The defense spending bill & latest budget showdown

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mkrishnan, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #1
    http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

    The new definition of compromise by the Democratic party as "bending over" reaches a new low, coupling that bending over is not enough but American civil liberties must also be sold in the process.

    At this time, if there were a credible opponent who believed in civil liberties, I would want Mr. Obama to be a one-term president even more badly than Newt Gingrich does. This is completely unacceptable.

    Also, it's interesting that the words "cuts" and "austerity" don't appear anywhere in coverage of the defense bill, in spite of prominent bipartisan voices (and common sense) making it clear that long-term fiscal prudence will not be possible without cuts in military spending.
     
  2. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #2
    Indeed it is. These news make me very glad to be from Europe. Then again, this isn't too surprising. It's not exactly news that the US is becoming increasingly fascist.
     
  3. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #3
    It's so sad that Obama went from the guy who was going to close Gitmo to the guy that codified the breach of a fundamental human right. I thought this crap would have ended after Bush, it's the mind if thing we expect from dictatorships.
     
  4. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #4
    Time out. Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo, and he didn't draft this legislation. This is critical legislation to fund our military with a poison pill inserted by the GOP to codify this ridiculous provision that diminishes our human rights. The Democrats attempted to reduce the offensiveness of the language, and got some changes, but it's far from perfect. At this point, the President is saying he won't veto it, but that is not him "codifying" this rule. That is him caving into the typical blackmail politics of the GOP. Do what we want, or we will cut off our military. Do what we want, or we will cut off benefits to the poor and elderly. Do what we want, or we will shut off the government.
     
  5. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #5
    Who prevented the President of the United States, and his (super)majority party, from closing Gitmo?
     
  6. aeaglex07, Dec 15, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2011

    aeaglex07 macrumors 6502

    aeaglex07

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Location:
    United States
    #6
    how is La LA Land? perhaps i should move there, it sounds like they have more rights than us now. Not only does your wonderful Govt. want to detain US Citizens they also think our laws somehow over ride those of other sovereign nations.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-american-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html
     
  7. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #7
    I don't think you can divert blame onto the Republicans in this case. Obama caved over Gitmo. I expect the GOP are much more pro-military than the Democrats and would hate to see its budget cut/delayed. There's no excuse for this, the GOP may be up to their usual tricks but Obama's actions here are just as disappointing.
     
  8. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #8
    And at some point, the President and Commander in Chief has to put on his big boy pants and say, "No, not this time".

    He continues to fall for their bluff and that is on him, not the other way around.
     
  9. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    What supermajority? There certainly wasn't a supermajority in any of the states where the President or Department of Justice or military tried to establish a detention facility. Here in my state, locally they wanted it, but guess who blocked it.

    La la land? Excuse me? What did I say that was from the far side of fantasy street?

    Yes, President Obama caved, but he wouldn't have been put in the position of having to use of whatever political capital he had for the purposes of fighting for the rights of accussed terrorists. He saved his political capital for a bigger fight, healthcare reform.

    Would I have liked him to take a stand on this issue, yes. However, the GOP refused to work with him on something THEY ADVOCATED TOO!

    ----------

    Really, because last time I checked, congress wrote the laws and all the president could do was either sign or veto what gets to his desk and run the executive branch. Could he have led a stronger fight, yes, but when you have an entire political party that has signed onto the philosophy of destroy this presidency regardless of what it does to the country, then you're kind of stuck.
     
  10. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #10
    Which is it? Humor me ... humor us ... with a short, express, and non-hyperbole answer.
     
  11. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #11
    He caved by not continuing to push the issue after the efforts by the DoJ and DoD were blocked. He could have continued fighting for what we all seem to think is the right thing, but he caved to the pressure.

    Republicans in 2010 got that language added to the Defense authorization bill, and the President caved in not pushing the issue. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

    (edit) We all agree that the President didn't push hard enough right? If so, the only question is who blocked the effort to close it. See NCT. From April, 2009
     
  12. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #12
    The only thing that seems pretty straight forward is that you changed your answer, which is a necessary effect when you blame everything on OMG!GeorgeBushandTheGOPgrrrr.

     
  13. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #13
    Amazing. An entire thread filled with comments of the "Obama caved again" variety (and not without some truth there)...

    ...but where are the comments vilifying the people who drafted this heinous legislation?? Where are the calls to have these Congressmen and Senators recalled? Where are the suggestions to bombard their offices with calls and letters, asking that this poison pill be removed entirely from the defense spending bill?

    As noiseycats said, the Prez needs to put on his big-boy pants and get tough, but why can't we work this from the other angle -- at the source?
     
  14. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #14
    Siggghhhhh.
    All he can do?!? You make it sound like such a minuscule, ineffective power. Yes, he should have veto'd the latest defense spending bill. I hate the current GOP but I can't say I'm not impressed that they continue to use the same, perfectly legal, tactic again and again. I'm equally amazed the POTUS continues to fall for it.

    Yes, at some point he actually needs to carry through on a threatened veto. Until he does, the GOP will continue to use the tactics that are proving so well for them.
     
  15. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    I didn't change my answer. The GOP blocked the transfer of detainees to the US, and the President didn't push back against them hard enough to try to force them to not block it.

    Also, I only blame the GOP and GWB for things they actually have done.

    I notice that you haven't contradicted anything I have said, you just pick at how I presented my argument. As a former defense counsel, I recognize and applaud your efforts to poke holes in an otherwise airtight argument.

    ----------

    No, it is a huge power, but it IS NOT the power to draft and pass legislation. Also, the most recent defense authorization hasn't gotten to his desk yet; all that has happened is the press secretary indicated the president was not going to veto it based on the changes made and necessity to fund our soldiers.
     
  16. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #16
    I think it's even worse than that -- when it comes to terrorism / civil liberties policy, I think it's become very clear that we have a "Bush-Obama regime" -- Mr. Obama has repeatedly embraced and extended these policies that are basically inconsistent with foundational American values.

    What bothers me is not that he hasn't solved the unemployment rate or the recession -- I'm not sure the President or the White House can do that in and of him/itself. But I expected better in this regard, and I would rather live in the land of the free with an unemployment problem and tyranny.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17

    The super majority is BS and you know it. Ted Kennedy was on his deathbed and absent from the Senate and Al Franken wasn't seated until July.
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #18
    Not to mention that it was only a super majority if you count Joe Lieberman who is another right wing nutjob on issues of defense and foreign policy. The Democratic super majority was a myth.
     
  19. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #19
    Alright, I'll rephrase the question, and you can answer.

     
  20. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    The Republicans.

    (edit) Let me ask you a question. How many votes does it take to pass something in the Senate? How many is it supposed to take?
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    I agree. It's a frustrating aspect of the two party system that when both parties effectively agree on an issue, there's no where else to go.
     
  22. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #22
    The minority party. Gotta love the ****ed up rules of the senate.
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23

    Come on. You know they have that asinine rule that you need 60 votes to get anything to come up for a vote. Our government, since 1/21/2009 has been nothing but obstructionism from the Republicans and weak leadership from Obama.
     
  24. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #24
    Prove it.

    When, and where, did Republicans prevent Obama from closing Gitmo? Citations, bills, votes, and dates would be appreciated, and surely will be so.very.easy for you to provide.
     
  25. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    Uh, look up about 8 posts... I cited a politico article and another article from the NCT(?). Do you really need more? Are you seriously asking me to prove that it was the Republicans that blocked a campaign promise of the Democrat President? Come on? Is that the best you have?

    Are you denying it? If so, prove that.
     

Share This Page