Among Congress, only Ron and Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham have said for sure that they believe this bill gives them a sort of new power. And the number of people who believe that this is a new power is inflated by those who went into hysterics without understanding the provisions in detail. In particular, I have shown statements of support from Rubio and Levin stating that this does not give the govt new detention powers, and when Feinstein introduced her ammendment that passed she also stated that, with this addition, there would be no new powers. And I showed an explanation, from legal experts far more qualified to speak on the matter than Rush Savage, Alex Jones, Drudge and most DU posters, that this does not give the govt power it did not already have in the AUMF and the Patriot Act. If someone thinks that this bill goes way beyond the AUMF and Patriot Act, then they very likely do not understand this bill and how it oompares and contrasts with AUMF and Patriot Act. I dont know for sure, but among those who think this is a new power, I doubt most who think this is a new power even know what the AUMF is.
The vast majority of Americans are uneducated about the Congressional laws and acts they live under, how they relate to SCOTUS rulings and the extent that Congressional Laws and Presidential actions fall in line with the Constitution. Decades of substandard public school education and colleges that refuse to simply teach the facts about American history, law and govt have made it incredibly difficult to be truly informed regarding what our rights are and how well they are being protected. That goes for Americans of all political orientations. That is something to be truly scared of. To quote Stalin “Ideas are more dangerous than guns we dont let them have guns, why dont we let them have ideas”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/20/1047407/-Greenwalds-3-NDAA-myths-is-moony-and-wrong
This is yet another explanation about how this is not a new power. Note that, regardless of one’s view on how well this is written, that this author is clearly against the provisions and so clearly is not a govt mouthpiece. I have also, for the record, stated that there are many sloppily written and vague clauses about this that I do not like at all. I do not think this is a very good bill. I am just contesting the notion that this was a scheme to suddenly give the govt freedom to round up ordinary Americans and protestors at will.
Seriously why would ANYONE defend a position they admit they do not know? It's absolutely astounding and the only conclusion I can come up with is that someone is paying you to do this.
Obama admits he NOW has this power, but you are saying he does not. LOL!