Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Old 20th Sep 2012, 13:48
  #8241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,158
SAS,
Turb.....who is the liar......Senater Levin or BH Obama? Well at least in this matter anyway!
On November 17, 2011 the Senate debated the Udall amendment. The discussion start with Senator Udall introducing his amendment describing the problems he has with the section relating to detainee provisions. He notes that setting the default case to military custody could cause problems with a civilian agency such as the FBI make the initial arrest. He also states that there is concern that the provisions in the legislation could be applied to US citizens captured on US soil. He again offers his amendment as a method to allow the executive branch to develop a procedure for dealing with detainees that Congress could then approve. He also references the policy statement put out by the Obama administration that opposed the detainee matters language.
After these statements, Senators Durbin and Levin ask Senator Udall a number of questions. One question was asked by Senator Levin questioning Senator Udall's position that the Obama adminstration was opposed to the section because it may have put American citizens at risk. Senator Levin states that bill originally contained language to ensure that the new provisions would not apply to US citizens and the Obama administration asked that it be removed.

On November 17, 2011 the Obama administration released a policy statement noting that it opposed the detainee matters legislation in the NDAA and that if it was not changed, then the President would veto the legislation.
The reason that the administration objected to the legislation was that it was already established law that the President had the authority to detain those captured on the battlefield no matter what their citizenship status and that codifying that into law could lead to the Congress having the power to revoke that power. The administration also object to the provisions giving default authority of detainees to the military as this could lead to a lack of flexibility and a usurping of executive power granted the authorization for the use of force.

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
Senator Udall of Colorado attempted to pass amendment that would remove the entire section relating to detainee matters and replace it with language that would simply require the executive branch to come up with a procedure for handling detainees and then submit that procedure to Congress.
The Udall amendment was defeated easily on November 29, 2011.

Senator Feinstein of California proposed two amendments to the legislation which both had the purpose of insuring that US citizens captured on US soil would not fall under the provisions of the legisation. The first amendment simply added the word "abroad" to the end of a sentence to ensure that the legislation only applied to those captured abroad. The second simply stated that the provisions did not apply to US citizens captured on US soil.
Both amendments were defeated easily in votes on December 1, 2011.

The debates of November 29, 2011 started with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky discussing the possibiity of the detainee matters section. Senator Paul stated that traditionally when a US citizen is accused of acts of war against the US, they are prosecuted by federal law and, if applicable, treason. He notes that laws are already on the books to prosecute terrorists before they commit acts of terror.
Additionally, Senator Rand notes that the legislation claims to only apply to those accused of being allied with al-Qaeda, but being accused of such an action therefore removes the right to a trial to prove or disprove that you are indeed working with al-Qaeda.
Senator Udall then takes the floor and discusses the need to pass his amendment to ensure that the provisions do not create unintended problems and do not apply to US citizens.
In response to these statements by Sentor Paul and Senator Udall, Senator Lindsey Graham speaks on the floor. He asserts that a person who is suspected of being allied with al-Qaeda has not committed a crime, but has committed an act of war. He asserts that the provision does indeed apply to US citizens captured on US soil. He asserts that US citizens who have taken up arms against the US should not be given a lawyer or a trial.
In later discussions, Senator Levin and Senator Graham discuss the meaning of the text more. They flatly assert that the US has the authority to detain US citizens that that this legislation would extend the right of the President to the homeland.

On December 15, 2011 Senator Coons began debate on the NDAA by stating that the provisions relating to detainees troubled him greatly. He stated that he believed the text opened the door for detention of US citizens. Senator Durbin then discusses his support for the inclusion of the Feinstein amendments into the legislation.
After other objections are made by Senator Feinstein, Senator Graham again takes to the floor to argue in favor of the legislation. Senator Graham then argues that the President can target US citizens overseas for assassination, so it is not understandable why US citizens in the homeland cannot be detained indefinitely.

This is all I can tell you, you can decide for yourself as to who is telling the truth. BTW, these debates between Congress and the President occur in every administration, turf wars... I believe (not positively sure) the original detainee legislation was part of the Patriot Act after 9/11...

TD
Turbine D is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 13:55
  #8242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: cowtown
Posts: 85
Should traitors go head first or feet first into the woodchipper ?
fitliker is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 13:57
  #8243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
fitliker:

Traitors should not be put through a wood chipper.

They should be lined up against a wall and summarily shot. Without a blindfold either.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 14:01
  #8244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,158
con-pilot,
As for your 'cut and paste', the facts are as to what Obama wishes them to be.
If you don't like my cut and paste, feel free to read the entire bill yourself, uncut and unpasted... As for the rest, I just presented some of the key history as it passed through the Senate...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

TD
Turbine D is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 14:40
  #8245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
TD

This is all I can tell you, you can decide for yourself as to who is telling the truth. BTW, these debates between Congress and the President occur in every administration, turf wars... I believe (not positively sure) the original detainee legislation was part of the Patriot Act after 9/11...

Federal Jurisdiction. Federal resources, Detention. Amendment Two. Imprisonment in situ. FireArm "enforcement". Collateral assistance to the detriment of a Citizen. Use of Federal Assets ex juris.

Waco....
Lyman is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 14:48
  #8246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
They are traitors. Nothing more and nothing less. And we all should know what happens to traitors during time of conflict.

The Treason law states "Levying War against the United States".....and I do believe the traditional definition of "War" would prevail in a Court.....not the current situation especially as the Obama Administration has banned the use of the term "War On Terror" and replaced it with "Overseas Contingency Operation".

US Constitution Article 3, Section 3 states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Last edited by SASless; 20th Sep 2012 at 14:54.
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 14:57
  #8247 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Semantics drives a lot of politics these days.

The one thing I liked about the Roberts Obamacare ruling was the logic he applied to the decision. To paraphrase: You can call it whatever you want, but it's a tax. Congress has the power to tax.

War is war, whether you declare it in congress, call it man-made disaster, or Alahu Akbar. Anyone who doesn't think we're in one hasn't been paying attention, or has been paying attention to fools.

We're in the Clash of Civilizations Huntington wrote about a decade ago and the pieces on the chessboard are slowly aligning for the ultimate denoument. I just hope I live long enough to see it end and have a chance to fire a few rounds.
BenThere is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:09
  #8248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
We use the word "War" to mean many things....most of which are not "WAR" as it is traditionally meant to be.

We have had a War on Drugs for decades....yet we still have drugs in our society.

We have had a War on Poverty since the 1960's and we have more "Poor" than we did when that particular war started.

We had a War in Korea....but no declaration of War and not national mobilization.

We had a War in Vietnam...but never mobilized the country or declared War.

We have been told we have a War on Women.....but who would know?

We have a War of Words here daily....but to what end?

We have had Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but again never declared War and certainly never mobilized the country for those "Wars".


War has but one true meaning.....where on Nation or groups of Nations commit their total resources, manpower, and treasure to the utter defeat of a declared Enemy State or States. Only if we would do that.....this latest bit of unpleasantness could be resolved with finality.

But then we see what happens when you advocate those kinds of response to attacks on this country and our people.....LTC Dooley for example....yet another victim to Political Correctness.
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:23
  #8249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Ben

You avail yourself of the same semantics. Clash of Civilisations. What the observer sees is the landscape of his ability to perceive.

Religious War? Resources War? What I see are two realities. The attempt to merge protection of our Homeland with unrest in the Middle East is not a given, not to me.

Khumu was in custody, he was released into Libya and the jurisdiction of Ghadaffi. By GWBush.

He did not fly to Miami, or Philadelphia, to stir up some shit. He settled in his homeland, and politically established his power under then alive OBL.

He schemed and connived, and lit up Eastern "Libya" by murdering Ambassador Stevens and three Americans. I am on board with finding this scum and throwing him balls first into the woodchipper.

Muslim operatives are in our land. They take several iterations. Most are religious, and seek to aggressively "convert" our Country. I give them no chance, they will never succeed.

The implications of Federal incursion into my neighborhood trouble me, and linkage by them to some perceived threat from the ME would be one thing to look for.

The Fed have shown historically they pit their power and perceived primacy over the Citizen with careless abandon.

In the scheme of things, i fear a 'coup de fear' far more than i fear muslim violence in this country.

Thus far, we must travel thousands of miles to engage the perpetrators of this "Clash". I am weary of those who constantly try to extrapolate my intense sense of community and patriotism with a willingness to engage rabies afflicted scum on their own far away turf.

I counsel patience... Let the news cycle embarrass itself for now, and focus on preparation?
Lyman is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:26
  #8250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
So when Osama bin Liner (deceased) declared war on the United States back in 1998, by not reciprocating it becomes one-sided?

It's also evident that we have not thrown everything we can at our adversaries. Because if we did the problem would no longer exist.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:31
  #8251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Bin Liner was not a "State" and thus could not declare "War".

You are very right....we have not waged "War" yet.....and that is what defeats us. Half measures shall never defeat those that seek to destroy us.
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:38
  #8252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
bin Liner was the de facto "head" of AQ. Yes, AQ is not a state in the true sense of the word but an active entity regardless. When he declared war on the US back then we should have taken him up on his offer.

Half measures are what cost us, dearly, in Vietnam, no?

And they continue to cost us in many ways. I guess we don't have the political wit to do so any other way.

Which is one reason why I think John McCain would have been a good president: no half measures there. And I would have voted for him had it not been for that half-wit of a VP he chose. Even he acknowledges now that it was a bad idea.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:38
  #8253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
rg

What to say... You are a veteran and surely have some sense of the power of our military, and the vast landscape of weapons and resources we have.

I think you don't....

SASless has defined War. I agree with his patient definition. You disrespect your own service by casually discussing America's power as if it indeed is some force of diplomacy, or somehow on a level with pissant guerrillas.

When I was a child, my father introduced his boss to me. Ed Teller is a maniac. Anyone who tries to equate our true power with politics is every bit as scary as Dr. Teller.

The corruption of the understanding of our power is the accomplishment of a weak and greedy group of politicians.
Lyman is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:39
  #8254 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
But you liked the full-witted Joe Biden. I see.
BenThere is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:45
  #8255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
Who the f**k said I liked Joe Biden? He's a buffoon and nothing else.

Lyman:

When the three aircraft were hijacked on 11 Sep 2001 and used as missiles against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and what would have been the Capitol, I would say that constitutes an act of war, no? Because if that wasn't an act of war, then what the hell is? Just because our politicos don't have the balls to stand up to these scum, call them out for what they are, and declare war on the stateless entity, then perhaps they should look for jobs elsewhere.

As much as I disliked George W Bush for my own reasons, he was correct in calling it a 'War on Terror'. But even that was a bit politically correct. It should be called a World War on Islamic Extremism.

As far as BHO calling it 'overseas contingency operations' I say: f**k you BHO.

Last edited by rgbrock1; 20th Sep 2012 at 15:46.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:46
  #8256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Think you know Obama?

Try this bit of information......and if you are an Obama supporter....after reading this please do explain to me how it fits in your image of the guy as you know it now!

Introduction: The Obama you don't know | WashingtonExaminer.com
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:49
  #8257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
rg

The problem with guerrillas is they use their head, and War prohibits logic, save for Logistics and projection.

War is dumb, Terror is smart. You do the math.
Lyman is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:55
  #8258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
RGB has admitted publlically he made a mistake in '08 by voting for Obama.

He should be applauded for having the courage to admit that.

If he had applied the exact same standard to Obama as he had to Palin....I wonder if he would have voted at all using his logic as to where to place his vote.

My older sister voted for Obama because of Palin....said she had no foreign policy experience.

When I asked her to use the same standard for Obama....and actually articulate the Foreign Policy experience he had......Sis turned into a Guppy....mouth open and closing and no words coming forth.

The sad thing is most Obama voters still cannot and will not use logic, reason, or just plain commonsense when voting for Obama. It is all emotion, bullshit and feathers rather than clear concise definable reasons.

Ask them about his accomplishments....and they go quiet. Ask them about the Debt, deficit spending, unemployment Jobs....they go quiet.

They are Kool Aid drinkers, have an undying hate of Bush, and still think Gore won the election despite the facts.
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 15:59
  #8259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Absolutely true....

"Ask them about his accomplishments....and they go quiet. Ask them about the Debt, deficit spending, unemployment Jobs....they go quiet."

The Problem?

Ask them about __________'s accomplishments....and they go quiet. Ask them about the Debt, deficit spending, unemployment Jobs....they go quiet.

fill in the 'blank'


Taken to the predictable end of the ideology, No freedoms for most of the people, resources and power in the hands of the very few....

Communism? Fascism? There is a difference? The purpose of politics is to hypnotize otherwise intelligent citizens into believing politics has a purpose other than politics, eg hypnotism.

Obama and GW Bush answer to the very same suits. The usefulness of the FED is outlined in the Constitution. Almost none of what they do obeys the intent of this document, written by those whose fear of central and social government was extreme....

Last edited by Lyman; 20th Sep 2012 at 16:05.
Lyman is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 18:20
  #8260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,158
The problem with guerrillas is they use their head, and War prohibits logic, save for Logistics and projection.
They don't use their heads, they use their feet, walk to your front door, ring the door bell and when you answer, blow themselves up...

War is war, whether you declare it in congress, call it man-made disaster, or Alahu Akbar. Anyone who doesn't think we're in one hasn't been paying attention, or has been paying attention to fools.
A few here just don't get that point at all, although you make it very clear.

In the scheme of things, i fear a 'coup de fear' far more than i fear muslim violence in this country.
Tell that to the 9/11 families that lost loved ones in NY, PA & Washington DC. I think you will find your sentence to be a** backwards...

TD
Turbine D is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.