NDAA 2012 Provisions: A threat to Democracy from a "Democrat"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by renewed, Dec 19, 2011.

  1. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #1
    You just admitted yourself it's pretty messed up. Anything that denies people their right to a trial is messed up. And especially after the provisions, it could effect your American neighbors:



    Feel free to educate yourselves.

    Link


     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  3. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #3
    I'll admit, the bill is wrong. But does Obama need the full brunt of the blame should he sign it?

    What about the idiot Congressman who decided to embed this into another bill? I mean, knowing full damn well that this would never pass on its own, did the author of that portion have to be so subversive to hide his idea deep within another bill? Or should the congressman have enough testicular fortitude to try to pass it on its own?

    Should Obama sign it, there would definitely be lawsuits coming, and yes, blame would go to him for signing it.. but the brunt of this should go to the author of it, as it was his/her idea that turned this into the spectacle that it is.

    BL.
     
  4. renewed thread starter macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #4
    It's absolutely the fault of all involved. We already know congress has a 9% approval rating, I am just trying to wake those of you up that still support Obama. It's not only most of the GOP that are a bunch of idiots, it's the also a lot of Democrats, including our "commander-in-chief" who instead of vetoing the bill, asked them to include wording to take the rights away from everyone including citizens.

    This is scary stuff going on and it's very hush hush which makes it even scarier.
     
  5. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    Have a link to cite the statement in bold? The Veto is one thing, but where did he ask whomever to include this wording?

    BL.
     
  6. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #6
    The provisions, as I understand them, are unjust and frightening. It's the kind of thing the constitution is intended to protect us against.

    I don't care if it "makes us safer". It also violates our civil rights.

    The entire government is responsible for this - legislators for cooking it up, the executive for signing it, and the judicial system for failing to strike it down.
     
  7. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #7
    THIS.

    But didn't we go through something like this before... something about a Patriot...?

    BL.
     
  8. renewed thread starter macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #8
    Play the youtube link above.
     
  9. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #9
    For sure, like I said before on this topic, this is a pattern of deliberate dismantling of Constitutional protection of American values that extends beyond the current Administration. I'm sure there are many people to blame, but Obama should have at least tried to fix this and has done little, if anything in this regard.
     
  10. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #10
    If I could personally speak with Obama today about any one thing I would probably discuss his intent to sign this measure and ask him to justify it. I don't understand why he supports it. There must be a cadre of influential, articulate (yet misguided) people who are pushing for this and have been very persuasive at it. They are wrong.

    Frankly, making a habit of holding people without trial would not be worth it even if it prevented another WTC disaster. Or, to look at it a different way, many more Americans have struggled and/or died defending the very rights our government is currently taking away, than have died as the result of terrorist attacks.

    We are betraying ourselves.
     
  11. renewed thread starter macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #11
    I have always believed we will be taken over from within. Looks like it's becoming easier for such a thing to happen.
     
  12. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #12
    I feel like there's probably some sort of Faustian calculus going on in the White House, probably sadly too much like an episode of 24. I wonder if we'll ever know what's really going on with this. I don't imagine finding out some piece of info that they considered and I did not, that makes this okay.

    The threats from within are really always the worst, are they not? I mean, I think you overstated the immediate harm of this when you started, but I do also think this is clearly unacceptable, and this kind of basis of law ruins the things we ought to hold most dear about this country (so I'm with you in appraisal of the severity of the long-term consequences).
     
  13. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    Desperate situations call for desperate measures. But such measures are only truly defensible if, in the final analysis, it is clear that there was no viable alternative. As you say, since we can't know what they know it's impossible to say. But I am very skeptical indeed.

    I worry that our defense and national security people are very good rationalizers who also happen to have churchillian persuasive abilities.
     
  14. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #14
    Don't worry so much. That is just the 1%, girding for a worse-case scenario.

    :p
     
  15. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #15
  16. renewed thread starter macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #16
    What would really help is if some major news networks would cover this or address the concerns of the people.

    However, they are not.

    Like I said it is all very hush, hush.
     
  17. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #17
    This is a disturbing continuation of the government's long standing campaign to constitutional protections.

    What's unusual, to me at least, is that indefinite detention is actually permissible under the Constitution, during a time of war, IF Congress suspends the writ of habeas corpus. AFAIK, they've never bothered to suspend the writ itself since 9/11, just pass ridiculous laws like the NDAA for 2012.

    What's worse is that the Supreme Court basically heard this exact scenario in 2004 in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

    I believe the Senate vote was 93-7, making a veto pointless if the House vote was of a similar ratio.

    I'm not saying that Democratic Congressmen are in the right, because they're not, but unless Obama's veto would have actually made a difference, I'm not sure it's fair to place the blame on him.
    The dearth of coverage is really quite spectacular. I suppose the presumption is that most Americans won't care about this. That makes me feel incredibly sad for two reasons: 1) it means most media establishments believe this, and 2) they're probably right.
     
  18. renewed thread starter macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #18
    Total blame cannot be placed on Obama, however, as a voted in leader of the country he should be protecting the people he swore in to serve. As such, he should veto it even if it made no other difference than to show his stance on the issue is a positive one. Instead he either folded on, or by some sources agreed with and added to, the issue.
     
  19. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #19
    Indeed, he either agreed with the bill (which makes him nefarious) or he didn't want to expend capital on a losing issue (which makes him a politician). While I certainly wouldn't have minded a little objection from the White House, if it would have had no effect, then I'd prefer he save his objection for when it can actually help us.
     
  20. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #20
    Congress has granted Obama an out, should he choose to take it. If they adjourn, as is common round this time of year, within ten days of passage and the president has not signed or vetoed the bill, he could use a "pocket veto" to kill it. By putting the bill "in his pocket" (not signing or vetoing), the bill does not automatically become law but dies by neglect. This could have been a ploy: the administration might have wanted the language removed as a way to justify killing it this way. If he signs it, we will know for sure that he is a jerk.
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    Conservatives are increasingly resembling the cast of "Awakenings." When the Bush administration used the AUMF as cover to throw Jose Padilla in indefinite detention, the whole ladder of Republicans and conservatives supported it.

    Between this and the sudden reaction to deficit spending and the bailouts, conservatives increasingly resemble the cast of "Awakenings."

    I agree. The entire system of checks and balances has failed us if neither the Executive nor Judicial branch challenge this.

    I think the NDAA 2012 is one of those times when the blow-dry crowd falls down. A quick and dirty LexisNexis search shows a significant difference in coverage between newspapers (and other print sources) and television.
     
  22. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #22
    These kinds of bills are truly ridiculous. As I mentioned in the other thread, McCarthyism all over again. These politicians actually need to be watched even closer during times of national disaster. We ended up in two wars and we're experiencing ridiculous legislation proposals a decade later. I think things are still going to remain pretty messed up going forward.
     
  23. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    This might work, except the Republicans have not allowed Congress to adjourn for any reason ever since the midterm elections in 2010. Why? Because if they adjoun, then the President can appoint people to positions that Congress refuses to confirm. In other words, there are critical agencies in the US government that do not have leaders because the Republicans in Congress won't confirm anyone and they are holding meetings in closets to prevent recess appointments. Source
     
  24. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #24
    I agree -- the news has a long history of reporting salacious aspects of war news stories and trivia (they go to great lengths to have a position on how to spell "Gaddafi" or how to pronounce "Katyusha rocket," but they have no similar process of questioning the actual heart of the news). The news media is definitely part of a national monologue, including both major political parties (well, excepting Dr. Paul ;) ), most of the national news on both sides of the aisle, and yes, most of the public.

    There was a thread a few months ago about someone making a White House aide almost cry because he kept pressuring him on the logical inconsistency of his statements. We need more of that.
     
  25. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #25
    I agree - but as long as citizens can be painted as "elitists" when they intelligently question the media or our political system, neither the government nor the media will be held to a high standard.
     

Share This Page