Posted by Kromey at 1:20pm Jan 6 '12This bill doesn't let him do that; it reaffirmed 2001 legislation granting that power--a power which was used by Bush in the indefinite, lawyerless detention of American citizen Jose Padilla.
False. Well, misleading.
The new NDAA augments this power by allowing the military to indefinitely detain US citizens on US soil. Previously this could only be done in recognized combat zones; now, however...
Perhaps he said that. However there is a well-recognized moral dilemma with such a position. Call it the "bystanders to genocide" problem: do we refuse to intervene when a mass slaughter is eminent? It's particularly hard to stomach this argument from Republicans (not you, but Republicans) who under Bush could not get three sentences out on Hussein without uttering the phrase "he killed his own people!" In 2011 the world found itself facing a situation in which Gaddafi was about to go Saddam Hussein on his own people, and had to decide whether to respond, or to say, "it's not in our national interest."
A) Framing this as a genocide argument is blatantly misleading. Gaddafi's government forces were being attacked by armed rebels.
B) The airstrikes were not aimed at stopping or preventing genocide, but at crippling the current government's ability to defend itself against a rebellion. In other words, it was a deliberate and transparent effort to effect regime change without stating that as the goal.
C) It also completely fails to address the fact that Obama violated Constitutional and federal law in doing so without even trying to ask Congress for approval, and his bullshit "We're not engaged in 'hostilities' because they can't shoot back" just doesn't stand at all.
The DOJ has a responsibility to defend official government actions and positions. If you recall, the Obama administration raised quite a stir when it announced it wouldn't defend in court part of the DOMA. Failing to defend the government's side in court, regardless of whether the president agrees or disagrees, is a highly unusual move.
Obama clearly has no qualms about using the DoJ (or rather, not using them) to not defend policies he doesn't agree with. And yet here he is using them to defend wiretaps. And not only that, but Mr. Transparent Government's DoJ defied judicial orders during that case to turn over evidence, yet again continuing the legacy of his predecessor.
At best it's hypocritically inconsistent.
False. Well, misleading.
The new NDAA augments this power by allowing the military to indefinitely detain US citizens on US soil. Previously this could only be done in recognized combat zones; now, however...
Perhaps he said that. However there is a well-recognized moral dilemma with such a position. Call it the "bystanders to genocide" problem: do we refuse to intervene when a mass slaughter is eminent? It's particularly hard to stomach this argument from Republicans (not you, but Republicans) who under Bush could not get three sentences out on Hussein without uttering the phrase "he killed his own people!" In 2011 the world found itself facing a situation in which Gaddafi was about to go Saddam Hussein on his own people, and had to decide whether to respond, or to say, "it's not in our national interest."
A) Framing this as a genocide argument is blatantly misleading. Gaddafi's government forces were being attacked by armed rebels.
B) The airstrikes were not aimed at stopping or preventing genocide, but at crippling the current government's ability to defend itself against a rebellion. In other words, it was a deliberate and transparent effort to effect regime change without stating that as the goal.
C) It also completely fails to address the fact that Obama violated Constitutional and federal law in doing so without even trying to ask Congress for approval, and his bullshit "We're not engaged in 'hostilities' because they can't shoot back" just doesn't stand at all.
The DOJ has a responsibility to defend official government actions and positions. If you recall, the Obama administration raised quite a stir when it announced it wouldn't defend in court part of the DOMA. Failing to defend the government's side in court, regardless of whether the president agrees or disagrees, is a highly unusual move.
Obama clearly has no qualms about using the DoJ (or rather, not using them) to not defend policies he doesn't agree with. And yet here he is using them to defend wiretaps. And not only that, but Mr. Transparent Government's DoJ defied judicial orders during that case to turn over evidence, yet again continuing the legacy of his predecessor.
At best it's hypocritically inconsistent.
Re: Love freedom and democracy? Vote out Obama - Kromey