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.
Real talk whatever happened to the Amero?
It's his fault cuz he's black and can't swim.
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.
Originally Posted by sonatine
You've been imprisoning citizens of other countries without due process, so it's only fair your citizens get the same right.
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.html
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)