So, if I'm not "required" to detain somebody under military custody, that is synonymous with saying I don't have the authority to detain someone under military custody?
Maybe I'm reading this wrong? Vagueness is the enemy of legality.
So, if I'm not "required" to detain somebody under military custody, that is synonymous with saying I don't have the authority to detain someone under military custody?
Maybe I'm reading this wrong? Vagueness is the enemy of legality.
You can read it however you wish! That's the beauty of vagueness in law!Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
Hmm you're right. I totally missed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
But then there's this: ".LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States." So they're saying detaining a lawful resident alien in military custody needs explicit permission. So if this needs permission, it would not make sense that detaining American Citizens would be allowed, even without permission. Right?
I think the fact that we can even HAVE a discussion about how this law can be interpreted is a very, very bad sign for future administrations who may be even less forgiving than this current administration (who decided that Gitmo should remain in place to detain "terrorist suspects.")
The Obama administration isn't likely to detain American citizens, but if it were straight-forward enough to outright guarantee that American citizens would not under any circumstances be stripped of their 5th Amendment rights, we would be protected against a future administration from a more... fascist-leaning candidate.
Yes, true, very worrisome development, also if it is never going to be used to detain American citizens... And I fear for the future!
Well.... you guys better rally for Ron Paul.
Obama basically signed his own resignation with that bill, he will not win in November no matter who the GOP nominates. Shit I hope it's Ron Paul, if it's not, I'm not voting :(
I don't comprehend his thought process. Liberals push and push for obeying the constitution, it's why Bush and the GOP were tossed out by such a huge margin in 2008. Why is he alienating his base?
Please, if it's not Ron Paul, vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. 1,000 times better than a non-vote. He will likely be on the ballot in all 50 states; former 2-term governor, vetoed more bills than all other 49 governors combined, pro-pot, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-war. He climbed Mt. Everest with a broken leg and participated in Iron Man 4 times. (All of these facts are true.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
He's Ron Paul if Ron Paul were a superhero that also became governor of New Mexico.
And to anyone who is still holding the notion that "your party" is the lesser of two evils; please, reconsider and drop it. That is precisely the reason that the two-party system exists, because people think that one is less bad, so they MUST support it to oppose the "worse" party. Neither party represents the average American. Vote as an independent for independent candidates and third party candidates, or the candidates with which you MOST agree (regardless of party.)
I only vote independent in local elections because there the vote actually matters (I usually do vote third party.) A vote for a 3rd party for a national office is usually the same as not voting.
Looks like the ACLU is considering withdrawing it's campaign contributions to Obama over NDAA. They were one of his biggest supporters.
They just released their 2012 Presidential scorecard: Gary Johnson has the highest score. http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWC...ReportCard.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I don't enjoy voting third-party in a national election because I'd like to be able to support a candidate with a chance, but this year I'm afraid I won't have an option. And I can't NOT vote for this guy.
(It doesn't mean I'm not voting Paul; I am in the primaries. Unfortunately I don't see him winning the nomination over Romney.)
Me too. I do think though if he wins one of the early states, he will be pushed from a novelty candidate to a serious one. If he becomes a serious candidate, he will get the people like me that Obama has chosen to alienate: the occupy crowd, the civil rights crowd, which is a pretty large chunk of his base. Occupy Wall Street hates Obama, but most of them probably still voted for him because even with what he's done, he's better than McCain would have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
I noticed something very... interesting. After the 4 "big" states, Iowa, NH, SC, and Florida, there are 4 caucuses in a ROW, where Ron Paul performed very well despite being a lower-tier candidate last election. He came in 2nd and 3rd despite polling 4th/5th there. They come a bit before Super Tuesday (which contains 4 MORE caucus states), meaning Paul could nab up 4 of the 6 states between Florida and Super Tuesday, and at least 4 of 10 ON Super Tuesday. (Plus, only Romney and Paul made the Virginia Primary ballot; so everyone who dislikes Romney HAS to vote Paul, or not vote at all!)
Here's hoping... (This whole discussion could probably move elsewhere, but I don't have much more to say since Iowa is tomorrow night. If he wins, the internets will explode.)
...Yes it can. You think the government is even going to follow its own rules that it makes up? How wonderfully naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeps
If you don't vote, it's basically like not caring, since you're just a number in the percentage of non-voters, which is comprised largely of people who couldn't give a fuck or are just lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Whereas voting for someone that probably won't even win is actually saying something.
Usually the argument attributed to it is "non-voting" since you are not pleased with any of the candidates, but I agree for the most part. There is bound to be a candidate with which someone agrees over 50%. It's not a wasted vote at all. Believing that a 3rd party vote is not significant benefits no one but the two main parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
In the UK you can spoil your ballot paper to protest about the available candidates.
After average coverage (although far more than the other candidates), Ron Paul has made the BBC News front page today. Come on bro...
Ron Paul: I'm not following that well, but from what I see: Tea Party? You're all überconservatives? And he believes in no income tax, where the hell would he get his money, in this state of the economy? Pure free market (No system in the world anymore has a pure free market, capitalism in its purest form has only been applied in the third world because developed countries made them, and look what good that did...), Pro-life? (Oh yes and all the illegal abortions would be much better for mother and child..) more border police (more dead mexicans is a good thing?)....
I'm glad to see your Obama haze wearing off a little bit. But please reconsider not voting. A third party vote may seem pointless, but it sends a message. There will be a few people that read your ballot (at least in Canada they do), and they might be inspired to read up on the third party you voted for.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
No income tax = no more funding wars. That's the only thing your federal income tax money goes towards; the Drug War and foreign wars. He would get his money by cutting the useless shit that our government tries to do; funding nations like Pakistan and Israel, spending 5 trillion dollars on wars in the Middle East, and ending the War on Drugs (which is also how you eliminate most border violence since it's primarily caused by drug trafficking.) It's a long-term goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeps
He wants to return abortion to the States, not "end" it. Let the people choose rather than a high court.
He's actually voted against the Iraq War Resolution, the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, opposes SOPA, etc. etc.
And you're correct; there is no pure capitalism left. Our government bails out businesses that fail and pumped 29 TRILLION dollars (with a T) into big banks over the past 5 years. Before then, only 9 trillion USD EXISTED. Good plan right? The United States isn't capitalism, it's crony-capitalism/corporatism and government favoritism.
We're not uberconservatives, we're either libertarians, or refuse to buy any more of those lies that Obama told us; Ending wars, fixing education, closing Gitmo, protecting our rights, etc.
And then think of it THIS way: what can a President Paul actually accomplish? He can veto the PATRIOT Act extension, bring our troops home, pardon non-violent marijuana offenders, close Gitmo, and propose a budget, but that's about it. He can't "change" how abortion laws work, he can't "get rid" of the income tax, or completely eliminate the Federal Reserve.
So the things he CAN do, in my opinion, are why I would vote for him. (Plus I would never vote for the lies of another Obama administration or Romney, who just wants to get elected.)
But isn't there large support for the patriot act? Even if he'd veto it, it might still get a 2/3rd majority in congress and bam..You're stuck with the guy for another 4 years and he didn't get the thing done you voted him in office for. Seems like a risky gamble to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
And I'm a bit confused on his stance on free trade now.. So he says he's pro free trade, against tariffs... But wants to replace the income tax with tarifs and excise taxes and abandon WTO? I'm confused.
A low taxes discours always screams "populist!!" to me. I mean: who wouldn't like low taxes right? Seems like an easy way to get popular support. Too easy.
And wow he has a lot of extreme points doesn't he? drop out of UNSC? Very generous of him!
Particularly his stance on humanitarian Intervention bothers me, namely that he never approves it, do you really agree? He voted against intervention in Sudan.... Genocide country. I prefer it when politicians have a moral conscience!
It seems it's only you who is lacking morality. Why should some genocide on the other side of the world justify the US government coercing Americans into giving them money so they can give it to some Africans? If the cause is just, Americans will give to it willingly. If you have to force them, you can't say the cause is just, can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeps
This is a first.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
This is not exactly how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
How is prohibiting genocide from happening not a just cause?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I would have stolen all your money if it had prevented babies in the Rwandan genocide from getting raped and HELL YES I would call that just.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Edit: Sorry I usually refrain from using emotional arguments but I am getting upset.
Would you not have given all of your money and done everything you practically could to help the cause first, then?
O,yes I would prefer to give my money instead of stealing someone else s money to help the cause.
I was only speaking hypothetically, because I know just one person's income wouldn't help. I believe tax money going to humanitarian interventions is morally right, at least in my opinion.
What's the risk? Not a single other candidate would even consider dealing with the PATRIOT Act. Seems like nit-picking to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeps
And I don't think being "stuck" with someone who is anti-war, pro-pot, Anti-DOMA, pro-peace, anti-Fed will be all that bad for four years :)
EDIT: And I forgot, anti-torture, anti-Gitmo, anti-death penalty. He's a real stand-up guy (in that he stands up for his principles!)