Go, Ron Paul, Go!

DeafBadger said:
If you want to watch the uncut version of the CNN interview where this started, you can watch this and read what the man himself says about it. Captioned.

Uncut Ron Paul Interview - CNN Gloria Borger - YouTube
Click to expand...

Gloria Berger is married to Lance Morgan. He is the chief communications and crisis strategist of Powell Tate, the very same military industrial complex that Ron Paul wants to reduce. Go figure. :giggle:
 
DeafBadger said:
If you want to watch the uncut version of the CNN interview where this started, you can watch this and read what the man himself says about it. Captioned.

Uncut Ron Paul Interview - CNN Gloria Borger - YouTube
Click to expand...

Wow, after watching that, I am 100% in agreement with him. This is character assassination. Plain and simple. He answered all this dumb idiot reporter's questions directly and honestly, and she just kept trying to spin and incite him. He ended the interview graciously and appropriately. Don't know how he was able to keep himself from choking her.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Wow, after watching that, I am 100% in agreement with him. This is character assassination. Plain and simple. He answered all this dumb idiot reporter's questions directly and honestly, and she just kept trying to spin and incite him. He ended the interview graciously and appropriately. Don't know how he was able to keep himself from choking her.
Click to expand...

Yep. This smear campaign will backfire. :giggle:
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Interesting indeed. Looks like he's catching flak from the beating of a dead horse. At the same time, I think it's pretty obvious he has bigoted and racist views. At this point, I'm not sure what to think of the guy, but I know for sure I would never vote for him.
Click to expand...

I don't think i would either and I like his platform better than most of the GOP candidates' platform as well. Anything to do with people's rights will always be a deal breaker for me when come to political stuff regarding libertarians. I do not like all of it though.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Wow, after watching that, I am 100% in agreement with him. This is character assassination. Plain and simple. He answered all this dumb idiot reporter's questions directly and honestly, and she just kept trying to spin and incite him. He ended the interview graciously and appropriately. Don't know how he was able to keep himself from choking her.
Click to expand...

If I were him, I'd have lost it. :P He certainly knows how to keep his poise.
 
TXgolfer said:
I reckon so....


The bill is out there for anyone that wants to read it. I see nothing to fear.
Click to expand...

The Defense Authorization Act isn't that different from the Patriot Act, except for increase in presidential power.

The Patriot Act has been abused many many times and in many different ways. It is concerning.
 
I think they did away with the more sinister aspects of the bill. Correct? Also, Obama is the one who guarded against this. He threatened to veto any bill that included the military's right to detain American citizens without any just cause.
 
I think an American should lose his/her citizenship status and lose any and all constitutional protection once war is declared against the U.S. by engaging in deadly terrorism.
 
kokonut said:
I think an American should lose his/her citizenship status and lose any and all constitutional protection once war is declared against the U.S. by engaging in deadly terrorism.
Click to expand...

The Constitution disagrees with you.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I think they did away with the more sinister aspects of the bill. Correct? Also, Obama is the one who guarded against this. He threatened to veto any bill that included the military's right to detain American citizens without any just cause.
Click to expand...

Kind of....they clarified it...... But if you go back and look at 1030-32 it stated that US citizens were not included. The phrase that concerned everyone was "not required" some felt the possibility still remained with that language.
 
DeafCaroline said:
The Defense Authorization Act isn't that different from the Patriot Act, except for increase in presidential power.

The Patriot Act has been abused many many times and in many different ways. It is concerning.
Click to expand...

I don't find the bill worthy of concern personally.
 
TXgolfer said:
Kind of....they clarified it...... But if you go back and look at 1030-32 it stated that US citizens were not included. The phrase that concerned everyone was "not required" some felt the possibility still remained with that language.
Click to expand...

So it doesn't apply to US citizens abroad or in country? In that case, who cares? Our military has been detaining foreign nationals for years without any just cause. I certainly don't approve of this, but it's the responsibility of those nationals' respective governments to protect the rights of their citizens.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
So it doesn't apply to US citizens abroad or in country? In that case, who cares? Our military has been detaining foreign nationals for years without any just cause. I certainly don't approve of this, but it's the responsibility of those nationals' respective governments to protect the rights of their citizens.
Click to expand...

The NDAA includes American citizens.
 
DeafCaroline said:
The NDAA includes American citizens.
Click to expand...

As posted in your last thread. *shrug*

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-


(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.


(2) 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.
Click to expand...

http://www.alldeaf.com/1984027-post28.html
 
TheWriteAlex said:
So it doesn't apply to US citizens abroad or in country? In that case, who cares? Our military has been detaining foreign nationals for years without any just cause. I certainly don't approve of this, but it's the responsibility of those nationals' respective governments to protect the rights of their citizens.
Click to expand...

Basically this little bitty piece of a large bill says if you are here without permission and plot to attack us you will/could face a military court rather than a criminal court and could possibly be detained until the end of hostilities.
 
TXgolfer said:
Basically this little bitty piece of a large bill says if you are here without permission and plot to attack us you will/could face a military court rather than a criminal court and could possibly be detained until the end of hostilities.
Click to expand...

"(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

It's worded this way purposefully.

Key word here is requirement. Think about it. All it's saying is that it's not a requirement to detain American citizens indefinitely under the law of war - not that it can't be done. If American citizens are truly exempt from indefinite detainment without a trial, they would have said so. but they didn't. They just said it's "not a requirement".

*shrug*
 
DeafCaroline said:
"(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

It's worded this way purposefully.

Key word here is requirement. Think about it. All it's saying is that it's not a requirement to detain American citizens indefinitely under the law of war - not that it can't be done. If American citizens are truly exempt from indefinite detainment without a trial, they would have said so. but they didn't. They just said it's "not a requirement".

*shrug*
Click to expand...

That was the concern.....which is why they clarified before passing the bill. I stated as much in post 92.

While the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges, proponents said the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare "enemy combatants," as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies. The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved.
Click to expand...

WH OKs military detention of terrorism suspects - CBS News

Again, nothing to worry about.
 
Back
Top