Posted on 01/04/2012 4:29:55 PM PST by wagglebee
I see your point but that headline writes a check that the article simply does not cash. Lying is a sin, no matter the reason.
Well I can understand why you feel that way, but I just wish there was some consistency with those who protested so violently and are so up in arms over this. I wonder how many of them actually felt the same way when Bush was trying to detain suspects in a markedly similar manner. In fact, for all of the problems surrounding Obama on domestic and foreign policies, his interpretation of who can be detained and arrested under AUMF, which this bill was meant to reaffirm, has essentially been the same as that of Bush. And so this law is basically saying Congress agrees with Ex President Bush. That’s it. That’s the whole purpose of it.
And I do not claim that is not an important and serious issue, something I tried to reiterate in previous debates on this. Shifting the balance of power on something this controversial is a potential big problem. But what we need is a true understanding of current law, interpretation of current law, reevaluation of interpretations and pressure on govt to reevaluate it as well. Insisting that Obama designed this as a sort of grand scheme to expand his power to lock up pro life protesters does not help. Oh yes, and let’s not forget that the provisions were initially created by members of Congress and passed Congress with enough of a majority that a pocket veto was Obama’s only option. And that vetoing this bill, which has the military budget contained in it, would have left our military and other employees without pay for at least several months, making it even less of an option.
No different than bombing Catholic churches in Nigeria, IMO.
No wonder the kids in school cannot read-—apparently neither can the Senate.
I am ashamed there are two names from Wyoming on this list, vote against every single one!
I am not reading your posts as dismissing this, nor do I read this stupid, immoral law as an Obama power grab. Rather, I see this as a symptom of the big government inside the Beltway perspective that expanding government is always the answer regardless of the question. Except in cases of invasion or insurrection, as specified in the Constitution, our Congress should not attempt to work around habeus corpus. There simply is no time when an American citizen should be detained indefinitely without charge and without trial as permitted by the letter of this law. If a trial is awkward, that's unfortunate, but that is the only means that should permit our government to hold even a terrorist captured on the battlefield if that terrorist is a citizen. The rules for non-citizens can be different, but allowing indefinite detention of Americans crosses a line that should never be crossed.
I do understand that perfectly that point of view. But it does require American people as a whole to understand this history of law and the interpretation of the Constitution and what that document allows and demanding our Congress and SCOTUS reevaluate it as well. Because Presidents have claimed that there are exceptions for detaining Americans without trial, possibly indefinitely, since the Civil War.
Given the exact words in Constitution: 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, indefinite detention without trial was at least plausibly constitutional during the Civil War. What we are facing today is neither an insurrection nor what the Founding Fathers meant by an "invasion". Too much dependence on evolving rulings and precedents can lead to an interpretation that is clearly contradictory to the actual words of the Constitution. I prefer to defer to the specific words, with any reference to history merely a guide to how those words have been understood. I have no problem at all with holding trials for treason and executing every evil slime who takes up arms to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but if they are citizens then their right to a trial is not subject to congressional infringement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.