man out because they are sure that a second term will see him being more confident and determined to set things on the path he wants to take us down. as in the soviet "open mic" incident(where he bought time but the pundits had him promising to betray us), they are sure that means handing us on a silver platter to his warlords in the USSR

but hang on, huh? there no longer IS a USSR!! more boxing at shadows and imaginary bogeymen.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2012

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a