Impeach President Obama

[Dioana]

We Disapprove

But in all seriousness even if you want him out we have like, what not much longer to see if he stays in office or not.

[United Dependencies]

And, you have no idea that Obama cant have anyone locked up indefinitely.

no

Don't believe the hype! Especially hysterical analyses that (a) don't consider amendments that were made to the bill (so are outdated), (b) aren't from qualified sources, and/or (c) are just plain wrong.

I am not supportive of this law, but I don't think lying about it or spreading misinformation and/or hysteria is warranted.

1. The NDAA couldn't override the Constitution, even if it tried.

2. The NDAA merely reflects EXISTING LAW and does not do what critics allege! Here is the relevant language:

[United Dependencies]

We Disapprove

But in all seriousness even if you want him out we have like, what not much longer to see if he stays in office or not.

cut the spam please.

[Wikkiwallana]

For those who don't believe me when I said this "President Obama has even admitted that what he did by not enforcing immigration laws is unconstitutional and that he is not given the power to choose which laws are worthy of enforcement. In a Univision Town Hall interview in March 2011 he said and I quote "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed, and I know that everybody at here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we got three branches of government: Congress passes the law, the Executive Branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws, and then the Judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books, by Congress, that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me to simply through executive order to ignore those congressional mandates, would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

Here is the link to video of him saying that, through executive order, not enforcing U.S. immigration laws would "not conform with my appropriate role as President." A little than a year later he did exactly what he said he was not given the ability to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw

And here's where I posted a link that points out that said video had the ending, which puts everything in a very different context, cut out by people pushing a Republican agenda:
viewtopic.php?p=9828446#p9828446

[Wikkiwallana]

And, you have no idea that Obama cant have anyone locked up indefinitely.


...for kind donation of $20.

Yes, I realize it was blocked last month, but not by the Supreme Court. Although it's chilling that Obama signed it in the first place.

It had a massive veto proof majority. Him not signing it would have been a waste of political capital.

[Der Landstreicher]

That's quite recent so I'd cut him a break.

Whether one is able to be locked up indefinitely without trial leads to the larger problem that it seems that it's legal for the president to order the killing of US citizens without trial.

I want source for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[Great Nepal]

And, you have no idea that Obama cant have anyone locked up indefinitely.

no

Don't believe the hype! Especially hysterical analyses that (a) don't consider amendments that were made to the bill (so are outdated), (b) aren't from qualified sources, and/or (c) are just plain wrong.

I am not supportive of this law, but I don't think lying about it or spreading misinformation and/or hysteria is warranted.

1. The NDAA couldn't override the Constitution, even if it tried.

2. The NDAA merely reflects EXISTING LAW and does not do what critics allege! Here is the relevant language:

You do know that, I said "cant"...

[Jefferson and Paul]

Yes, I realize it was blocked last month, but not by the Supreme Court.

Highest court to rule so far has ruled that it is unconstitutional.
No one took matter up to supreme court, because it was pointless.

Although it's chilling that Obama signed it in the first place.

And?
He cant put judges in jail for ruling against him: so if you think constitutional rights are being infringed - USA has supreme court.

"That law must be ok because nobody took it to the Supreme Court yet"
Sure. First, someone has to be detained under this law. Then they can bring it up before the Supreme Court.
Many establishment Democrats oppose the NDAA, but they love the person who signed it. This is a great example of why sheepish followers are dangerous.

[United Dependencies]

It had a massive veto proof majority. Him not signing it would have been a waste of political capital.

It was also a 900 page omnibus bill with all the fixings that basically funded the entire DoD. The relevant pages were just rehashes of the AUMF passed under Bush.

more proof that the news media cares more about making a splash than getting the actual news, frankly.

[Great Nepal]

I want source for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

He was senior member of al-Qaeda.

[United Dependencies]

You do know that, I said "cant"...

No I didn't.

Looks I should learn reading comprehension.

[Der Landstreicher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

He was senior member of al-Qaeda.

And an American citizen.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

He was senior member of al-Qaeda.

If this was a Republican administration, Awlaki's death wouldn't be a political issue. At all. It took the Democrats being in office for the Republicans to suddenly start caring about the rights of terrorists.

[Great Nepal]

"That law must be ok because nobody took it to the Supreme Court yet"
Sure. First, someone has to be detained under this law. Then they can bring it up before the Supreme Court.
Many establishment Democrats oppose the NDAA, but they love the person who signed it. This is a great example of why sheepish followers are dangerous.

Cut the stawman.
I said since highest court to rule has said it is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional: taking it to supreme court is pointless.

[United Dependencies]

He was senior member of al-Qaeda.

And an American citizen.

An American citizen levying war against the US.

[Der Landstreicher]

He was senior member of al-Qaeda.

If this was a Republican administration, Awlaki's death wouldn't be a political issue. At all. It took the Democrats being in office for the Republicans to suddenly start caring about the rights of terrorists.

Who says I'm a Republican? Besides the fact there were more than Republicans complaining. (Though to be fair I never heard any Republicans complain)

[Jefferson and Paul]

And an American citizen.

An American citizen levying war against the US.

And? Did Lincoln assassinate the Confederate Generals and Jefferson Davis? No, he granted them amnesty.

[Great Nepal]

You do know that, I said "cant"...

No I didn't.
Looks I should learn reading comprehension.

NP.

He was senior member of al-Qaeda.

And an American citizen.

May be US should start revoking citizenship of terrorists... would that make you happy?
Seriously, he was a terrorist; and got what was coming to him from time he took that path.

[Der Landstreicher]

And an American citizen.

An American citizen levying war against the US.

He broke the law, and according to the 5th Amendment he had the "right" to due process.

[Great Nepal]

An American citizen levying war against the US.

He broke the law, and according to the 5th Amendment he had the "right" to due process.

If he surrendered to law enforcement, he would have been.
He died because arrest was not possible.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

An American citizen levying war against the US.

And? Did Lincoln assassinate the Confederate Generals and Jefferson Davis? No, he granted them amnesty.

But it was OK for those generals to be killed in combat, correct? When Albert Sidney Johnston was killed at Shiloh, was there a chorus of people saying he should've been arrested? No. arrest was not possible, just like with Awlaki.

[Der Landstreicher]

And an American citizen.

May be US should start revoking citizenship of terrorists... would that make you happy?
Seriously, he was a terrorist; and got what was coming to him from time he took that path.

When was he convicted of being a terrorist? There was no trial.
What ever happened to the whole "innocent until proven guilty"? That's the foundation of Anglo-American law and it's just tossed out the window.

[Medok]

Treason /=/ Losing Constitutional Rights.

[Necronikon]

Well regardless of what anyone here thinks, a bill was introduced into the House looking to impeach Nobama, co-sponsored by the great Ron Paul. I for one hope it passes(and really really hope Mitt Romney doesn't win by default). Nonetheless it shall be an interesting year.
Ron Paul 2012

[Der Landstreicher]

He broke the law, and according to the 5th Amendment he had the "right" to due process.

If he surrendered to law enforcement, he would have been.
He died because arrest was not possible.

Who decided this?
If it's certainly viable for the Bush administration to kidnap people and send them to torture camps I don't see it much different than rounding someone up and bringing them to court.