Skip to comments.Senator Marco Rubio Defends NDAA
Posted on 01/03/2012 10:23:53 AM PST by emax
click here to read article
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.
First off, the NDAA law has been passed every year for 48 years and so passing the NDAA law in the first place was clearly not new. And, again, those provisions were not supported and pushed only by Obama-they were supported by the majority of liberal and conservative elements of Congress. I know that Obama requested that a provision specifically exempting American citizens from detention be removed, but 1. Congress also voted against that sort fo Ammendment and again, Obama was not the only one who wanted it removed 2. There are legal complications that could have prevented such a clause from showing up on the bill-what if one Section was stated to not apply to US citizens, and by default all other sections were implied as pertaining to US citizens.
I am not a fan of all parts of this bill, but Obama is not the only one who wanted it. I dont beleive every word that comes out of Obama;s mouth as gospel-that’s why I started by posting a statement of support from a Conservaitve Senator and not Obama. And do I trust him to abide by his singing statement ? Not necessarily-but it shows that even he knows that the people and US military will hold him accountable if he does what posters here often say he will do. And of course, that is another subject for discusion entirely-the assumption that the US military would be just fine with detaining Americans at random and that Obama can now brainwash/control them to do whatever he wishes. Obama’s statement is not something he can quote him on-I know this-but it might suggest that he also knows the military cant be controlled by him against their will to do whatever he wants.
LMAO!!! How do you find this stuff? Someone seriously took the time to upload a 10 hour video of that stupid cat? I think water boarding would be a cake walk compared to 10 hours of watching that. I could only take 60 seconds before thoughts of suicide creeped into my mind./s
That kind of rhetoric is is a form of smear tactic, entirely inappropriate, and tends to divide conservatives entirely unnecessarily.
Before you try to puut all of this argument into partisan rants, try to consider the conswquences of what you havee to say upon our prisoners of war and their fate at the hands of America’s enemies.
And also note, he would not be able to veto sections 1031 and 1032-which Congress passed and sent to him-without killing the entire NDAA bill. And that would have shut millions of people, including our troops, out of work for at laast several months and cause other kinds of chaos too.
LMAO! I needed a few laughs today. Here’s one for you, don’t watch if you’re eating.
sorry to learn of your warpped perspective.....
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.
Well in theory a law is not needed, but like I said before, the NDAA gets passed every year even though it often rehashes what was already said previous years and so shouldnt be necessary. Every year the NDAA often only reaffirms existing laws regarding national security. If this law only reiterates previous laws with regards to US citizens and legal aliens, then why is it needed ? i cant claim to know for sure, but Congress and state govts pass laws that only reaffirm previous laws all the time. So the point about how the military wouldnt be patrolling the streets due to NDAA 2012 still stands, unless it can be concretely disproven.
“And also note, he would not be able to veto sections 1031 and 1032-which Congress passed and sent to him-without killing the entire NDAA bill.”
Not to comment on the merits of the bill, but this kind of reasoning is silly. Just because some politician finagles a clause into an essential bill doesn’t mean we should just pass it. If someone poisons the well, you don’t keep drinking out of it, you dig a new well.
I suppose in theory he could, but I am not sure the NDAA is analogous to drinking from a well. There would be all sorts of ramifications if he vetoed it, and so that he signed it does not mean the responsibility for its passage, with the new sections, is entirely attributable to him.
I have been all for Senator Rubio but I strongly believe he and a lot of others are dead WRONG about NDAA.
Should I consider my self ... undeceived now.. Sorry Liberty is liberty and stalinism is stalinism.... I really don’t give a shit who does it and what candy comes with the poison.
“sorry to learn of your warpped perspective”
Good God man when did liberty over security become a warped perspective....
When you interpret the subject legislation as meeting that definition, that interpretation is warped.
ok....let’s get to the nut...
Exactly WHAT LIBERTY are YOU “giving up”, with this legislation???