Obama signed away due process yesterday

Mark Udall was against this from the beginning.

"I continue to have grave concerns about the detainee provisions in the Senate's version of the 2012 Defense Authorization Act, not the least of which is that questions remain about the impact on American citizens and counterterrorism operations," Udall said. "I do not believe that the consequences of the provisions have been adequately considered, and it should be noted that the Department of Defense strongly objects to their inclusion in the NDAA. I will be presenting amendments on the floor to modify the provisions based on the valid concerns raised by the Department of Defense and members of the intelligence community."

http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1730

Yes, but, unfortunately, both Udall and Bennett ultimately voted for this bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00212

I had emailed both Senators and asked them to vote "no" on this bill, but both sent form emails back saying they were confident the concerns had been addressed and that they were voting "yes" on it. Wasn't too happy about that, but they'd already done it.

Soulshiner wrote: Mark Udall was against this from the beginning.

http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1730

Yeah, right up to when he voted for it. Sounds familiar.

So Obama had previously stated he'd veto this bill, yet he did sign it, with an * saying his administration would not use the powers in the bill. Of course, this doesn't make anyone feel any better about this, and everyone should be upset about it being signed into law, whether you're left, right, or somewhere else. The question I have to wonder is why did Obama sign this? Was it so he could take away Americans' freedoms and rights? I don't think so. Now it appears it was necessary to pass a defense authorization bill, or it would've had immediate impact on military families, etc, for which Obama would've been criticized harshly. So who insisted the bill contain these provisions? The bill was sponsored by Rep Buck McKeon of California (R), and cosponsored by Rep Adam Smith of Washington (D). So it appears this bill was a bipartisan offering. This still leaves us questioning who authored in these provisions, and insisted upon their inclusion, and why. Until we start asking that question and finding some answers, partisan finger pointing and Obama slamming doesn't really address the problem or provide any answers about who's responsible.

If you've only read excerpts of the President's statement on the bill, I encourage you to read the entirety of the statement.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... nt-hr-1540
I don't excuse Obama for signing this legislation, but I also think holding Obama solely responsible is simplistic, and a diversion for what's going on in the background.

Welcome plaidvillain - but.....

By you're logic if it's too simplistic to blame Obama- then is this how we lose all the rest of our rights? Is this how it happens- every one that's left gets included in some bigger bill that the president couldn't turn down?

Is this how we lose what little freedom is left- search and seisure laws are already gone - our property rights have been erroded and now the military can lock us up without a trial- is there ever a proper excuse for this?

I think not!

Proabably won't see this on the mainstream media:

AMERICANS PLAN NATIONWIDE PROTEST OF NDAA ACT
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAK ... ACT-871976

plaidvillain wrote: So Obama had previously stated he'd veto this bill, yet he did sign it, with an * saying his administration would not use the powers in the bill. Of course, this doesn't make anyone feel any better about this, and everyone should be upset about it being signed into law, whether you're left, right, or somewhere else. The question I have to wonder is why did Obama sign this? Was it so he could take away Americans' freedoms and rights? I don't think so. Now it appears it was necessary to pass a defense authorization bill, or it would've had immediate impact on military families, etc, for which Obama would've been criticized harshly. So who insisted the bill contain these provisions? The bill was sponsored by Rep Buck McKeon of California (R), and cosponsored by Rep Adam Smith of Washington (D). So it appears this bill was a bipartisan offering. This still leaves us questioning who authored in these provisions, and insisted upon their inclusion, and why. Until we start asking that question and finding some answers, partisan finger pointing and Obama slamming doesn't really address the problem or provide any answers about who's responsible.

If you've only read excerpts of the President's statement on the bill, I encourage you to read the entirety of the statement.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... nt-hr-1540
I don't excuse Obama for signing this legislation, but I also think holding Obama solely responsible is simplistic, and a diversion for what's going on in the background.

He can be held lastly responsible. You're wearing your partisan ass-kissing on your sleeve. He could have vetoed this. And then it would have been thrown back into the laps of the people responsible for forming the provisions of this bill. And then THEY would have had to contend with the American public to explain WHY they think the veto should be overturned.

No... the president held ALL the power to put the brakes on this... and he didn't. And no amount of partisan pleading on your part changes those facts.

Hey Bear, thanks for the welcome...I agree, hold Obama responsible for signing this thing into law. Also hold responsible the sponsors, Reps McKeon and Smith. And ask the question why they would sponsor this bill. Who exactly authored this thing anyway? Most bills these days are written by the lobbyists, turned over to the Representatives to sponsor, then submitted. When the elected officials have only become conduits for other forces, we have to ask who those forces are, how we let them gain such influence to our government, and what do we need to do to stop them. I'm not opposed to a change in leadership at all, but if all we change is the color of tie the figurehead at top is wearing, then we're in line to lose the rest of our freedoms.

plaidvillain wrote: Hey Bear, thanks for the welcome...I agree, hold Obama responsible for signing this thing into law. Also hold responsible the sponsors, Reps McKeon and Smith. And ask the question why they would sponsor this bill. Who exactly authored this thing anyway? Most bills these days are written by the lobbyists, turned over to the Representatives to sponsor, then submitted. When the elected officials have only become conduits for other forces, we have to ask who those forces are, how we let them gain such influence to our government, and what do we need to do to stop them. I'm not opposed to a change in leadership at all, but if all we change is the color of tie the figurehead at top is wearing, then we're in line to lose the rest of our freedoms.

Hey... I didn't notice that it was you Plaidvillian... welcome to 285 Bound... glad you're here... and guess what... the moderators won't hold you little hand over here... so don't go whining to them... it won't matter much.

Some potential good news for us citizens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 ... ostpopular

looks like Obama has used his wand to wave the rule on indefinate detention of citizens without due process???