I’m a little late on this whole thing coming out and being signed but it intrigues me alot. I tried to find a thread on here but I guess noone has made on. Is the whole “the president can detain, imprision, torture anyone if he or she is considered a reasonable suspect…the imprisionment can occur without the person being charged and with a trial.”
I’ve yet to find an unbiased source and I doubt I will. Anyone care to give me the REAL facts?
[quote]chobbs wrote:
I’m a little late on this whole thing coming out and being signed but it intrigues me alot. I tried to find a thread on here but I guess noone has made on. Is the whole “the president can detain, imprision, torture anyone if he or she is considered a reasonable suspect…the imprisionment can occur without the person being charged and with a trial.”
I’ve yet to find an unbiased source and I doubt I will. Anyone care to give me the REAL facts? [/quote]
I honestly do not know. It seems like post 9/11 the REAL facts about what can and cannot be done are constantly changing anyways.
I didn’t think the Patriot Act was constitutional to begin with, but that didn’t stop it from happening. I have asked where all these executive orders Bush and Obama seemed to champion come from and where are the limits on those?
I’m guessing most of the sources are in two camps:
One- Presidents can do what they need to do right now to fight the war on terror and how they see fit because do you want another 9/11? Have you forgotten?
Two- Presidents cannot do this stuff because no limits or power have been given to making these types of decisions and they are in violation of rights of citizens.
Hopefully a non-biased source exists that we may learn from, but I have lots of questions along this line as well.
Try passing a law limiting the size of a soda and then you’ll see people actually care about their freedom.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Try passing a law limiting the size of a soda and then you’ll see people actually care about their freedom. [/quote]
Oh I have no doubt “most people” don’t really give a shit how we treat people that we think may or may not be terrorists because they don’t ever imagine they will be in that position.
Infringing on rights to drink a large Dr. Pepper is something that the average citizen can definitely get pissed off about though 
For the most part we don’t think about government unless we directly see/feel its impacts. That has been true throughout history.
I signed the petition. Like almost all petitions, it didn’t work. Color me shocked.
Unfortunately, the NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is a yearly mandate that is required for the DoD to function. Without it, we have no authority to be issued a budget, although we continue to operate under Continuing Resolution Authority, or CRA, funds. Basically, it means we don’t have any money yet, but go ahead and spend as if you had the same amount you had last year, and when the budget does come out, adjust if necessary.
Now, none of that pertains to your problem with it. It’s merely the law upon which the riders you have issues have been placed. An incredibly vital law that will ALWAYS get passed, regardless of what they pencil in at the bottom.
Politics are frustrating.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Politics are frustrating.
[/quote]
Indeed.
Have always been. You think politics is a brawl now? Read your American history about the years 1800 - 1861.
[/quote]
Starting with Jefferson and the Louisiana purchase and rolling through Lincoln and the Civil War? Pretty brutal time frame.
I’m most interested with our handling of the textile mill strikes, the Indian removal, and anything like Dorr’s rebellion, but my favorite had to be Thoreau and Emerson’s alleged exchange at the jail. Classic.
I think politics are a watered down joke, with puppets parroting taglines written by the Murdoch corp. Call me cynical.
[quote]AceRock wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Politics are frustrating.
[/quote]
Indeed.
Have always been. You think politics is a brawl now? Read your American history about the years 1800 - 1861.
[/quote]
Starting with Jefferson and the Louisiana purchase and rolling through Lincoln and the Civil War? Pretty brutal time frame.
I’m most interested with our handling of the textile mill strikes, the Indian removal, and anything like Dorr’s rebellion, but my favorite had to be Thoreau and Emerson’s alleged exchange at the jail. Classic.
I think politics are a watered down joke, with puppets parroting taglines written by the Murdoch corp. Call me cynical.[/quote]
Agree on most counts here except I don’t think Murdoch corp is the only corp giving taglines if we’re going to be straight cynical about everything
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Politics are frustrating.
[/quote]
Indeed.
Have always been. You think politics is a brawl now? Read your American history about the years 1800 - 1861.
[/quote]
Starting with Jefferson and the Louisiana purchase and rolling through Lincoln and the Civil War? Pretty brutal time frame.
I’m most interested with our handling of the textile mill strikes, the Indian removal, and anything like Dorr’s rebellion, but my favorite had to be Thoreau and Emerson’s alleged exchange at the jail. Classic.
I think politics are a watered down joke, with puppets parroting taglines written by the Murdoch corp. Call me cynical.[/quote]
Agree on most counts here except I don’t think Murdoch corp is the only corp giving taglines if we’re going to be straight cynical about everything[/quote]
Sorry if I failed to mention the other side of the coin. Feel the exact same way about them. It was just an example, really, not the fountainhead.