Obama announced he'll sign it, just like I told you he would.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-573 … -suspects/
We will soon be living in on a battlefield that stretches the whole globe.
Get yer guns.
After he vowed to veto the bill?? Looks like he's p.o.'d the ACLU. Wonder how Obama fans feel about this?
I was going to vote for him if Gingrich got the GOP nod. Now I'm thinking if it's between those two, I'll just write in Huntsman or Hillary.
As I'm more of a "I'll vote for him because the Republicans are killing us" person than a fan, I'm sad.
It won't change my vote, though. It just means I have to pinch my nose that much harder. Unfortunately, not voting for him just gives more chance that one of the GOP people will land in the office and then our goose is truly cooked.
Wouldn't it be great to vote for someone you really, really like - instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils," like we usually do?
Yeah, that would be great. It won't happen as long as money rules politics.
Yeah that would be great but it won't happen as long as politics rules money.
It is less insidious and more complicated than merely incestuous. The flow of power is one direction and in order to mitigate that flow the lesser party seeks some aspect of control, not over government itself but rather over the amount of damage that government will cause.
How can "declaring the entire Earth as a battlefield, and thus subject to wartime idiocy" not be enough to change your vote?
BECAUSE THERE IS NOBODY ELSE TO VOTE FOR!
The Republican candidates would all make things even worse. If some third party candidate with a brain somehow managed to get on the ticket, my protest vote for them would only increase the chances of one of the crazies winning.
Obama has been a great disappointment, but disappointment beats tragedy.
What are you talking about Ron Paul was the only candidate up there who voted against the legislation.
Vote for freedom! You probably won't get another chance.
Sigh. We've been down this road before. Nobody with any sense will vote for Ron Paul or any Libertarian candidate.
This should bring back memories:
The Times They Are A-Changin'
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
Does Obama have a "D" after his name? They will be fine with it. How many other things have they swallowed - that is if they even informed themselves about them? As for offending the ACLU, he has continued or expanded nearly every "abuse" the ACLU objected to when a "R" was POTUS.
Just to point out some R idiocy: They've been *cough* demanding spending cuts for some X number of years, but now they're asking for $1 trillion more.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ … MK20111215
So you think that keeping the government is big spending by the Repoublicans? Want the government to shut down?
yes. actually i do.
This spending needs to end.
Remember when we were worried about $14 trillion debt? It's about to be $16 trillion.
When a government steals my money to pay for things that I don't want them to pay for, then closing them is the best first step to a solution.
There is a small rebellion with in the Republicans but they are labeled, by liberals and their pets in the press, racist, radical, etc. The recently elected TEA party people object to the old line Republican and Democrat deal making and spending. Currently their numbers are too small in the House and almost none existent in the Senate.
Well, I for one am not pleased by this debacle, that's for sure.
Yes, by all means get some guns....
It's a muddy mess of legislation, but IT DOES NOT PUT AMERICAN CITIZENS AT RISK OF INDEFINITE DETENTION.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the … 07514.html
Ron, that's the way I read it, too, but ACLU lawyers say American citizens ARE at risk. ??
Habee - they were torturing people for 10 years, and they got away with it.
Our paper money is unconstitutional, and they got away with it.
They're about to declare the entire earth as a battle zone... do you really think that anything is going to stop them at this point?
"Excuse me, Mr. Benevolent Tyrant, I wanted to point out that in this one piece of legislation that was highly and insanely unconstitutional, it says that we can't really throw people who disagree with us into a gulag. Now, I know that we've been murdering US citizens across the globe without trial, and I know that Lincoln even threw dissenters into prison, and I also know that Adams made it illegal to speak out against him, and I am also aware of the fact that we've taxed our countrymen into bankruptcy... but... this one single word right here prevents it!"
Give me a f**king break. Clinton showed us that the most important word in every language -"is" - can actually be re-defined; Bush showed us that torture is constitutional; and Obama is showing us that, so long as your name has a D in front of it, no one cares wtf you do with liberties.
There are no benevolent tyrants, there are no good-willed humanitarians. This is 1984, chapter and verse.
The ACLU didn't get everything they wanted and they're trying a last minute blitz to pressure Obama into vetoing it. If a PLAUSIBLE case can be made that you are an enemy combatant and an American citizen, you are already in danger of long-term military incarceration, "enhanced interrogation", and a denial of your right to an attorney. This law doesn't change that.
Keep your powder dry, there are a lot of remedies available before deciding to follow Evan's violent revolution.
They're about to declare the whole earth a battle field.
I think I don't really care what some political pundit thinks.
Remember when "torturing people" wasn't REALLY "torturing people"? Yeah. Deal with that.
It doesn't? I know there's a passage that says "(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." But both Bush and Obama have claimed and exercised authority outside the Constitution.
Further, a later section reads: "UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." (emphasis mine)
So, I'm a linguist not a lawyer, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the word "requirement" were replaced with the word "authority" in that section, as in "UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The authority to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
See, the way it's worded in the bill, they aren't required to detain US citizens, but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to.
No, we ought to be concerned about this.
Could the President revoke a person's citizenship? Genuine question, I do not know?
The U.S. Constitution does not name treason nor an endless declaration of war as grounds to revoke citizenship or remove due process rights at the President’s whim. This is all I got:
http://brokentelegraph.com/2011/10/04/t … questions/
That's part of my point. The current hodgepodge of rules and precedents makes it easier for an administration's lawyers to keep a case involving military detention from reaching the Supreme Court. This bill consolidates and codifies the mess and makes it easier to attack.
An American citizen who can plausibly be charged as a terrorist or with significantly aiding terrorists is already in jeopardy of long-term military detention. This law doesn't change or enhance that. The wildly speculated cases such as the one involving a person being detained simply for opposing the president, aren't realistic.
Diane Feinstein proposed an ammendment that is worded pretty much the way you would want it. It was defeated by a 55-45 vote.
"The wildly speculated cases such as the one involving a person being detained simply for opposing the president, aren't realistic."
But all they have to do is accuse you of "terrorism," whatever that means, and boom, you qualify.
Will It happen? Not realistically. Could it happen? Yes. That's enough to make me angry.
In Indiana you "can" be arrested for not carrying a gun to church on Sunday. It's a law leftover from the 19th century reaffirming every white man's duty to protect his community against Indian attacks.
Writing and passing bad law is one thing; enforcing it in a real world situation is a bit tougher.
I'm not for any of this. I've yet to hear a persuasive argument for denying anyone-regardless of nationality access to a lawyer or due process when charged with a crime.
I only commented on the matter when people started posting that we should all arm ourselves and take action. I think we're an awfully long way from that being a reasonable course of action.
It doesn't even matter what the words mean - Clinton proved to us all that the most important word in every single language, "is", is relative.
Our government doesn't care what these "minor details" mean. They're openly declaring war on Americans and every country in one piece of legislation. And here we're saying "well, the legislation says that they PROBABLY won't throw US CITIZENS in jail without a trial... but... "
This is disgusting.
I never really thought it would go through, i thought for sure it was some nonsense like we often hear about where we later shake our heads and say, "Can you believe back in so and so year, they tried this? Bet he feels like an idiot now wishing he didn't have a hangover when he proposed that!"
But this happened.
I can't believe it happened.
David Cameron does it all the time to us, we have kind of got used to him doing it here in Britain So sad that Obama is doing it there....
And so it begins...goodbye United States. I think I'm going to move to a remote island in the middle of no where which no one has discovered yet. I'm sick of politicians.
What will we call our country? I know. Ashton's Island. That works (Since it was my idea and everything )
Ashtons Island is really good I like it, and state law is everyone has to watch Mary Poppins, and our national anthem is a spoon full of sugar? what do you think?
Me too And we have a national holiday dedicated to hubpages?
That's right! You're brilliant! This Hubpages day shall fall on....um..today. The founding day of our country. December 14th.
We hereby do establish the free and independent country of Ashton's Island. Land of the Awesome. Home of the Hubbers.
we will be known as he supecallafraglisticexpealadocious hubbers of ashton island...
We will go down in history. We will be legendary. People will write books about us. We will have our names on those little plaque thingies in sidewalks. Life will be grand.
Sign me up for this new land - I would like to come please.
Vote libertarian - get Ron Paul in office.
why out of interest? What do the libertarians have to offer that you believe with truly be for the benefit of our country? That isn't sarcastic - I genuinely want to know.
if you look at the congressmen who voted no, all libertarian congressmen voted no.
any voluntary contract is allowed so long as it does not infringe on anyone's property rights - this is the libertarian Creed. Most government action is a violation of property rights, and thus minimal government is strived for.
I'm voting for Ron Paul!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … tvvp7L4k#!
Ron Paul predicted all of this - the economic collapse, the war on freedoms, and many other major events of the decade.
That's another reason the GOP won't nominate him: he's clearly a witch or a sorcerer of some kind.
Yeah, he and a hundred other doomsday crackpots.
Ron Paul predicted it with ACCURACY.
I'm not going to let you dismiss this, so just admit defeat.
He highlighted Fannie and Freddie, the Housing Market, and the fallout of the burst therein.
I'll let you get away with THIS one: Ron Paul pretty much predicted the Middle Eastern uprising against the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisov … re=related
Notice, in this video, the exact idiotic questions being asked Paul about Iraq as were asked in the most recent debate about Iran.
The movement of a society from liberty to tyranny is not some magical or even especially difficult to predict. The history of the world is the history of tyrants. The rarity is the few moments of liberty that dot the historical record. Ours is just the latest and greatest. It too will fade, out of necessity. Liberty is messy, tyranny is not.
The liberal courts tyranny because through the assertion of a powerful state he believes utopia is attainable. Ironically, liberal atheists like to mock believers for their "silly" faith when there is nothing more absurd than a vision of earthly utopia.
It isn't doomsday one foresees it is a return to the normal course of history.
Sure sure sure, it's easy to predict the tyranny - but the housing crisis? Fannie AND Freddie?
Come on , that's outstanding.
You'd probably love this article:
"The Humanitarian with the Guillotine"
The particulars are equally easy to predict, after all GWB(the idiot) sought a revision in lending rules and action by Congress to rein in FM/FM.
A friend of mine, a real estate appraiser, said, and I quote, "It is just a matter of time before this all causes trouble." He was referring to the real estate bubble, that was in 1999.
Ron Paul is not a genius or a sage. in fact, especially in regard to foreign policy, he is a kook. It is still troubling that he has accepted and excused contributions from white supremacist groups.
By white supremacists, I mean the real ones, not the ones liberal refer to like the Chamber of Commerce or the Club for Growth.
I'm sure you've accepted money from racists before. I know I have. It doesn't make you racist, nor does it change your own views on racism.
and if you actually think 'not bombing other countries' is kooky, then our country is seriously doomed.
If you seriously think that being bombed or allowing a mad ideology to acquire a nuclear weapon in an already unstable region is not kooky than we are doomed.
Paulniacs and liberal like to think that the Iranian government is reasonable and innocent. Americans(not just Americans) have been murdered for decades through Iranian agency.
Paulniacs and liberals fall back on the default position that is terrorists(many of whom have been Iranian agents) murder Americans because of support for Israel or the Shah or pick a reason. It is always America's fault first. Despite the goal expressed in the Iranian constitution that a global caliphate be established with Islam as the worlds one faith.
This desire is expressed by groups friendly to Iran, like the Brotherhood or Al Qaeda. There are two spheres the sphere of Islam and the sphere of the infidels. The desire is that there be only one sphere, that of Islam.
Paulniacs and liberals would adhere to the silly notion that borders don't really count. Ignoring that the world is a dangerous place for the kind of civil society and democracy we have come to take for granted in the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc.... Rather than that realizing these societies are exceptions and that there is a vast array of others who would remove that kind of liberty from the globe, the Paulniacs and liberals would clear the way for their destruction.
Paulniacs and liberals look at a vigorous and well armed and trained defense as imperialistic. When Europe lay in shambles with little industry left, a whole generation of men killed and no defensive capability to resist any Soviet aggression the US established a massive military presence in Europe. Where is America's European empire?
Paulniacs and liberals would see their country as greedy, corrupt, aggressive, grasping and imperialistic - first and not self sacrificing, generous and supportive.
I guess I am wrong. We have en empire purchased with the blood of our war dead. Wars fought for the peoples of Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Poland, Australia, South Korea, etc.... And empire of military cemeteries.
We are doomed anyway. The weight of history is against us and it is making its bulk known more each day with the burgeoning state and the drive for isolationism. Before long we will be scraping a living from the soil and the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce will be claiming its share of our meager harvest for the Imperial Government of the United States.
Iran is surrounded by a bunch of screwed up countries that have nukes.
They haven't started a war in well over 30 years.
Deal with the fact that they aren't insane mad men.
Oh, don't start using facts and logic, Evan. You'll just freak everyone out.
I don't believe they are insane madmen. I think they are quite calculating and reasonable - within the frame work of their believes. Iran has been busy for decades killing Americans - remember it was Hezbollah that bombed the Marine Barracks in Lebanon. It was The Iranian Republican Guard that plotted the assassination of the Saudi Ambassador on American soil - with the resultant ancillary loss of life - that was spoiled earlier this year.
Iran has been very active in the Iraqi insurgency since the invasion. It is only a matter of time before Turkey and Iran come to agreement or blows. Ron Paul is an Iranian apologist. Iran is busy working with Hugo Chavez to establish missile bases in Venezuela and an strike capability in South America.
Ron Paul is ignoring decades of Iranian actions. That is okay, the oceans will protect us just like they did in 1812.
A little research into the actions of Iran and Iran's proxies should help clarify the point.
No disagreement here on the evils of Iran. The issue is what, if anything, can we do about them with reasonable assurance of success. I'm not sure about that.
We missed a crucial historical moment, again. During the Iranian uprising in 2009 it was time to move. No bullets fired or blood spilled but lots of money, influence and communication equipment - satellite telephones, computers and the like could have pushed things far enough that Iran's oppressive Mullah Oligarchy would have fallen.
You're ignoring the fact that we've been interfering with Iran's politics for 100 years.
Iran hasn't attacked anyone - except the US embassy - in over 30 years.
Just a reminder: they don't have nukes and there's no evidence that they are getting nukes.
We started interfering with Middle Eastern politics in 1914. If Iran was overthrowing our elected officials to install their friends, then I would be pretty pissed off, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani … 7%C3%A9tat
There's a reason they hate us, and it's because we're really mean to them.
How bout we leave 'em alone for a change?
I'll go along with that. All you have to do is google "Mossadegh" and "coup" to understand exactly what Evan means.
So many people act like Iran and these other M.E. countries hate everything for no reason.
It really is a racist argument. They actually have to think that Middle Eastern people just are born hate-filled and evil. "No no no", they retort, "it's just their culture".
What made their culture one of anti-western ideologies? It's the fact that we've overthrown numerous elected governments of theirs.
In your first paragraph, you say that liberty will fade "out of necessity". Then you go on to say that liberals court tyranny because they believe in having a powerful state.
Does that mean you're actually a liberal after all?
Confused of Kent
It is necessity of the liberal state for liberty to fade. It is the history of the world. Powerful central states eclipse free ones because those who live in liberty come, as modern American liberals have, to expect that liberty is the natural order for human societies. It is not the natural order for human society is tyranny.
It is this that makes the current historical pageant the exception. Liberty will fade as those who crave order will surrender their liberty in the false notion that a powerful central authority, a tyrant, will bring order. They will and at the cost of liberty, prosperity and the means of tossing off the tyrant.
The condition of liberty require eternal vigilance and the willingness to fight with arms to preserve it. The liberal acquiesces to the tyrant and surrenders his means of preserving his own liberty. The least accountable agencies of government become the most powerful and the liberal hands over his wealth, his property and his arms to the courts and the administrative state. He insists that those who do not wish to join him be forced or imprisoned or destroyed.
The liberal aids the zoo keeper by submitting to him. He guards the gate against those who would reassert their natural liberty by fleeing to the wild and he kills those who would fight. Though violence is not always used, economic, political, societal destruction are widely used.
You are right in what you say - the more power a government has, the more it will abuse those powers. But I think you're too caught up in that false "liberal versus conservative" polarity to really see the wood for the trees.
Many conservatives are also only too happy to give governments more power.
This is bad stuff.
As I always say on my Hub "The Truth Will Come Out!"
A bill can be interpreted any way either party wants it to look like. Such is the case here. Nothing but more fear tactics to get votes if you ask me.
Since when a president has full power? It is the perfect example of a dichotomic government.
"dichotomic" government. That's a new one. Dichotomy of what?
Still it authorizes the president to designate who is al-Qaeda, Taliban or any supporting organizations. Since any evidence is secret, no lawyers, no trial and indefinite detention, there is no way to ever know if the charges are real or just made up as political expediency. Great way for thieves to get rid of their accusers.
What is really disturbing is the fact that two years ago, supplies held in retail stores of ammunition were removed from the shelves and replaced by "new" ammo, which has only a six month shelf life. Not that I would promote armed resistance...resistance may be futile. This really happened, check it out. Anyone who hunts regulary will have noticed or heard. This goes beyond this admin. The FEMA camps were ordered and set up by Geo. Bush 43
"supplies held in retail stores of ammunition were removed from the shelves and replaced by "new" ammo, which has only a six month shelf life." Kind of like genetically engineered crops that produce no seeds. Have to buy new ammunition every six months. How wonderful for the bullet makers.
The question I would like to ask is not what will the result of this legislation be but rather WHY have they passed it?
As cynical as we would all like to be - Obama isn't about to go all Hitlery on us. On the surface, the aim of this is to deal with terrorism more effectively... Most people will argue that it is one step closer to dictatorship, or rather taking away of human rights. I would agree it is taking away human rights. But why then has Obama passed this? There must be a more prominent, more immediate reason for it?
I would have expected, if anyone, the republicans to do something like this, and unlike most of you I would, if I were American vote for the republicans and the reason for that is that Obama has failed to do pretty much anything to aggressively help the economic situation. He has tiptoed around issues and hid behind his (very) good rhetoric. Unfortunately, his rhetoric will keep him popular, whatever he passes, but that is a different situation.
Still, perhaps there is something that we do NOT know? I imagine there are lots of things, perhaps a pressing reason why Obama has done a U-turn, secret information which would necessitate a law such as this to come through. I almost hope that this is the case rather than an actual belief that this law should be in place. It violates human rights that have been in place since Ancient Greek times 2500 years ago - the right to a trial.
So, apart from answers such as "they want more power", "dictatorship" "1984" etc. etc. etc. why do you think he has passed this bill?
Perhaps there's intel showing a group of terrorists have American citizenship or faked documents even and they need a way to keep them under lock and key.
I still don't understand the "without trial" aspect. It takes us decades to bring trials for normal americans, why not these?
Iran is evil because they have the nerve to be sitting on our gas and oil and they want to sell it outside the US/Britain banking and energy cartels.
Well, you got to say "I told you so." Does that make you happy? I am saddened that Obama would sign even a watered down version of this bill. This is not democracy and what out country stands for.
The only defense I have for him is that he is the President and perhaps he knows something the rest of us don't. There is a lot that goes on in this world that we have no knowledge of.
I used to live in Europe, and all kinds of things went on that were never reported on here in the U.S. I hate to say this, but the world is a dangerous place, in reality. Perhaps he is protecting us - who knows??
The only people Obama is protecting is the thieves that run America. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.