Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 1, 2012

Click here to view bill details.

Just more political theater from the six conservative sponsors of this right-wing piece of legislation.  To equate the Bush administrations outright assault on our personal freedoms with President Obama's actions vis-a-vis the signing of the NDAA is outrageous.  President Obama stated that although he wanted the Republican provisions of the NDAA dealing with the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens removed (he even threatened to veto the bill at one time if the provisions were not removed), he would reluctantly sign the NDAA but would not exercise the powers in the manner authorized.

Now our conservative friends in the Washington state legislature are trying yet again to rewrite history and try to paint President Obama in the same light as his freedom bashing predecessor.  It simply will not work. 

 Finally Reps from WA state standing up to Obama's obamanation.  Makes me proud.

An article containing the NDAA:  http://www.infowars.com/yes-americans-will-be-targeted-as-terrorists-under-the-ndaa/

I am glad this legislation is proposed, however shouldn't the budget be addressed before everything else?

Really? You believe any of the crap that comes out of Obama's mouth. Democrat or Republican is not the issue here. The fact that our liberties are being taken away a little bit at a time is what is so appalling. You are right, the Patriot Act was a horrible piece of legislation, but just because Bush does it, doesn't mean we should let it perpetuate to this. Stand up for your rights, and quit being a sheep.

 Yeah, I really do believe what is coming out of President Obama's mouth - why? because he is telling the truth!!  Quit trying to rewrite history.  At least tell the truth for god sake - is that asking too much of you right-wingers? 

 

 

You believe Obama. You must also believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Soviet Union was a benevolent, humane bastion of freedom under Communism and the sun is the moon. Because Obama has all of these myths beat by miles. No wonder this country will soon be one of the most dictatorial, tyrannical, despot-ruled country in human history when anyone-just one person-believes the outrageous, diabolic, dangerous, complete fabrications of this usurper of decency, truth, freedom, human dignity, our Constitution, the rule of law, the Natural Law and liberty. No wonder Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabee, Armajadeen, and all the other murderous despots keep rising out of the ashes. People are brainwashed, manipulated, duped, and so nieve about reality that they actually believe lies are the truth.

 Thank you so very much for your rant Lainie59.  You have done in one incoherent, irrational paragraph what I could never have done in such a short period of time - you have proven to the world just how truly disturbed your mind really is.  All I can say is WOW!!  And thank you!!  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.  WOW, WOW!!  Get help.

I understand how difficult it is for liberals to understand the meaning of words. And how fearful they are when someone exposes how guillible they are by believing whatever a charismatic con man dishes out.

 Okay Lainie59, here are the words you claim liberals do not know the meaning of.  This is the signing statement President Obama made at the time he signed the NDAA:

"Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011. " (emphasis added)

I know Lanie59, those stubborn facts keep getting in the way of your uber right-wing lies and distortions.  Keep howling at the moon though. 

You submit as proof statements made by Obama that he isn't a liar. That's like submitting as proof statements from the con man himself that he isn't lying when he tells you his elixir will cure you of mental illness as well as make you a genius. Pathological liars don't cure themselves. And is this really the sign of an intelligent leader? He had so many issues with the Act and yet signed it into law. The problem with this man is he picks and chooses which federal laws he will support and enforce. As president of the U.S. he is required to enforce federal laws, yet he believes he is above the law by NOT defending those he just doesn't like such as the Defense of Marriage Act, immigration laws, and voting rights laws. So maybe he won't defend the provisions of this law but a pathological liar can't be trusted. You could be right though since Obama defends criminals and corruption. Especially criminals that break federal laws.

 Yet another rant by a total whack-job.  Your reference to mental illness must be based on first-hand knowledge.  Good luck with your treatment (although I didn't think that cases of delusional thinking as serious as yours was treatable without a frontal lobotomy).  P.S. Is your rant about President Obama defending criminals also based on first-hand knowledge?  Can I assume that you received the defense services of a public defender (paid for by taxpayers) and you resent the fact that taxpayers had to pay for your defense?  Next time go pro se (i.e., defend yourself), then at least your rant won't be hypocritical.

Ya know, that's all well and good that Obama says that, however, I believe he is the one that authorized a drone strike on an American citizen living overseas, with alleged Al Quaida ties. That fella got no "due process". So, you can believe whatever that evil man spews forth, me however, I will tend to believe nothing he says and hope the American people have enough sense to vote the pond scum, boot licking POS that he is, out of office this year. Ya see, I'm not one of the sheep, I can think for myself.

 calcan2 you don't even sound like an American.  No true American would be so disrespectful to the President of the United States even if he disagreed with the President's policies.  So, what country are you really from?  Probably from a country where President Obama is so successfully fighting the war on terror.  His hugely successful foreign policies put the policies of the right-wingers to shame.  Let me see, where is Osama bin Laden these days?  Oh wait, President Obama took care of him - he is spending time with his 40 virgins in Islam heaven.  Where are all the many leaders of Al Quada who are no longer in power threatening our great country?  Oh wait, President Obama took care of them too - more time being spent with all those virgins.  Keep up your irrational rant against our great President, it just shows how truly ignorant you are and how un-American you are.

Yes, I'm an American. If you were too, you would see the way this president is destroying this nation. Mark my word there friend, one day, you too will see the light. In the mean time, I'm just going to have to respectfully disagree with everything you stand for. Time will tell who got hoodwinked.

 Not surprisingly, you are wrong yet again.  I too will one day see the light?  I already have seen the light.  I used to be a Republican - I even voted for Reagan twice and Bush the elder once.  Then I finally saw the light and realized just how destructive conservative policies are to this great country.  I have never looked back and will never again support an anti-American right-winger from the Rebublican Party or its Tea Party wing.  Graduating from college and earning a post graduate degree certainly helped me see the light.  All credible studies conclusively establish that the more educated the electorate, the less conservative it is.  I only point that out because I don't know if your Islamic country offers any education beyond middle school.  Be that as it may, we have been going downhill ever since Reagan - you righties are still spouting his discredited policies from deregulation to free markets to voodoo economics (the so-called "trickle down" theory that has never and will never work).  America is waking up to your side's buffoonery.  That is why President Obama will be handily reelected and why Democrats will retain control of the Senate and regain control of the House.

By the way, when is the next election in your country and are they still using purple ink on your finger to make sure that you do not vote more than once?  

No purple ink needed. In my country, people use to believe in the Constitution, they believed that if you worked hard and saved, you would have a good life when you retired. They formed unions to protect children, they passed laws to allow women and blacks to vote. Then, the Democrats got elected and promised them that they would take money from other people and give it to you if you needed it. They promised to take a little from each paycheck and save it for you so you could have it when you retire, then they said they would take a little more so if you got sick when you retired they could take care of you. Then they said they needed a little more of your money to pay for the poor people who didn't work, and the immigrants that couldn't find work or housing. And now, here we are, the government thinks they own my money and they are going to tell me how much of it I can keep. Because you know, we got all these other people who need my money. I too use to vote Republican, I haven't seen one in a long time that I would care to vote for since. I vote Libertarian, because I believe in the Constitution, I believe in inherent rights, I believe you get out of life what you put into it, and I believe that if you are too damn lazy to work, then go without. I don't believe the government is due any of my wages. I believe there should be taxes for public service at the local level only, and that they should be for public utilities only. I don't believe that some public employee should be making more than the lowest paid amongst us. One other thing I believe is that you my friend, are filled with a hate so strong, that you can't even use good sense to see the plain truth. I'm sorry for you. Oh, and which group do you belong to? Surely you must be one of the "user" groups I mentioned earlier, because anyone who makes a decent wage and works hard, can never, ever, vote a Demoncrat.

 Man, have you ever swallowed a gallon of the Ron Paul Kool-Aid.  And you have the right-wing hate speech down pat.  Save it because no one even listens to such garbage these days. 

Which group do I belong to?  After serving this great nation honorably in the armed forces for 38 years I believe I am entitled to vote any damn way I want to vote.  And I proudly vote for Democratic candidates and causes - after all, they are the only remaining hope for this country.  I have earned the right to everything I get from the government.  I paid into social security all of my working life.  Ditto for medicare.  I earned my military retirement and my disability pay, and no right-wing bozo (certainly no right-wing chicken hawk who has never served a day in uniform as is the case with the vast majority of right-wingers including libertarians) is ever going to take them away from me. 

I guess that you plan to refuse to take social security when you reach the appropriate age?  Or maybe you are already receiving it.  Will you also refuse medicare?  What's that you say?  You intend to claim your "entitlement" to social security and medicare?  You did pay for it after all - it is not a hand-out, but to be consistent with your bogus hand-out argument, you will have to refuse to accept them.  Otherwise you will be labeled a hypocrite and we would never want that to happen.

What a joke you are.  Go stick your head back in the sand and continue living in your own fantasy world.  You views are not worthy of civilized conversation. 

There's that "hate" coming out of you again. Thank you very much for your service to our country. I too, served, but not for 38 years. However, your term of service does indeed speak volumes as to your opinions. I hear the art of brainwashing has been perfected in the last 40 years. I see it has worked rather well with you. So, explain to me again, how if I pay into social security and medicare my whole adult life, and if I need it, and use it, that makes me a hypocrite? I probably won't use it by the way, because I despise our current socialist regime. I don't agree with the whole "take my money and use it to make someone else feel good about themselves", way of thinking. If you do, more power to you. I think I should be able to donate and help who I see fit. I don't need any government telling me who to support. I won't have the luxury of using any social programs when I'm ready to retire because this country will no longer be the great nation it once was. Obama will sell us out a little bit at a time, then run off back to wherever he came from. If you live long enough, you will see it too Seargent

 Sergeant?  Hardly, although there is nothing wrong with sergeants. 

I really have much better things to do with my time than engage in a dialogue with a "birther" who is so out of touch with reality that he honestly believes the hate speech that he spews.

Thank you for not taking your "entitlement" to social security and medicare when you become eligible (like I really believe you).  I love it when righties use the bogus hand-out "entitlement" society argument against Democrats yet they pull up to the trough as soon as they are eligible for any and all government programs.  Get it straight bozo - if a citizen pays into a program all his working life, when he finally becomes eligible to start drawing money out of the program, money that he is "entitled" to, that is not the government giving him something for nothing.  It is the citizen's money and he will probably never get back everything he has paid into the program.

I also love it when righties are so filled with venom and hate against a black man in the oval office that they will start screaming about socialism and communism and every other "ism" they can think of.  You should be so lucky as to have President Obama in office for four more years because he has already started the huge job of overturning the devastating right-wing policies put into place by the disasterous Bush administration.  Given four more years he will have our economy humming again (despite the efforts of those on the right to resist him at every turn). 

Have a good life bozo.  Keep spewing your hatred against our black President and keep tilting at the birther windmill along with Donald Trump and the joke of a sheriff in Arizona.  You guys provide much needed humor in an otherwise dismal Republican primary season.

As a former service member it is disconcerting to know you would happily and proudly support a party that has destroyed much of what millions of others in the military sacrificed their lives for. A party that shamelessly celebrates the intentional murder of over 54 million (to date) unborn, innocent human beings. The genocide of the innocent is certainly not something any American should be proud of considering how many died to end the genocide of millions of Jews in Nazi Germany, who were considered "non-persons" as the Democratic Party smugly calls the unborn. A party that shamelessly celebrates the abomination of the unnatural copulation of two males or two females which is an offense against their bodies, against common sense, and against nature herself while support of it supports the diseases and deaths of those who arrogantly try to thwart nature. A party that shamelessly supports policies that keep the minorities and poor in positions of servitude and enslaved to the state. That attacks the dignity of giving people by giving them a hand out (of other people's money) rather than a hand up. A party that shamelessly attacks our Constitutional right to bear arms and practice our religious faith if that faith is Christianity. A party that believes the government, run by liberals, is not only god but parent, teacher, and provider but has the right to determine for us what we should eat and drink, what we should drive and where, what employers must pay employees and what benefits they must provide, and now, that all taxpayers must pay for the consequences of the choice of irresponsible, promiscuous women to voluntarily murder their own children. A party that refuses to do its Constitutional job of protecting citizens against invasion by millions of illegal criminals. A party that demeans human dignity by implementing rules, regulations and policies that inhibit individual charitable organizations and individuals to help their fellow man and also believes the government should be the only game in the business of charity - forced charity rather than voluntary charity. A party that believes non-citizens have more rights than citizens and that taxpayers should pay for all of the benefits of citizenship and residency, such as health care and education, for criminals who enter the country illegally. A party that is enamored with every dictator and despot in human history, some of whom are their heroes. A party that has thrown God into the gutter in order to force its indecent, debauched, vile, anti-life, and anti-human policies upon the whole of society. A party intent on overthrowing our Constitution because it doesn't comport with their Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal ideology that the state is god, the state is the giver of rights, the state decides who is deserving, the state confiscates all wealth and property to distribute as it sees fit, the state subverts parental authority, and the state is to be that which is worshipped. The Democratic Party is a party that advocates death and destruction. A party that abhors liberty as it falsely calls liberty license with no responsibility. The party of evil-doers doing pure evil.

By the way, calling someone a racist is certainly a tactic liberals try but that is merely a reflection of themselves. I did not vote for George W. I voted for a BLACK man - Alan Keyes in the 2008 presidential election. An intelligent, articulate, honest man with good ideas. Of course, lefties called him Uncle Tom, a sellout to whitey, you know all of the intelligent arguments liberals provide when they can't label a black man a racist.

 More garbage.  Firstly, George W. did not run for President in 2008.  Our Constitution limits a President to two terms and George W. had already served his second term by the end of 2008.  You might want to read the Constitution sometime.  As for Alan Keyes, he is clearly intelligent and articulate.  As to his honesty there is no way to know - has he ever been put to a test where someone can ascertain his honesty?  If so, I do not recall.  As to his good ideas, I say humbug.  Extreme ideas?  Absolutely!  Right-wing, anti-government ideas?  Absolutely!  Good ideas?  Clearly not!

Uncle Tom?  No.  Sellout to whitey?  No.  He sold his soul to a discredited, hollow right-wing ideology, but so too have a number of old, white men.  Only right-wingers think in terms of color.  Democrats are color blind.  Democrats have a huge tent and accept everyone.  Color, religion, nationality, gender, and sexual preference are of no importance to Democrats.  We accept them all as equals.  Right-wingers have never been able to make such a claim.  Sad, isn't it?

No, it is folks like you who refuse to accept the fact that there is a black man in the white house.  It just drives you crazy doesn't it.  Maybe one day in the distant future, after all the racist, misogynistic right-wingers have died off and the much more accepting children of today take over the reins of power will your ilk finally be able to put away the prejudices of your parties.  I hope so for your sake - your salvation may well depend on it.

 I get it now.  Your father hated you as a child and punished you by locking you in a closet didn't he?  I don't know any other explanation for your totally irrational view of the world.  He must have really twisted your mind. 

Please don't forget to take your meds before going to bed.  We wouldn't want you waking up during the middle of the night and wandering out into the street threatening to shoot all those communists that are hiding under all the rocks and manhole covers out there. 

You really do need help Lainie - and I really do feel deeply sorry for you.  You must be miserable living in the world that exists only in your mind. 

 I also find it amusing that you, as a black man, are so quick to throw out the racist dialouge with me. Your hatred of anyone and everyone who does not agree with you is apalling.

I suggest you find another forum to vent "your" racist propaganda and hate towards "whitey".

 

 It's you who we feel sorry for. You have this ideal of a utopia that Obama has, and will make this country into. You really need to read some more. And stay away from CNN and MSNBC. That stuff is writtenall over you.

 Black?  Sorry, not me.  I am of Scandinavian descent and have blonde hair and blue eyes.  Besides, I am not the racist in this conversation. 

With regard to finding another forum to vent your propaganda, go right ahead.  FOX Noise must have a website where you can post your racist hate speech against our great President who just happens to be black.  Only the right-wing define him by the color of his skin and try to create this complete fiction regarding his place of birth and his religion.  This fictional President Obama that you righties are trying to create is totally absurd and will backfire big time on you guys.  Can you spell complete Democratic domination in November? 

 Breathe deeply and repeat after me, "FOX News is not real news", FOX News is not real news", FOX News is not real news."  There, do you feel better now?  It's too bad that your brain is wired the way it is (I believe it is a genetic defect) so you are unable to accept the truth.  Righties have no compassion for their fellow man (or any other living thing for that matter).  They are completely self-absorbed and selfish to a fault (i.e., their mantra is "I got mine and I have no obligation to anyone else.").  And most remarkably, even if they are living in total squalor and are being completely oppressed by the 1%ers and have absolutely no chance of ever improving their lot in life, they can still be heard chanting the right-wing propoganda fed to them by the likes of Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the Koch Brothers.  Absolutely amazing.

No, if anyone needs pity it is you righties who are being led like sheep to slaughter by the 1%ers who clearly do not give a damn about any of you except to use you to further increase their own fortunes.  

My mistake. I meant to say I did not vote for McCain rather than George W. in 2008. As for Alan Keye's honesty, I believe his Senate campaign against Obama was an example of the difference between a man of integrity and a charlatan. Obama is half white so the correct term for him would be mullato. Beyond that, I could care less what a person's skin color is. I dislike Obama and the Democratic Party for what they stand for and their obvious record of destroying liberty, lives, livelihoods, and souls. But liberals, because they really can't defend their rabid hatred of freedom, individual responsibility, self-control, God, country and the human species, resort to name calling - always. Defending that which is evil has no defense. I don't understand why they don't move to a country with a way of thinking more suitable to them such as China, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuala since they dislike everything America stands for. Why try to destroy the lives of over half of America when you can go to another country that suits your ideology and you can live happily in fantasy land? You sir are the one to be pitied. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I think this was a courageous bill.  And a person would think this sort of position is something that even the ACLU could get behind.   I don't get why Jag would try to create a "right-left" argument over it.   Who thinks citizens should be taken and held (who knows where, who knows how long) for their political and philosophical positions?   Reflect!

E Baker, the ACLU vehemently opposed the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) dealing with the arrest and detention of American citizens, but the Republicans and Tea Partiers in Congress insisted that those provisions be included or they would oppose its passage.  They held the NDAA hostage to their right-wing dogma as the bill was being assembled in the Congress.  President Obama even threatened to veto the bill if it contained those provisions, and he ultimately disappointed a huge percentage of his Democratic base (including me) when he eventually signed the bill with those provisions included.  However, in his signing statement he made clear that he had no intention of using the expanded powers insisted upon by the right-wingers in Congress.

We now know that the right-wing tactic all along was to insist upon the inclusion of provisions in the NDAA that many Americans would find offensive knowing that the NDAA had to be passed (funding the military is required every year don't you know).  It is the disingenuous, deceitful, politically motivated gamesmanship that was engaged in by the right-wing crowd in Congress that is so very offensive. 

I didn't make this a "right-left" argument, the right-wingers in Congress did.  Now they have their lap dogs in the various states trying to make the disingenuous argument that it is an outrageous un-American thing the President is doing.  This bill is such an attempt by a right-winger in the Washington State legislature.  The bill is an ALEC creation and it is being offered by right-wingers around the country.  I suspect, that as in this state, the bills are dying in committee because there are too many knowledgeable legislators around the country who understand the gamesmanship being engaged in by the righties who are once again trying to rewrite history.

There, I reflected!!  Why don't you give it a try E Baker.  It is really easy to use Google to search for the articles dealing with this issue as the NDAA was being negotiated in Congress.  The truth will set you free - really it will.    

 jag, the last two postings of yours proved that you have been using too much medical marajuana...  Your paranoia is showing, you are quickly becoming the poster for "Liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder."

Nobody is in favor of the NDA, we are all in favor of HB2759 which gives the state the right to ignore the NDA...  Yet, as you condemn the NDA on a bi-partisan basis, which for some reason you think is relevant, you do not support the state in it's attempt to ignore and condemn the NDA.  Is it because a republican sponsored the bill?

Honestly your vitriole against HB2759 makes no sense to any sane person.  It does however make you look foolish and garner the attention you apparently crave.

 Dragon Breath, are you really as dumb as you sound, or is it just an act?  Do you really believe that "nobody is in favor of the NDA" Act?  Are you serious?  How do you think the defense department gets its multi-billion dollar budget every year?  Yeah, that's right, the National Defense Authorization Act (aka, the NDAA).  98% - 99% of what was in the most recent NDAA was supported by Republicans (including the Tea Bag wing of the party) and Democrats alike.   

It was only the right-wing provisions dealing with the arrest and detention of American citizens that Democrats took issue with and opposed.  But, the right-wingers in Congress insisted on those provisions being included in the NDAA or they would not vote to fund the military.

Are you delusional when you state that "we are all in favor of HB 2759 which gives the state the right to ignore the NDA... ?"  What dream world do you live in where you think that any state has the authority to ignore a federal law?  Have you ever heard of the Supremacy Clause?  Perhaps you should read the Constitution sometime.  Also, as you are reading the Constitution, you might want to review the provisions dealing with what level of government (federal or state) has the power to raise and fund an army and navy and who has the authority to send troops into battle to defend the nation.

Your rants are becoming more and more irrational.   

 jag A couple of things....  First, I did over-generalize, obviously not everyone is against the NDAA, as you obviously support it...  Sorry I know better than to over-gernalize but I'm human and so you have a valid rant here (probably the first).

Secondly, I did use a poor choice of words but, the sentiment is there.  IT is time for the states to protect their citizens from the ridiculous burden and dictates from the feds.  But of course you'e in favor of the federal nanny to take care of you also...  As for your trick question, the state has a right to raise and maintain a milita for defense or they use to, Which is why their is such a thing as the Wa state Guard http://washingtonguard.org/wsg/ .  So there ya go...

I'm stilll waiting for an explination of why I'm moderated while you jag are still free to rant and post hate-speech, but just so you don't get paranoid, that question is aimed at the mods of this forum.

 

 

 

The power of military authorities to arrest and jail people as long as they want stems from Congress' 2001 joint resolution authorizing the use of military force against terrorists (insisted upon by the Bush Administration), but was explicitly codified into law last year after President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act. While allowing military detention of anyone, the act mandated that certain terrorist suspects had to be held by the armed forces.

When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act last year, he pledged in his signing statement that he would not arrest and detain Americans under the NDAA detention powers (powers that were first asserted by the Bush Administration under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force).  Last month the President set out policy rules making good on that pledge, stating that U.S. citizens and certain other categories of suspected terrorists (i.e., lawful resident aliens) would not be clapped into the military system.  See the discussion below that was included in President Obama's Presidential Policy Directive that sets forth procedures implementing Section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).

 

 "It is important to recognize that the scope of the new law is limited. Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States. An individual required to be held in military custody under Section 1022 may be returned to law enforcement custody for criminal trial. In addition, Section 1022 does not change the FBI’s authorities to respond to terrorism threats and these procedures do not apply to any individuals held in the custody of the Department of Defense, state and local law enforcement agencies acting under their authorities, or a foreign government."

Recognizing that this limitation on the exercise of the broad arrest and detention powers would last only so long as there was a Democratic President in the White House (knowing that should a Republican ever get back into the White House he would immediately assert the broadest possible powers in this regard), just this past week two Democratic legislators, Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.), offered a bill that would repeal laws that allow the indefinite detention of Americans and others by the military without trial.  We all know that the Republicans and Tea Partiers in Congress will resist this repeal effort in every way possible, because as we all know it was the right-wingers who insisted on these broad powers being included in the NDAA in the first place.  That's right, the righties in Congress insisted upon the arrest and detention provision being included in the NDAA, a must-pass piece of legislation necessary to fund the military, knowing that the President would have to sign it, so they could then accuse the president of acting in an un-American manner in using the military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens indefinitely.

Okay Dragon, so there you have it.  The foregoing is the real history of the NDAA powers (not the fictitious version set forth in HB 2759).  Can we all assume that you will support the two Democratic legislators who last Thursday introduced a bill repealing the laws that allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens by the military without trial?  If not, you are a hypocrite of the first order.  You righties set up this strawman argument by insisting that the broad arrest and detention powers be included in the must-pass NDAA so you could then turn around and blame Democrats and President Obama for acting in an un-American manner.  I ask you, which side is truly acting in an un-American manner?  Can you spell Republicans and Tea Partiers?