Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: microgood

Also one case does not make Paul right at all. The claims by Paul and others like him is that these laws would result in a loss of our liberty and not just the random single case that is to be disputed of the law being improperly applied.

Again that is why we have Courts and other checks and balances. Any law can be abused even if they are Constitutional or not.


46 posted on 12/27/2011 8:44:34 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: TheBigIf
Again that is why we have Courts and other checks and balances.

You convienently forget that, in the case of Padilla, he was denied access to the courts based on the Patriot Act. There was no abuse of the law.

You also ignore the fact that the current legislation further codifies this into the law. A detainee (i.e. a person the President has determined is a threat) has NO recourse to the judicial system whatsoever!

56 posted on 12/27/2011 8:54:53 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: TheBigIf

You’re right. This is a paultard tempest in a teapot to make their conspiracy theories seem less nutty.

Here is Marco Rubio’s letter explaining his vote for the NDAA.

http://government.brevardtimes.com/2011/12/senator-marco-rubio-defends-ndaa.html

Jim Demint also voted for this, along with every other conservative Republican Senator. The only ones that didn’t were Rand Paul and Mark Kirk (what does that tell you?)


110 posted on 12/27/2011 2:18:27 PM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson