I don't think he does now, unless they specifically had something to do with causing the 911 attacks. I don't see an evil conspiracy or nefarious intentions in any of this. What I do see is over-reach and bloat which happens in everything government touches, along with steadily increasing incompetence. And my solution would be to throw them all out at the ballot box.
I agree with your solution. Get rid of Obama and elect Ron Paul. Ron Paul will help restore our federal government to its Constitutionally limited role. All the other candidates (D and R) represent and openly advocate for more of the same.
Your interpretation is wrong, for many reasons. The original Bill covered Americans in both 1021 and 1022. Riders that specifically *exempted* American citizens from both were introduced by both the House and Senate, and were overwhelming defeated. Carl Levin, the traitor, specifically said Obama told him and McCain to ensure the NDAA covered American citizens. McCain basically admitted as much in a debate with Rand Paul on the floor. You didn't even quote 1021 in its entirety. What you did quote was the Feinstien rider, which was a compromise for dissenters, who wanted specific protections for Americans included in the bill. That's why it reads like mush and the language is purposefully vague. The section that reads "this in no way expands existing law" doesn't provide an exemption to Americans. It merely says it does not change prior law. Again, on the floor, McCain and Levin argued the President already has the authority to arrest and detain Americans indefinitely - without a lawyer or trial - from the Jose Pedia and some other case. I forget, which one. This is not speculation. All the CSPAN tapes are up on youtube where McCain specifically argued that power already exists with the Feds, the Supreme Court upheld it, and this particular section in the NDAA is a codification of that case law. That phag, Lindsey Graham affirmed as much. He said, if you're an American citizen and arrested with terrorist links, you don't get a lawyer. He also said the NDAA declares the Homeland "a battlefield". As far as amendment 1022, again, you didn't read it correctly. The language says the US military is "not required" to cover Americans. But it doesn't say they're not prohibited either. Think very carefully about what "not required" means. Not required means optional. The IRS is *not required* to perform an audit on every American that earns under 30K. But they can, if they want! Again, you need to look at context AND INTENT. Many attempts were made to protect Americans from these amendments, but they were struck down. What does that tell you about intent? Levin specifically said Obama told him to make sure it covered Americans. What does that tell you about intent? Obama included a signing statement (which are totally unconstitutional to begin with) that said his Administration won't arrest or detain Americans without a trial. Why would Obama even write that if the Bill didn't include that power, to begin with? And the bill does. That's why guys like Andrew Napaletanio, a former judge, are flipping out about this. I'll be around next week and will write a more detail reply then, with all the youtube links, so you can see and hear it from the horses mouth. Youtube them now, if you want. None of this is conjecture.
i agree with this but am a little miffed as to why paul is running in the republic debates at the iowa caucus and if he got in on the rep ticket any attempt at change would be futile,increasingly more of the same will always be as long as the dem/rep are in DC
sheep don't bite,or bark even,if they did,lieberman and all the other nancies in DC would never sign these bills
I'd prefer if you post the (essential) links so we're on the same page. I've already heard most of what you're saying which is one of the reasons I decided to read the actual legislation that passed and the AUMF in the first place. What I haven't done is put it in the context of key parts of the debates. This isn't about who's right or wrong on ET, this is about our country, so if I'm wrong on this I really want to know. The Padilla case is complex with lots of moving parts but one aspect of it I totally disagree with is detaining ANY citizen without formal criminal charges and due process... although I don't have a problem with killing a "citizen" like al-Awlaki on what for all intents and purposes is the battlefield.
OK I've found and watched Rand Paul and McCain, Rand Paul and Judge Napolitano, Carl Levin, etc. But I think you're lacking perspective so let me give you mine. First I want to make it clear I'm not defending the NDAA and think everyone in Congress should have voted against it until it contained airtight exemptions for citizens and affirmations of their right to due process. What I am saying is I think it's yet more shitty legislation from a Congress we should replace at the ballot box, not a conspiracy, and it will put us nowhere near the assured "descent into totalitarianism" Ron Paul claims. So I don't think the sky is falling but do encourage your and others' objections under the First Amendment which is one of the many "puts" the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution to hedge against that ("descent into totalitarianism"). Are you aware of the Suspension Clause (of the Constitution)? It doesn't even require that the rebellion be armed or in time of war, nor does it say who can or can't suspend Habeas Corpus. I wonder what Ron Paul would say if this wasn't in the Constitution and was proposed by legislation instead. Of course he can't rail against the Constitution because that would go against his shtick. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Ron Paul has a long history of hyperbole to exploit people's fears and his claim that the NDAA assures our "descent into totalitarianism" ignores that the Constitution is far more stable and powerful than he's giving it credit for, as attested to by the fact that we've been tipped much further over in the past because of over-reach but have righted ourselves. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment More recently, here are a few more reasons why I don't think the president has the authority to lock up citizens and throw away the key without due process: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld#The_Court.27s_opinions Boumediene v. Bush (2008) On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right...the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to the Guantanamo detainees as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush I could go on but as I said, I think you and others speaking out is a good thing as long as it's not so extreme you look like kooks. My way of objecting is by actually contacting my senators and representative and the White House. And by voting. ET is more for fun when the markets aren't doing much (for me anyway).