http://belligerentact.org/
Printable View
I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for Obama, but this is the main thing (among many) that makes it difficult for me to do so.
Congess passes the NDAA with a huge veto-proof majority. How is that Obama's fault? Or is everything just Obama"s fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodpoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyB
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyBCongess passes the NDAA with a huge veto-proof majority. How is that Obama's fault? Or is everything just Obama"s fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodpoop
so he didn't sign it?
Real talk whatever happened to the Amero?
It's his fault cuz he's black and can't swim.Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyBCongess passes the NDAA with a huge veto-proof majority. How is that Obama's fault? Or is everything just Obama"s fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodpoop
Stupidness aside am I mistaken or does the NDAA not apply to 99.9% of americans?
this screams tin foil hat to me and i'd like to hear you weigh in on that aspect.
It seems to specifically apply to terrorists and supporters/helpers of terrorism specifically.
You've been imprisoning citizens of other countries without due process, so it's only fair your citizens get the same right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiganer
This is the natural outcome from the "War on Terror" and in general the theater of fear played by Republicans. If you are a Republican and support their party, this shit should make you HAPPY.
The issue with the provisions in the NDAA everybody had a fit over, myself included, were thrown out as Unconstitutional back in May by a Federal Court for clear violations of Habeus Corpus among other things, so at least its not legally able to be utilized at this time (Even if it gets dragged to the SCOTUS I dont see those provisions standing a snowballs chance in hell of being upheld because they are/were blantant violations of US Citizens Constitutional rights.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1522654.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by 408MikeIt's his fault cuz he's black and can't swim.Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyB
Stupidness aside am I mistaken or does the NDAA not apply to 99.9% of americans?
this screams tin foil hat to me and i'd like to hear you weigh in on that aspect.
It seems to specifically apply to terrorists and supporters/helpers of terrorism specifically.
It doesn't matter if he signs it or not when it passes with a 2/3 Supermajority in both the Senate and Congress. He has no veto power in that case and it automatically becomes law.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodpoopQuote:
Originally Posted by DirtyB
so he didn't sign it?
Glad to see our Civics classes not working in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anal_HershiserIt doesn't matter if he signs it or not when it passes with a 2/3 Supermajority in both the Senate and Congress. He has no veto power in that case and it automatically becomes law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodpoop
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftpjesusThe issue with the provisions in the NDAA everybody had a fit over, myself included, were thrown out as Unconstitutional back in May by a Federal Court for clear violations of Habeus Corpus among other things, so at least its not legally able to be utilized at this time (Even if it gets dragged to the SCOTUS I dont see those provisions standing a snowballs chance in hell of being upheld because they are/were blantant violations of US Citizens Constitutional rights.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1522654.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by 408Mike
He's wrong in the details, but generally correct. They had more than enough votes to override a veto. The NDAA is the DOD's budget. They have to pass it or nobody in the military gets paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by abrown83Glad to see our Civics classes not working in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser
Keep in mind that this is just a small excerpt from the NDAA.
The "belligerent act" is indeed poorly worded, and I don't support giving the government such power. Such general wording could authorize the government to incarcerate people under very flimsy circumstances.
I would actually be in favor of such legislation that outlined specific conditions which incarceration could exist, and those conditions would involve very clear support of terrorist organizations. I also would not support indefinite incarceration without a trial.
There were (legitimate) complaints from law enforcement prior to 9/11 that there was too much red tape in order to authorize quick investigation into suspected terrorists. I support making life easier on law enforcement and giving some leeway to the government to fight legitimate terror threats, but things like this hand the government too much non-specific power.
He said he wouldn't sign it and than did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anal_HershiserIt doesn't matter if he signs it or not when it passes with a 2/3 Supermajority in both the Senate and Congress. He has no veto power in that case and it automatically becomes law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodpoop
:cosbyQuote:
Originally Posted by GoodpoopHe said he wouldn't sign it and than did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser
dat be sadQuote:
Originally Posted by LLL:cosbyQuote:
Originally Posted by Goodpoop
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the reason Obama didn't want to sign the bill was because he wanted more powers added, not fewer. There's no good defense for the pres on this one.