posted September 18, 2012 01:42 PM            

funnily the nasty issue of indefinite detention of american citizens is laid at the door of "obama's administration".

technically i guess that is what they are, you know, the republican congress who have vowed to have him out by january since they came into power of the house..

and the senate too.

both houses passed this bill with a small handful of dissenting votes. though obama did not veto it (it already had the super majority that would be required to override such a veto) he added a rider voicing disagreement with the contested clauses.

posted September 18, 2012 01:54 PM            

Republicans hold the majority in the US House of Representatives.

demoscats hold the majority in the US Senate.

A demoscat...Barack Hussein O'Bomber is president...so demoscats hold the White House.

So, 2 of the 3 deciding parties on legislation are held by demoscats and they were behind and helped passed this bill. Period. End of the story.

posted September 18, 2012 02:23 PM            

however the bill was passed by a huge majority of both houses, with a few dissenting voices who tried to amend that section and were voted down, again by a huge majority.

of course he could have vetoed it, but given the determination of both houses to pass it it would have been a lame gesture and held up the funding for the military that the bill is OSTENSIBLY about.

@jwhop, i don't recall making this a party issue...BOTH HOUSES passed it with a HUGE majority. BOTH PARTIES guilty as all get-out.

posted September 18, 2012 04:40 PM            

Yeah, Republicans in the House voted for the Bill and passed it...so what?

posted September 18, 2012 04:53 PM            

quote:

---

Yeah, Republicans in the House voted for the Bill and passed it...so what?

---

So don't say, "So, 2 of the 3 deciding parties on legislation are held by demoscats and they were behind and helped passed this bill," if you mean to say that Republicans were every bit as much behind this as anyone else.

posted September 18, 2012 06:39 PM            

of course, they do not stop future presidents from making use of that section, but then there is time to reverse it - a process already started in the courts, the only place right now that can deal with it, since a super majority of congress is not expected to change its minds.

but considering the support in congress for the bill, a veto would have been a lame gesture. and stalled the appropriations part of the bill...which was, after all the main show.

posted September 19, 2012 10:21 AM            

quote:

---

of course, they do not stop future presidents from making use of that section

---

I cannot help but think this is the reason many 'powers' were not dialed back by this admin. The opportunities have been few and far between, granted.

Once it is in, it is rarely [if ever] stripped away.

Probably why the USSC, though judicial not executive, did their -one and only- ruling for the 2000 presidential race. Wouldn't want to have a precedent on the books in case it's needed in 2012.

While proposed amendments are at an all time high by the supposed party of constitutionalists few talk about how the bill of rights has eroded.

If blame were to be shared ? I would include the fear mongers, and those who feed there. So much fear was flung around like monkey poo. Having the trials on US soil. We were led once again with that one.
The objections [ by those who want trials] were diverted, again, and again.

posted September 19, 2012 12:06 PM            

Now, do you want to contest that acoustic?

posted September 19, 2012 06:09 PM            

so much time is wasted by stalling tactics in congress it makes perfect sense to me that the president would not veto - creating more time wasting - a bill that was obviously going to get the required majority when returned to congress.

i suspect the right are so desperate to get this man out because they are sure that a second term will see him being more confident and determined to set things on the path he wants to take us down. as in the soviet "open mic" incident(where he bought time but the pundits had him promising to betray us), they are sure that means handing us on a silver platter to his warlords in the USSR