I believe that Allen West voted fot it also. Freeper seekthe truth should be knowledgeable on this. Prthaps they could enlighten us. Or me.
It's wrong when Obama supports it. It was wrong when Bush did, too.
P4L
There is no way to defend this bill.
No law should be acceptable to a citizen of this nation because they trust that the current leadership will not abuse it.
The law must be written such that the worst abuser of the rights of the citizenry cannot use that law to impose a restriction of our rights that is not permitted by the Constitution.
What was in the language of the remainder of the law that was so important, that a vote to hold citizens without trial indefinitely is an acceptable compromise?
Why was this law needed in this appropriations bill?
The answer is simple and frightening. All those who voted for it, wanted it there.
Is this a road we want to travel?
This is a mistake of the most grievous kind, whether you are conservative, liberal, socialist, nationalist, Republican, Independent, or Democrat.
And none of the candidates for office have said a word about it.
We have lost the ability to even recognize the demolition of our rights.
God help my children and future generations, who have given away so much, purchased so dearly, without comment, objection, or even notice.
The disappointing part of NDAA is not that it's a far-left fringe Obama atrocity but that it has such widespread support within Congress. NDAA is a clear, unambiguous violation of the Bill of Rights that I am equally disappointed with those who give lip service to the NRA but support NDAA and with those who give lip service to the ACLU but support NDAA. NDAA is simply indefensible as written, and I have read (and posted on FR) the unacceptable wording.
In case it wasnt clear before, I am not givinv any kind of endoresment for this new bill and the new provisions as a whole. I am aware of how vague and sloppily written it is and I know full well that it would be easy for the govt to use it for purposes it was not intended to to-go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and anyone allied with Taliban or Al Qaeda. I was only trying to show some new perspectives, particularly in regard to how this bill relates to current law, and show some other voices of support and to try to have people rationally think things through before declaring Congressmen, in this case genuinely Conservative Congressmen- they once supported and respected to be part of some sinister plot to shred the Consitution and destroy our nation.
In case it wasnt clear before, I am not giving any kind of endoresment for this new bill and the new provisions as a whole. I am aware of how vague and sloppily written it is and I know full well that it would be easy for the govt to use it for purposes it was not intended to to-go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and anyone allied with Taliban or Al Qaeda. I was only trying to show some new perspectives, particularly in regard to how this bill relates to current law, and show some other voices of support and to try to have people rationally think things through before declaring Congressmen, in this case genuinely Conservative Congressmen- they once supported and respected to be part of some sinister plot to shred the Consitution and destroy our nation. And if someone can explain, by citing and explaining in proper legal terms sections of this bill, how it gives the govt new powers to “snatch and grab” US citizens and detain them forever, that it did not already have, then I will retract some or possibly all of my arguments. But I have not seen any yet.
Did anyone notice how section this was very ambiguous in the admission yet very specific in the denials?
Is a law needed to "affirm the authority of the executive branch to act within our national interest"? I thought that was in his Constitutional job description.
"...provide the federal government with the tools that are needed to maintain our national security." - seems like our federal government is excessively equipped already.
Later