MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - The National Defense Authorization Act signed by Obama
View Single Post
post #3 of (permalink) Old 01-04-2012, 02:30 AM Thread Starter
M.C's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,617
Originally Posted by oldfan View Post
It is pathetic what lazy lemmings some people are. the country waits for fox news to tell them what to think, now arrianna huffington is telling the rest.

what exactly are you so upset about? what does the law say that affects you? How does it affect you? You don’t know. All you know is the huffington post said cry about the bad people.

I actually read the sections of the law that have your panties wadded up. I can’t find anything to cry about. It simply affirms some conditions of the patriot act that have been in effect for a decade. originally part of Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) that’s right you should have wadded up and started crying a decade ago. except if you actually read that one too you probably would only be afraid if you are an actual member of Al-queda. And then after it needlessly re-afirms what we’ve been living with for a decade it states this. I never argued against it or even mentioned it.

and then Mr. Obama attached this message to further confirm that nothing has changed.

Exactly what part of the law (hint theres more than what I pasted) has you upset and how do you think it should be changed?

or are we waiting for huffington to tell us?
Two things.

First - this quote:

my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.
His Administration, not others. The right to detain is still there, he's the one that wanted it in.

Obama is a politician, he lies, he words his sentences in a way that try to cause as little damage as possible. Not only can citizen's be detained in such a way, but it was him and his team that wanted the ability to detain U.S citizen's in the bill in the first place. The first proposed form had no such captive abilities, Administration wanted it changed:

It is not illegal to lie in a "signing speech" or whatever it's called, once a bill has been signed. You are not forced to explain what is in the bill, or what isn't. I wouldn't trust Obama on anything, much less this, and his speech means nothing - you can pick many holes in it.

Second - You are right that a less "strict" version of this bill has been around since after 9/11, or more strict depending on how you see it. No one is saying, well that's not true, many are saying but they aren't really correct, that this is a brand new thing and that it's the end of America as we know it. That bill also allows U.S citizen's to be detained, so the concept is nothing new.
M.C is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome