jonathan-cunningham:

The Obama Administration asked the Armed Services Committee to ensure that the National Defense Authorization Act would allow for the indefinite detention of US citizens, then when national outrage arose he promised to veto the bill because of the very section he requested, according to Senator Carl Levin.

I’m not sure this commentary is entirely accurate. Yes, Obama promised to veto the bill in response to the very same section that contains a provision that he promoted. But that isn’t because of the outrage that has resulted from Section 1032’s obvious affront to American citizens’ Constitutional rights; the Obama administration instead protests the fact that it would restrict its powers too much. In other words, if the section were to be revised in looser terms but still containing the part that allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial, it seems that the administration would have no issue with its passing, despite all this national outrage.

Posted on December 9th at 10:55 AM
Reblogged from: bethefoodoflove-deactivated2012
Originally posted by: jonathan-cunningham

1. together12up liked this
2. peterpangal365 reblogged this from geekvariety
3. artisticmadness reblogged this from madriche
4. stfueveryone reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham
5. pseudocolin liked this
6. infinitelyawkwords reblogged this from whitedenial-ontrial
7. geekvariety liked this
8. geekvariety reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham
9. justifiablyjames reblogged this from geekvariety
10. randomactsofchaos liked this
11. btgphoto reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham and added:

    keep my politics off of this blog, but i think this is important for everyone to know. if you have not been paying...

12. mindbabies liked this
13. out-kasted reblogged this from madriche and added:

    And as a former Constitutional Law Professor he knows better.

14. ilyasafrika reblogged this from madriche
15. transversegirl liked this
16. infohedon reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham and added:

    I’m not so sure of that reading (note that I’m not voting for Obama either). The language in the press release looks to...

17. madriche reblogged this from sinidentidades
18. miscella reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham and added:

    In good conscience? No. But I probably will vote for him anyway. There’s no way a third party will be elected and I...

19. mgolladwyne reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham
20. swagonthedeep liked this
21. sinidentidades reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham and added:

    I keep having to mention that too, and everyone is always screaming, “But whyyyyyy?” Why? Really? Democrats and...

22. sinidentidades liked this
23. jonathan-cunningham reblogged this from rcabbasi and added:

    Thank you for the (depressing, sad, terrible) correction. I just don’t understand how anyone can vote for Obama in good...

24. jonathan-cunningham liked this
25. howlingdark liked this
26. sunsmudge liked this
27. thenewephemera liked this
28. prdjournal reblogged this from theworldisconfused and added:

    This is just the blame game, blame the President for specified language in a bill, but Congress agreed to do it and then...

29. collective-conscious reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham
30. shorterexcerpts liked this
31. blissandzen liked this
32. darkthoughtsdarkdeeds reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham and added:

    people we elect?

33. im-out-here liked this
34. canyon-inn liked this
35. trans-terrific reblogged this from jonathan-cunningham
36. hungryghoast liked this
37. jonathan-cunningham posted this