With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

[kyrider]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...n-of-citizens/

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.
The legislation has drawn severe criticism from civil liberties groups, many Democrats, along with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who called it “a slip into tyranny.” Recently two retired four-star Marine generals called on the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed, deeming it “misguided and unnecessary.”
“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”
The president defended his action, writing that he signed the act, “chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”
Senior administration officials, who asked not to be named, told ABC News, “The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”
One official explained that President Obama does believe, however, that American citizens can be temporarily detained, and that the military has the right to capture and hold any citizen who is engaged in conflict against the United States. If various provisions in the law prove unworkable, the president could go back to Congress to ask for changes.
“The president is going to adhere to the policies that he has held over the last three years, making sure that none of these congressional provisions impede the ability of the counterterrorism and military professional from keeping the country safe,” the official said.

[Jiggles]

[hybridxx]

[Lil_Green_Demon]

Get ready for the majority of our "freedoms" to be revoked, all in the name of fighting (nearly) non-existent terrorism.


P.S: I believe this post here is post #1 in 2012.

[almost40]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KdxXhn3We7U

All from here

http://www.infowars.com/president-ob...ns-but-i-wont/

Not really sure what to think about all this crazyness.
Is there some merit to it?
IDK?

[kyrider]

Posted about it yesterday.

http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=93586

Scary

[Alex]

/merged

[CynicalC]

Yeah this is super scary I guess if you're a suspected terrorist...

[massacremasses]

funny thing is a follow both OWS stuff and Tea Party stuff and they both agree on this....

[kyrider]

Obama grabs even more power.

For those of you who voted for Obama are you o.k. with this and what has been posted above?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-appointment/

[massacremasses]

I didnt vote for Obama. And I am not ok with this. I would not be OK with this if someone who I voted for passed this. This is not ok, this isnt a partisan issue. The American public should be outraged. If anything there should be protests in the street about this. I would join the OWS guys to protest this. Ill join the Tea Party to protest this. Anyone protesting this I will join them to protest this.

Signing this bill with the language it has, has made a mockery of the constitution and apparently the people in charge no longer think the constitution is relevant. If this doesnt go to the supreme court I will be stunned. The ACLU should be all over this.

[massacremasses]

also... this is why Im voting for Ron Paul.

[alex.s]

"in other news, Ron Paul proved to be right yet again"

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Obama grabs even more power.

For those of you who voted for Obama are you o.k. with this and what has been posted above?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-appointment/

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.

[Congressional Research Service, "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions"] source

The GOP is screaming because they are scared of the CFPB.

Here's a nice small video about it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...ncy_12-07.html

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.

[Congressional Research Service, "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions"] source

The GOP is screaming because they are scared of the CFPB.

Here's a nice small video about it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...ncy_12-07.html

National Defense Authorization Act...what no comment?

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

National Defense Authorization Act...what no comment?

Do you really need me to comment on it?

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.

[Congressional Research Service, "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions"] source

The GOP is screaming because they are scared of the CFPB.

Here's a nice small video about it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...ncy_12-07.html

Shhhhh.... you're scaring them with real facts...

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Do you really need me to comment on it?

well that is originally what this thread was about...

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.

[Congressional Research Service, "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions"] source

The GOP is screaming because they are scared of the CFPB.

Here's a nice small video about it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...ncy_12-07.html

Senate is not in recess.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

well that is originally what this thread was about...

Thnx Justin!

I thought it was pretty obvious.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Senate is not in recess.

Yeah thats why they are pissed.

He over stepped his boundaries. I think I read you have to wait 3 days into the recess...


Also Im assuming he didnt respind about the NDAA because there is nothing positive to say. Its not a partisan issue really. The person who signed it just happened to be a democrat. ALTHOUGH he did say he wouldnt pass anything like that, and it goes against everything he said he would do...

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Yeah thats why they are pissed.

He over stepped his boundaries. I think I read you have to wait 3 days into the recess...


Also Im assuming he didnt respind about the NDAA because there is nothing positive to say. Its not a partisan issue really. The person who signed it just happened to be a democrat. ALTHOUGH he did say he wouldnt pass anything like that, and it goes against everything he said he would do...

Correct.

We can argue semantics all we want on the recess appointments on what is in session yada yada. To be fair, democrats did this with republicans during bush noted here. Republicans have a valid point that there is an issue with Obama bypassing the senate to put in his appointment. However, the recess appointment is more of a political check move to expose republicans, further damaging their reputation.

Republicans said they had no beef with Cordray but over the powers of the CFPB. Cordray announced his agenda with the agency yesterday. By doing so, Cordray attributes the democrats on being the side of the American people. Now that republicans are against the CFPB, they are looking like they support the 1%. It is also confirms that republicans are c*ckblocking Obama from him getting anything done shown below.

Link to original page on YouTube.

If Obama used the recess appointment to get Cordray in, why didn't he use it to get Elizabeth Warren in? This goes back to liberals saying "Obama will do progressive stuff if he wins the second election." I think it just confirms more that Obama was just a moderate conservative and liberals projected progressiveness values onto him.

[massacremasses]

I read about the Republicans blocking his nominations, but from what I understand one of the reasons they were blocking was to actually get some of the agencies shut down.

[kyrider]

Mike,

Still no comment on the National Defense Authorization Act?

You gonna defend the anointed one on that issue?

[massacremasses]

He said I was correct. Which was there is no defending it no matter who signed it in.

No one in their right mind can defend Obama, all they can do is say, "others have done it too" but does that make it right? What happened to "change"? This is just another reinforcement of campaign promises being bullshit, which is sad because a lot of people believed in him.

[massacremasses]

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/0...-appointments/

[Alex]

The pretend outrage on recess appointments is quite the crock. It has hinged for years on a number of things, including the definition of what is meant by recess. If congress isn't in recess, why won't it allow discussion on all of the items before it. If it is in recess, then the appointments are constitutional. Pick one.

Originally Posted by massacremasses

No one in their right mind can defend Obama, all they can do is say, "others have done it too" but does that make it right? What happened to "change"? This is just another reinforcement of campaign promises being bullshit, which is sad because a lot of people believed in him.

On the NDAA, it doesn't smell right. I don't get what the point of it is, and I also don't get why it sailed through both the House and Senate on the way to Obama. It was broadly supported by both parties in both chambers, with only minor amendments along the way. (Senate was 86 for, 13 against, 1 abstention; House was 322 for, 96 against, 13 abstentions)

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Alex

The pretend outrage on recess appointments is quite the crock. It has hinged for years on a number of things, including the definition of what is meant by recess. If congress isn't in recess, why won't it allow discussion on all of the items before it. If it is in recess, then the appointments are constitutional. Pick one.



On the NDAA, it doesn't smell right. I don't get what the point of it is, and I also don't get why it sailed through both the House and Senate on the way to Obama. It was broadly supported by both parties in both chambers, with only minor amendments along the way. (Senate was 86 for, 13 against, 1 abstention; House was 322 for, 96 against, 13 abstentions)

yeah im not denying that at all. Which is why I said for the most part its not a partisan issue. Just Obama signing it kind of blew even a skeptical guy like myself away because its everything that is "change" was suppose to be against.

[massacremasses]

Found a better link as to why there is a reason for the outrage, and it is merited. (about the appointments not the NDAA)

Check it.



Ron Paul 2012

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by Alex

The pretend outrage on recess appointments is quite the crock. It has hinged for years on a number of things, including the definition of what is meant by recess. If congress isn't in recess, why won't it allow discussion on all of the items before it. If it is in recess, then the appointments are constitutional. Pick one.


On the NDAA, it doesn't smell right. I don't get what the point of it is, and I also don't get why it sailed through both the House and Senate on the way to Obama. It was broadly supported by both parties in both chambers, with only minor amendments along the way. (Senate was 86 for, 13 against, 1 abstention; House was 322 for, 96 against, 13 abstentions)

I'm sure the recess move is just political chess for Obama to set up re-election for 2012. If Obama wanted an effective CFPB, Warren should have gotten the ticket way back before she decided to run for the senate. That's the proof. Instead he's just forcing the republicans' hand making them look worse since they wont "compromise". I really like this paragraph from John Turley's blog a friend linked me.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

[massacremasses]

Good read. Thanks.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

I'm sure the recess move is just political chess for Obama to set up re-election for 2012. If Obama wanted an effective CFPB, Warren should have gotten the ticket way back before she decided to run for the senate. That's the proof. Instead he's just forcing the republicans' hand making them look worse since they wont "compromise".

Perhaps, were there opportunities earlier in the year where the same level of "recess" could have been legally tested by this appointment as this one was over the holiday break? Warren was never going to be confirmed, nor was any nominee without a significant change in governance (arguably weaker) to the agency.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Alex

Perhaps, were there opportunities earlier in the year where the same level of "recess" could have been legally tested by this appointment as this one was over the holiday break? Warren was never going to be confirmed, nor was any nominee without a significant change in governance (arguably weaker) to the agency.

I understand the frustration but by doing it he undermined the constitution, the law of the land. Thats not ok. Remember they were not technically in recess.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Remember they were not technically in recess.

Says who? Someone who defined recess differently to suit their own purposes, contrary to the constitution in different ways?

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Alex

Says who? Someone who defined recess differently to suit their own purposes, contrary to the constitution in different ways?

"Congress has been gaveling into session for less than a minute every three days for the express purpose of technically staying in session."

[Alex]

When no business can be taken, nobody is there to vote, and nothing is being done other than an attempted procedural maneuver to try and prevent recess appointments. Now comes the legal challenge where this gets sorted out, and we find out how the current courts interpret the constitution in this area. Congress is playing a game (not the first time that game has been played by either side of the aisle), and there's a chance there will be more clarity on the recess discussion. Even the whole "three day" thing has nothing to do with the constitution, and is nothing other than convention that was adopted a few years back on what seemed to be a reasonable length of time by all concerned during that particular congress.

[massacremasses]

ah so its not in writing then?

[Alex]

Nope. More reading here from a constitutional law prof here.

A bit more background here as well from the Senate itself.

From the second page of that second doc:

How Long Must the Senate Be in Recess Before a President May Make a Recess Appointment?

The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days.

That's where the 3-day thing started, from a DOJ brief that linked it to the longest time one of the legislative bodies could take a recess without getting approval from the other.

For what it's worth, there are certainly arguments to be made on both sides here. Here's one essay that lays out a few convincing reasons why this is both appropriate and constitutional; here's another that lays out challenges to each of those reasons.

[massacremasses]

fantastic, thanks for the links.

edit
*found another good one

this part was interesting.

"Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days."

Edit #2. Your first link is saying the above doesnt matter. Very interesting. Im not a law expert so Im just reading, and seeing what will happen.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

fantastic, thanks for the links.

edit
*found another good one

this part was interesting.

"Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days."

Edit #2. Your first link is saying the above doesnt matter. Very interesting. Im not a law expert so Im just reading, and seeing what will happen.

Touche