Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget, "Home of the brave".
At least Snowden showed that the "home of the brave" part is not entirely false.
He is brave because he's not home, eh.
Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
101–110 of 150 posts
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#102Please also notice that this "news" is reported on Russia Today. Where is the American Reporting? They are too concerned with royal babies, ironically.
The Russia Today was created with the goal of breaking the American media omerta.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#103Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
US is really the Roman Empire of our time. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
What's worrying is that it always strikes me as the Roman Empire in the last days of the Republic. Vast sums being spent to buy elections, a powerful few getting very rich off wars and the government grinding to a halt, unable to deal with the problems facing the nation. Just before Caesar came along and get into a fight with the Senate. Congress' approval ratings are so low it really wouldn't take much for a powerfu…
"Congress' approval ratings are so low it really wouldn't take much for a powerful populist movement to challenge the constitutional makeup"
You might want to check folks approval ratings of their own congressperson. The overall rating is horrid, but the "mine" is generally quite good.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that a serious question? First line of the article: "The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012."
Again, this law is constitutional. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
This is only constitutional because our government has said "it's legal".
Your right to free speech as an American citizen is only a right so far as the US government continues to respect that right. The Executive branch could come out tomorrow and start detaining anyone they cared to while stating that any criticism of the US Government is now a detainable offense, and it would be legal if the Judicial branch waved it's hands and said "We'll allow it."
Our rights may be "god given", but god cannot protect us from the tyranny of men.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today. This is one of the huge ironies about contemporary conservatives. They practically worship the founding fathers like gods, but they would have hated many of them if they met them today, as many were godless radical liberals. The most extreme example of this for me was when D'Souza and other republicans accused Barack Obama of being anti-colonialist…
Taking over a colony to appropriate its land and other resources != being principally against British colonialism. The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals. E.g. the recent example of shooting an attacking black thug had been made an example of racism. Because, obviously, somebody who shoots a black person to protect his life is principally aga…
"The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals."
Because obviously, one person with a certain ideological bent speaks for every person with that same ideology.
By the way, you should have spoken up if you knew unequivocally that the black thug was the attacker, especially when there was absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, besides the testimony of accused. You could have really helped your guy's case.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking over a colony to appropriate its land and other resources != being principally against British colonialism. The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals. E.g. the recent example of shooting an attacking black thug had been made an example of racism. Because, obviously, somebody who shoots a black person to protect his life is principally aga…
"The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals." Because obviously, one person with a certain ideological bent speaks for every person with that same ideology. By the way, you should have spoken up if you knew unequivocally that the black thug was the attacker, especially when there was absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, besides the testimon…
I've only brought up the recent events to show that it's not a singular case. The whole liberal community is engaging in this.
PS. As for your suggestion for me to speak up - luckily prosecution brought a witness who testified that TM had been attacking GZ, so no need for me to do the same.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#108So Obama says he wont "abuse" it, but what about his successor, and the successor after that? I assume this law does not expire once he leaves office...
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that a serious question? First line of the article: "The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012."
Again, this law is constitutional. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
In the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, the SCOTUS ruled that US citizens have the right to due process. So that ruling actually sets a precedent for this law being unconstitutional.
Re: Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA
#110"Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned indefinitely" If you want to influence someone, it helps to understand their motivations. I can't conceive of what Obama has in mind with pursuing this l…
> Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today. This is one of the huge ironies about contemporary conservatives. They practically worship the founding fathers like gods, but they would have hated many of them if they met them today, as many were godless radical liberals. The most extreme example of this for me was when D'Souza and other republicans accused Barack Obama of being anti-colonialist…
That irony isn't specific to conservatives. Today's liberals would have hated many of the anti-government founding fathers.