Who do you feel Pittsburghers would prefer more? (Washington, Republic: costs, eat)

[WINDCHIMES]

I agree...he signed away many rights of Americans lately...where is the outrage? Oh I see that is just reserved for bush and company!

[WINDCHIMES]

Ron Paul or anyone like him would never be allowed in office.

[John Dark]

Originally Posted by WINDCHIMES

Ron Paul or anyone like him would never be allowed in office.

Reaffirming my once-waning faith in the American voter.

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by WINDCHIMES

Ron Paul or anyone like him would never be allowed in office.

It's not a conspiracy. If enough people vote for him, he'll win. That isn't going to happen.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

No one forced his signature & if he had reservations about something as important as eroding people's liberty then he should not have signed the thing.

Of course that is a very different point from claiming he "gladly" signed those provisions into law.

Personally, I think that with the modifications that were made in the final version, it ends up being true that the 2012 NDAA doesn't actually change much about U.S. detention policy, legally or practically. The real issue, then, is that people may not like the existing U.S. detention policies.

And in fact I don't either, and I think it is long past time for Congress to step in and provide a comprehensive legal framework for dealing with these issues. But to make this into an issue about Obama and the 2012 NDAA specifically to me is just distracting from that greater issue.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by John Dark

Or...(D) Everyone is misinterpreting and misunderstanding what the NDAA provisions actually do.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.

This is saying that US citizens are now exempt from the power of military detention, but merely from the requirement of military detention. At least that's how some interpret it.

Which is problematic in and of itself, such a grave issue should not be so ambiguous and open for wide interpretation.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WINDCHIMES

Ron Paul or anyone like him would never be allowed in office.

Correct, because his views on far too many policy issues, including core issues of international relationship and economic policy, are unacceptable to far too many voters.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

This is saying that US citizens are now exempt from the power of military detention, but merely from the requirement of military detention. At least that's how some interpret it.

But it also doesn't expand the power to detain US citizens beyond what the AUMFs and the courts already authorized.

Which is problematic in and of itself, such a grave issue should not be so ambiguous and open for wide interpretation.

Totally agree. What should have happened is this: as soon as it became clear that our existing laws did not adequately cover many detention cases arising in the "war on terrorism" context, Congress should have laid out a comprehensive legal system for those cases, including judicial review. The courts would then have had ample opportunity to examine the constitutional sufficiency of that system, and Congress could have modified the system as they saw how it functioned in practice.

What happened instead is that the Bush Administration, along with its allies in Congress and the courts, tried to keep Congress from playing its proper role in this area, and further tried to prevent any judicial review of their actions. Ultimately the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the courts had no role to play in reviewing these cases, and further upheld congressional supremacy in this area. What should have happened next is all the above--Congress should have started from square one and laid out a comprehensive legal system.

But Congress still hasn't done that, and that is where the 2012 NDAA ended up too--for all the sound and fury, at the end it really just punted on the core issues once more. That is really not a good outcome, and displays political cowardice on the part of Congress.

[gg]

Originally Posted by John Dark

Huh? The Patriot Act is law, and has been for the past ten years. Bush signed it in 2001. It was reauthorized in 2005 and again in 2006. Last year, Obama extended a four year extension of its main provisions, after a shorter one-year extension in 2010.

Glad you agree with what I said. He resigned or extended it. He is the same as bush in most ways.

[gg]

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

It's not a conspiracy. If enough people vote for him, he'll win. That isn't going to happen.

Maybe not this time, but someone like him will win at some point. People are getting tired of windbags that do nothing and keep spending money on military and a bunch of other garbage. Guess what? We actually can't afford to keep all this up. We actually do need to change our world police policies. If we don't we are going to fall and fall hard.