Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you even know what this bill is about? It is about authorizing the payment to/for the military. Had the President refused to sign it the military would/could have shut down. No pay for the troops, no medical for the vets.
You right wingers would have been livid. I could just imagine the posts - "The President is against the military!" So, in order to keep things running he signs it and adds a signing statement specifically addressing the whole premiss of this thread........
I'll type slowly. Obama's signing statement is meaningless, as are all Presidential signing statements.
Do you understand that the Democrats had the opportunity to remove the "indefinite detention" language with an amendment offered by, of all people, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and they did not?
The POTUS violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the US Constitution when he signed NDAA containing the "indefinite detention of US citizens" verbage which HE specifically requested be placed into the bill. Additionally he signed away well over a century of US citizens being protected from the US military being used against them by this act which removes Posse Comitatus at the POTUS's whim.
You Obamabots will defend anything this POTUS does, regardless of how it destroys everyone's Constututionally affirmed rights of due process. You really ought to be ashamed placing party before liberty.
I'll type slowly. Obama's signing statement is meaningless, as are all Presidential signing statements.
Do you understand that the Democrats had the opportunity to remove the "indefinite detention" language with an amendment offered by, of all people, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and they did not?
The POTUS violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the US Constitution when he signed NDAA containing the "indefinite detention of US citizens" verbage which HE specifically requested be placed into the bill. Additionally he signed away well over a century of US citizens being protected from the US military being used against them by this act which removes Posse Comitatus at the POTUS's whim.
You Obamabots will defend anything this POTUS does, regardless of how it destroys everyone's Constututionally affirmed rights of due process. You really ought to be ashamed placing party before liberty.
I'll type slowly also. The courts had already confirmed the President's power to detain accused terrorists, even American citizens arrested on American soil. So the Presidents choice was to veto a bill that included language already validated by the Supreme Court which would have dramatically affected the operations of the military or signing it because it already had been supported by veto proof majorities. Not much of a choice.
Last edited by WilliamSmyth; 05-20-2012 at 08:22 PM..
Obama specifically requested the "indefinite detention" language. Something the far left continues to refuse to recognize.
The far left has been among the most critical opponents of this bill. Read articles on any very liberal sites like Salon or AlterNet and they have been nothing but critical of the NDAA.
The far left has been among the most critical opponents of this bill. Read articles on any very liberal sites like Salon or AlterNet and they have been nothing but critical of the NDAA.
The POTUS violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the US Constitution when he signed NDAA containing the "indefinite detention of US citizens" verbage which HE specifically requested be placed into the bill.
Please provide a link to the underlined above. I suspect you will find none. Signing statements are only meaningless if they are not honored, even you must see that.
The more I think about this the more I think this was planned all along. He signed the bill, got the military paid and still added the signing statement. Did not have to, but did. Knowing this would eventually happen he was able to provide for the defense of the nation and let the counter terrorism section find its way to court. Pretty savvy in my book, I like that in a President.
On a related note, did you know that former President Bush authored over 700 signing statements during his administration? You know, those meaningless signing statements you mentioned? They sure must have meant something to President Bush. Over 700!
Please provide a link to the underlined above. I suspect you will find none. Signing statements are only meaningless if they are not honored, even you must see that.
Oh wow. Is that your argument? It is meaningful, because he says it's meaningful, and he hasn't gone against it, yet? Well that sure makes me feel better, and completely overshadows the fact that an indefinite detention bill has been signed into law. Whew.
And we haven't even touched on the issue of future administrations using it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawgfan
The more I think about this the more I think this was planned all along. He signed the bill, got the military paid and still added the signing statement. Did not have to, but did. Knowing this would eventually happen he was able to provide for the defense of the nation and let the counter terrorism section find its way to court. Pretty savvy in my book, I like that in a President.
Sorry, but that's not savvy. That's just doing one thing and saying another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawgfan
On a related note, did you know that former President Bush authored over 700 signing statements during his administration? You know, those meaningless signing statements you mentioned? They sure must have meant something to President Bush. Over 700!
Bush Bush Bush Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
The far left posters here have been anything but...as proven by their own posts.
These people aren't "far left". I have more respect for the "far left" than these hyper partisan brainless idiots.
There is a point here. The judge objected to the language and the way the law was crafted. It was too vague and ambiguous. The writers need to re-write.
The far left posters here on CD have been anything but...as proven by their own posts.
This is just asinine and spartanguy is spot on. The left has been absoutly furious over NDAA, but the right wing goons just don't seem to care. Just like on every issue, as long as the (R)'s support it, they support it as well without question.
This is just asinine and spartanguy is spot on. The left has been absoutly furious over NDAA, but the right wing goons just don't seem to care. Just like on every issue, as long as the (R)'s support it, they support it as well without question.
That sir, is a flat out lie and you know it.
I'd be genuinely surprised if you have posted a single comment on this board about the NDAA
with any premise other than one of attacking "right wing goons"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll type slowly. Obama's signing statement is meaningless, as are all Presidential signing statements.
