Well , he signed the NDAA

[Truthmatters]

they either wanted this to be law or they wanted to poisen the bill.


Which is it?

 

[Meister]

TELL ME WHY THE REPUBLICAN PUT THIS IN THE MILITARY FUNDING BILL?


why?

Because they were morons. Now, why did this get past the Senate and why did Obama sign it?

Bullshit!

this is not an answer.


They had a reasoning to purposely write this into law.

what was their purpose?

I see, you have to resort to spinning as to not answering my question.

See why you get no respect from the right, TM?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

TELL ME WHY THE REPUBLICAN PUT THIS IN THE MILITARY FUNDING BILL?


why?

It was also written by a democrat you fucking hack. Look at the house version of this bill..

 

[Truthmatters]

prove that dem wrote the lines you are so mad about

 

[Foxfyre]

Well the President has been whining that the GOP has blocked all the legislation and they couldn't get anything done. But the facts are:

Carl Levin, Democrat, wrote the NDAA co-sponsored by John McCain, Republican.

Senators voting against the legislation evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

NAYs ---13
Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1 (Moran R-KS)

And since the Dems still hold a majority in the Senate, that means more Democratic Senators than Republican Senators voted for the legislation.

In the House, the legislation passed with 189 Republicans and 93 Democrats voting for passage of the measure, while 43 Republicans and 93 Democrats voted against it.

You don't get much more bipartisan than that in Congress these days.

And Obama signed the legislation into law. The last time I looked, he has a D after his name.

 

[B94]

prove that dem wrote the lines you are so mad about

It dosen't matter if it was written by Democarts or Republicans or your mother.

What matters is who voted for it.

Anyone that voted for this should be removed from the Government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bla bla bla.

more bullshit from the right wing clucking chickens.

Not one of you answered WHY the republicans wrote this into a bill that would allow ANY president to sign it.


Cluck cluck cluck you fools

I know in your fucked up twisted mind it's all the republicans fault. just disregard that democrats controlled the Congress for 60+ years either in on house or the other or both. Let's just forget that obama signed this bill into law let's just forget about the fact that the senate is controlled by the democrats let's just forget that a republican can be just like a democrat the only difference is how he votes. Fuck you you mother fucking political hack it is because of idiots like you America is in the shape it is in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

prove that dem wrote the lines you are so mad about

If that is going to be your argument I want you to prove it was a republican that wrote SECTION 1031 in the NDAA SENATE VERSION

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I hope Ron Paul does it. He was pretty public about imeaching for Clinton for bombing without declaring and Obama has already done that to. Its high time someone stands up for the rule of law.

Mmm-hmm. Shall we impeach the 193 Republican "Yes" votes in the house too, then?

Why does the Republican party, which happened to be the main thrust behind this bill, seem to be getting a pass here?

I agree that the republicans that signed it are a POS. But, why do they take the blame solely for this? During the last administration, Democrats signed bills, but it was all Bush's fault....I just don't understand the distiction between the two, can you help?

Its very doubtful that he can help but poor O just seems to get bung holed at every turn by those nasty ol Rs. Never mind that he has veto power.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It would not have to die ANYWHERE if someone had not made sure it was in there huh?


Not one of you have answered WHY the republicans made sure it hit Obamas desk by writing it into the law.

We don't HAVE to answer to you.

 

[Foxfyre]

It would not have to die ANYWHERE if someone had not made sure it was in there huh?


Not one of you have answered WHY the republicans made sure it hit Obamas desk by writing it into the law.

We don't HAVE to answer to you.

Most especially since it wasn't the Republcans who wrote it into law.

 

[B94]

We now have the worst Congress and President in our history.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It would not have to die ANYWHERE if someone had not made sure it was in there huh?


Not one of you have answered WHY the republicans made sure it hit Obamas desk by writing it into the law.

We don't HAVE to answer to you.

Most especially since it wasn't the Republcans who wrote it into law.

TM ignores the fact that this bill was written by the democrat controlled Senate and signed into law by a democrat president.
In her little twisted room temperature IQ world, it is the republicans who are to blame.
If TM and others on her side had an ounce of integrity, they'd be standing behind their Obamessiah on this. Yet, they distance themselves from it by blaming the GOP.
Typical liberal nonsense.
Hope you and Mr Foxfyre had a nice New Year's celebration and best wishes for a prosperous 2012.

 

[Avatar4321]

This is just wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We now have the worst Congress and President in our history.

Yes we do, but guess what? most will be reelected but (my elected Representative's) are good one's but your's isn't. That's how they will get re-elected. It's never my elected Representative is at fault it's the other guys who is at fault.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z27_PIbNchE&feature=g-all-u&context=G2141a4bFAAAAAAAAGAA]Obama Robo Signs NDAA Bill into law I guess the Mayans were right - YouTube[/ame]

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's another sad day for America. Next we'll be housing soldiers in our homes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Things are about to get ugly people. You Obama supporters just say one thing against this country and you to might be detained!!! Wonder how you will feel about him if you or one of your family members gets in trouble for free speech!

Incorrect.

Those provisions were removed from the bill:

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

News from The Associated Press

In his signing statement the president maintains that provisions in the NDAA have already passed Constitutional muster:

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

BREAKING: Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill | ThinkProgress

Actually no protection is given to U.S. Citizens in section 1031

Unless any person does not mean any person

S.1867

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)
Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's another sad day for America. Next we'll be housing soldiers in our homes.

I'll burn my fucking house down before I allow that.

 

[katsung47]

First they massacred Branch Davidian in Waco Siege,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Davidian.

Then they created OKC bombing, tried to get a Patriot act,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't want to offend the Feds.

Then they created 911 attack to get the Patriot Act and war,
and I didn't speak out because I am not a muslim.

Now they come for US citizens with military Authorization Act,
and I didn't speak out because I am not a terrorist.

Then when they prison you as a terrorist,
and there is no law to protect you because you have given up all your civil rights already.