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.
This is truly a great day for our country as one courageous federal judge rules that the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December violates the 1st amendment.
This act signed by Obama threatened the American public with indefinite imprisonment, at the governments will, without trial.
It is arguably the most repressive act of legislation ever passed in this country, and in complete contrast to spirit of the Bill of Rights.
This is one step back for the powers set on implementing a police state here in America, and a victory for the American people.
Now we need to set our sights on abolishing the Patriot Act.
Refreshing to see someone can actually understand the law and the implications and impact that "extreme laws" can have on US citizens. This law as written by the Obama administration also served for easy profiling beyond what the judge addressed.
This is truly a great day for our country as one courageous federal judge rules that the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December violates the 1st amendment.
This act signed by Obama threatened the American public with indefinite imprisonment, at the governments will, without trial.
It is arguably the most repressive act of legislation ever passed in this country, and in complete contrast to spirit of the Bill of Rights.
This is one step back for the powers set on implementing a police state here in America, and a victory for the American people.
Now we need to set our sights on abolishing the Patriot Act.
Stopped at signed by Obama. Partisan attack piece nothing else.
Stopped at signed by Obama. Partisan attack piece nothing else.
This isn't a partisan attack piece. Many Obama supporters, including myself, opposed this law. It was much more like what one would have expected from Bush, not Obama. I don't know why Obama signed it.
There are a few things Obama should answer for to his liberal base, such as the signing of this law, if he wants us to get really excited and supportive of his election. I support him and will vote for him, but I really would like to understand why he has on occasion acted against liberal principles even when there did not appear to be any pressure from the right for him to do so. I can understand compromise, but this wasn't compromise. I want to give him the opportunity to explain why he did what he did.
Stopped at signed by Obama. Partisan attack piece nothing else.
This is the problem. (not picking on you in particular) No one reads this stuff. We have got to be detail oriented to figure this stuff out.
Did anyone read the article? Because only one portion of the law was struck down.
A judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.
...
"She's held that the government cannot subject people to indefinite imprisonment for engaging in speech, journalism or advocacy, regardless of how unpopular those ideas might be to some people," he said.
That's all that was struck down. The rest of the law is still in play.
It's something - but it's not like the entire law is gone from the books.
Well, because it's the National Defense Authorization Act, and its intended purpose is anything but sinister. It's the omnibus bill that handles appropriations for the entire freakin' department of Defense - it has over five thousand sections covering 500+ pages. It provides the DoD with legal authorization to start and stop programs, spend money with subcontractors etc. etc. - it touches on everything, from building aircraft carriers to buying Strykers to reselling spent small-arms cartridges to the adoption of service dogs. Vetoing that is a huge, huge deal with really serious economic and political implications - to say nothing of the effect on the military's basic capabilities.
So it's the perfect vehicle for inserting riders that can be used as political ammunition against the President.
This isn't a partisan attack piece. Many Obama supporters, including myself, opposed this law. It was much more like what one would have expected from Bush, not Obama. I don't know why Obama signed it.
There are a few things Obama should answer for to his liberal base, such as the signing of this law, if he wants us to get really excited and supportive of his election. I support him and will vote for him, but I really would like to understand why he has on occasion acted against liberal principles even when there did not appear to be any pressure from the right for him to do so. I can understand compromise, but this wasn't compromise. I want to give him the opportunity to explain why he did what he did.
See because you make sense so many times I have no reason to believe that you are wrong. I don't understand much about this law. This is perfectly legitimate criticism of Obama and he should explain himself for this. I know he is not perfect nor above corruption but I cant take rw attacks against him. So I never listen to them. You are not rw and so I know this must be bad.
This is the problem. (not picking on you in particular) No one reads this stuff. We have got to be detail oriented to figure this stuff out.
Did anyone read the article? Because only one portion of the law was struck down.
A judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.
... "She's held that the government cannot subject people to indefinite imprisonment for engaging in speech, journalism or advocacy, regardless of how unpopular those ideas might be to some people," he said.
That's all that was struck down. The rest of the law is still in play.
It's something - but it's not like the entire law is gone from the books.
I'm willing to listen to Obama criticism and know that there is plenty to criticize. But I wont listen to those with reason other than political to criticize him. Again not familar with this but CU to me is just as bad.
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.
