Obama, LIAR and FRAUD, signs NDAA, Gitmo, Indefinate detentions into law
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
You're looking at a vote on one amendment, not on the NDAA as a whole. The NDAA passed the Senate by a vote of 81-14 and the House by a vote of 315-107.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Must defend Obama.... must defend Obama
Sorry, but he can still take a stand, he can still come out fighting on the issue, but as usual he votes present. Make them over ride his veto... that was an option. It sends it back for another vote... a vote that he could have used the bully pulpit to pressure changes in votes. But he didn't.
but again, it is you incessant need to defend him no matter what that resulted in my pointing out what a partisan hack you are... yet again.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
God you're dumb.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Bennet, while not up in 2014 also voted against it.
Canceled.2016.1
Canceled
well FUCK you... so rude... what the fuck did I do
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Do any of you ever get tired of DH never being wrong? Why do you even bother with this nonsense? I mean, don't stop on my account, I enjoy it.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Both sides support this legislation but for totally different reasons.....one side views it as a move in their direction, the other side views it as a move to theirs...
and in some aspects, it does just that.....its a matter of which prism you looking through.
Instead of starting a new thread, I thought I would just throw this in here. I doubt Obama actually wants to close Gitmo anymore if he ever did.
We are engaged in an infinte war. We fight them over there so we can continue fighting them over there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/war-on-terror-endless-johnson
Last month, outgoing pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson gave a speech at the Oxford Union and said that the War on Terror must, at some point, come to an end:
...
There's a good reason US officials are assuming the "War on Terror" will persist indefinitely: namely, their actions ensure that this occurs. The New York Times' Matthew Rosenberg this morning examines what the US government seems to regard as the strange phenomenon of Afghan soldiers attacking US troops with increasing frequency, and in doing so, discovers a shocking reality: people end up disliking those who occupy and bomb their country:
"Such insider attacks, by Afghan security forces on their Western allies, became 'the signature violence of 2012', in the words of one former American official. The surge in attacks has provided the clearest sign yet that Afghan resentment of foreigners is becoming unmanageable, and American officials have expressed worries about its disruptive effects on the training mission that is the core of the American withdrawal plan for 2014. . . .
"But behind it all, many senior coalition and Afghan officials are now concluding that after nearly 12 years of war, the view of foreigners held by many Afghans has come to mirror that of the Taliban. Hope has turned into hatred, and some will find a reason to act on those feelings.
"'A great percentage of the insider attacks have the enemy narrative — the narrative that the infidels have to be driven out — somewhere inside of them, but they aren't directed by the enemy,' said a senior coalition officer, who asked not to be identified because of Afghan and American sensitivities about the attacks."
In other words, more than a decade of occupying and brutalizing that country has turned large swaths of the population into the "Taliban", to the extent that the "Taliban" means: Afghans willing to use violence to force the US and its allies out of their country. As always, the US - through the very policies of aggression and militarism justified in the name of terrorism - is creating the very "terrorists" those polices are supposedly designed to combat. It's a pure and perfect system of self-perpetuation.
We are engaged in an infinte war. We fight them over there so we can continue fighting them over there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/war-on-terror-endless-johnson
Last month, outgoing pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson gave a speech at the Oxford Union and said that the War on Terror must, at some point, come to an end:
"Now that efforts by the US military against al-Qaida are in their 12th year, we must also ask ourselves: How will this conflict end? . . . . 'War' must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. We must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the 'new normal.' Peace must be regarded as the norm toward which the human race continually strives. . . .
"There will come a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al-Qaida and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, that al-Qaida will be effectively destroyed."
On Thursday night, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow interviewed Johnson, and before doing so, she opined as follows:"There will come a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al-Qaida and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, that al-Qaida will be effectively destroyed."
"When does this thing we are in now end? And if it does not have an end — and I'm not speaking as a lawyer here, I am just speaking as a citizen who feels morally accountable for my country's actions — if it does not have an end, then morally speaking it does not seem like it is a war. And then, our country is killing people and locking them up outside the traditional judicial system in a way I think we maybe cannot be forgiven for."
It is precisely the intrinsic endlessness of this so-called "war" that is its most corrupting and menacing attribute, for the reasons Maddow explained. But despite the happy talk from Johnson, it is not ending soon. By its very terms, it cannot. And all one has to do is look at the words and actions of the Obama administration to know this.
...
There's a good reason US officials are assuming the "War on Terror" will persist indefinitely: namely, their actions ensure that this occurs. The New York Times' Matthew Rosenberg this morning examines what the US government seems to regard as the strange phenomenon of Afghan soldiers attacking US troops with increasing frequency, and in doing so, discovers a shocking reality: people end up disliking those who occupy and bomb their country:
"Such insider attacks, by Afghan security forces on their Western allies, became 'the signature violence of 2012', in the words of one former American official. The surge in attacks has provided the clearest sign yet that Afghan resentment of foreigners is becoming unmanageable, and American officials have expressed worries about its disruptive effects on the training mission that is the core of the American withdrawal plan for 2014. . . .
"But behind it all, many senior coalition and Afghan officials are now concluding that after nearly 12 years of war, the view of foreigners held by many Afghans has come to mirror that of the Taliban. Hope has turned into hatred, and some will find a reason to act on those feelings.
"'A great percentage of the insider attacks have the enemy narrative — the narrative that the infidels have to be driven out — somewhere inside of them, but they aren't directed by the enemy,' said a senior coalition officer, who asked not to be identified because of Afghan and American sensitivities about the attacks."
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Senator Barack Obama
February 16, 2006
"We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an 'either-or' type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America."
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...k-obama-s2271-usa-patriot-act-reauthorization
Obama's Gitmo Betrayal
excerpt --
Nearly five years ago, Gary Isaac, a corporate lawyer at a prestigious Chicago law firm, drank deeply from candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s rhetorical reservoir of hope and change. The change Isaac was most concerned about had to do with the operation, outside the rule of law, of the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Isaac was deeply involved, pro bono, in helping detainees challenge their detention in U.S. courts by asserting their rights under the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which requires that the state justify the detention of a person before a judge.
So convinced was Isaac that a President Obama would restore habeas for detainees that in February 2008 he published a blog called Habeas Lawyers for Obama, composed of one impassioned post, signed by 132 habeas lawyers, and posted just before Super Tuesday in the Democratic primaries. It concluded:
The writ of habeas corpus dates to the Magna Carta, and was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution. The Administration’s attack on habeas corpus rights is dangerous and wrong. America needs a President who will not triangulate this issue. We need a President who will restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community. Based on our work with him, we are convinced that Senator Obama can do this because he truly feels these issues “in his bones.”
Five years later, Isaac believes he was hoodwinked by then Sen. Obama. He isn’t the only one. Salon spoke with other habeas lawyers, many of whom signed Isaac’s 2008 Obama endorsement. Many say they were blindsided by the Obama administration’s defense of indefinite detention and the many walls it has erected to make their jobs more difficult. Their belief in the hope and change Obama represented for their clients in the immediate aftermath of the election has slowly been replaced with the grim fact of despair and indefinite detention for their clients.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/26/habeas_lawyers_against_obama/
Medical marijuana
War
Immigration
Transparency
Think he isn't going to sell-out on Social Security and Medicare?
He's a proven liar and fraud.
Senator Barack Obama
February 16, 2006
"We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an 'either-or' type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America."
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...k-obama-s2271-usa-patriot-act-reauthorization
Obama's Gitmo Betrayal
excerpt --
Nearly five years ago, Gary Isaac, a corporate lawyer at a prestigious Chicago law firm, drank deeply from candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s rhetorical reservoir of hope and change. The change Isaac was most concerned about had to do with the operation, outside the rule of law, of the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Isaac was deeply involved, pro bono, in helping detainees challenge their detention in U.S. courts by asserting their rights under the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which requires that the state justify the detention of a person before a judge.
So convinced was Isaac that a President Obama would restore habeas for detainees that in February 2008 he published a blog called Habeas Lawyers for Obama, composed of one impassioned post, signed by 132 habeas lawyers, and posted just before Super Tuesday in the Democratic primaries. It concluded:
The writ of habeas corpus dates to the Magna Carta, and was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution. The Administration’s attack on habeas corpus rights is dangerous and wrong. America needs a President who will not triangulate this issue. We need a President who will restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community. Based on our work with him, we are convinced that Senator Obama can do this because he truly feels these issues “in his bones.”
Five years later, Isaac believes he was hoodwinked by then Sen. Obama. He isn’t the only one. Salon spoke with other habeas lawyers, many of whom signed Isaac’s 2008 Obama endorsement. Many say they were blindsided by the Obama administration’s defense of indefinite detention and the many walls it has erected to make their jobs more difficult. Their belief in the hope and change Obama represented for their clients in the immediate aftermath of the election has slowly been replaced with the grim fact of despair and indefinite detention for their clients.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/26/habeas_lawyers_against_obama/
Medical marijuana
War
Immigration
Transparency
Think he isn't going to sell-out on Social Security and Medicare?
He's a proven liar and fraud.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i agree that if the left cared about this as much as they did when bush was president, obama would likely not go this route. given the left's, mostly, silence, he can do whatever he wants.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
EXACTLY the point.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
that said
romney would have done nothing different
pretty sad to realize that obama did what romney would have done
romney would have done nothing different
pretty sad to realize that obama did what romney would have done
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Correct again.
Presidential Debate: Obama, Romney Agree On Foreign Policy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/presidential-debate-2012_n_2004043.html
The trick is in making voters believe there is a difference.
Even on core issues like Social Security ..
"I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position," Obama said to Romney in debate.
The trick is called "lesser evil" .. which still gets you the same evil.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
True on foreign policy, not on domestic.
And the only reason it's true on foreign policy is because Romney was doing a "me, too!" during the foreign policy debate, playing it safe w/ his media-hyped momentum heading into the final weeks.
Oh, dear goddess, where is he going next. This has just made me sick.
One of my Senators voted yes, the other didn't vote!