Anyone Still Support Obama After Ndaa?

[J Y F]

The National Defense Authorization Act has been signed by President Obama into law. It permits the President to solely off of suspicion arrest any American citizen without trial or a lawyer through the US military. It essentially destroys the 5th amendment of the Constitution. That is unacceptable in a free country and in my opinion points us in the direction of a dystopia like those described in Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and Equilibrium. Below are videos that discuss the issue.

From this I am without a doubt voting for Ron Paul 2012 since Obama has clearly been a flop and the other leading candidate Mitt Romney does not stir my confidence especially since he has flipflopped so much in his career, especially with the issue of abortion.

I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's views, but I do believe that he is the catalyst that can propel the United States back to the morality that it had on its foundation. There's a reason why he has more donations from the US Army, Navy, and Airforce than Barack Obama and all of the other Republican candidates combined.

[musicaddict]

Mother. Fucker. We're screwed.

[Leilin]

Since it was overwhelmingly supported by Congress as well, my support of all of them has gone down equally.

... and Paul was the bottom of that rung anyway. The one thing I hate more than the average false politician is a fake Libertarian.

[J Y F]

How is Ron Paul a fake Libertarian? His record has been quite consistent if you just look at how he's voted on bills for the past 30 years. And I don't seem to see how his views contrast with that of a libertarian's. Please elaborate.

[Diapered Jason]

Well, to be fair, you are in fact not referring to the NDAA as a whole, which is essentially the defense budget, but rather section 1021 that was tacked on to the NDAA by Howard McKeon, Carl Levin, and John McCain. Vetoing the defense budget might be political suicide since only one person voted against this bill in congress. In retrospect, this really changes nothing and only reaffirms what has already been happening. Nevertheless, this is a representation of where the principles of this country are heading.

Hmm... Ron Paul or Barrack Obama. I guess it depends on how well Ron Paul would work with the democrats. I believe there can be a great compromise there. Still, I might prefer Jon Huntsman.

[Leilin]

How is Ron Paul a fake Libertarian? His record has been quite consistent if you just look at how he's voted on bills for the past 30 years. And I don't seem to see how his views contrast with that of a libertarian's. Please elaborate.

If you at any point hold state's rights to higher regard than individual rights, you are not a Libertarian. Period. The word for what Paul is is "Federalist."

[Mischa]

Ok, so I see near-unanimous opposition to the bill, however, has anyone actually READ the legislation for themselves?

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF

THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY

FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the

President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to

the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;

50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces

of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection

() pending disposition under the law of war.

( COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section

is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported

al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged

in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf here is the text of the bill.

What that means is: Yes they can detain an American citizen, but that citizen MUST have connections to al-Qaeda, or the Taliban, or their allies in fighting the United States. You aren't going to see an American version of Iron Feliks Dzerzhinsky or Lavrentiy Beria because of this law. It is necessary to exclude an exemption for American citizens because American citizens have in the past turned against the US. John Walker Lindh, and Anwar al-Awlaki are two prime examples.

I actually support this law, because this is the main budget for the United States Armed Forces, and without it, the United States Armed Forces WOULD NOT be able to function.

[Horndog]

I still support Obama. I, too, read the NDAA, but I believe that all people should have a fair trial. You know, habeas corpus and all.

[Leilin]

I still support Obama. I, too, read the NDAA, but I believe that all people should have a fair trial. You know, civil rights and all.

This would be the crux of my issue with it as well. Handing that much power to the government without provision for burden of proof is dangerous.

[J Y F]

No offense Leilin, but I've been following Ron Paul's debates and newsletters rather closely since 2007, and not once do I remember him stating that he puts states rights as more important than individual rights. I'd totally agree with you though if you could give us your source.

As a response to Mischa, the issue of this act is the process of finding out if an individual is directly tied to Al Qaeda or not. What if some American citizens were to join a mosque that on the outside had no affiliations with terrorist groups, but a few individuals just happened to be part of Al Qaeda. Now if those people are discovered, the government could also arrest the innocent American citizens tied to this mosque. They would argue there was sufficient suspicion since they were part of the mosque, but how in the world can those innocent Americans argue their case if they are not allowed to go to court or even have a lawyer? That is the issue.

It is unconstitutional for the executive branch to circumvent the judicial branch in this way destroying checks and balances simply because it is a major threat to the security of the rights of human beings. Just remember the Al-awlaki incident. Though he was shown to be a terrorist, his innocent 16 year old son who was yet unproven to be affiliated with Al Qaeda AND was an American citizen was unjustly murdered. How do you justify an accident like that when they could have simply captured him and put him on trial and avoid the death of a possibly innocent civilian. You cannot bypass the judicial branch if you want justice. It's there for a reason, to absolutely prove the guilt of an individual.

Timothy Mcveigh was an excellent example of how it should have been done since he was tried, found guilty, and executed. Why avoid the court when it works?

And just as an edit...here's a video on secret assassinations.

[Leilin]

No offense Leilin, but I've been following Ron Paul's debates and newsletters rather closely since 2007, and not once do I remember him stating that he puts states rights as more important than individual rights. I'd totally agree with you though if you could give us your source.

Then you should pay attention to his actual votes and sponsorships, rather than what he calls himself to rope in gullible people.

For example, the "We the People" act, which Paul sponsored, would have given states the right to legislate religious practice, upheld national antisodomy laws, and state defense of marriage acts, all of which are anti-liberterian concepts. It would also have stripped individuals the right to challenge any such laws in federal courts. Literally every piece of that bill is an intention to give states the power to legislate and limit individual civil rights. There are further implications of that awful act, but let's just be glad that it, as one of many examples of utter two-faced tripe that Paul has put out, did not pass.

Furthermore, Paul supported the DADT repeal. Guess what? That's an antilibertarian concept! The government has no place legislating the sexual practices of the people, either on the federal or the state level.

Thinking of Paul as a Libertarian only comes from one of three things:

1. Cognitive dissonance. He has CONSISTENTLY supported state rights over the individual. That is very directly not libertarian.

2. Not paying attention.

3. Not knowing what a Libertarian is (Clue: It doesn't mean "Republican.")

[Diapered Jason]

Mischa, this is obviously a political legerdemain to gain more power. You see this from the language used and the fact it was squeezed into a bill no one would filibuster. It is a scare tactic and pretty much nonsense. First of all, al-qaeda and Muslim extremists in general are far from being our number one threat. Last I heard was they committed less than 1% of the world's terrorist attacks last year. Political terrorism, deadly gang violence, and even Christian extremism are much more common and problematic. These are also groups not addressed by this law not that it would help anyway as they are generally pursued as domestic issues by organizations such as the FBI. Secondly, the ability to hold an American citizen regardless of which terrorist organization they are suspected of being affiliated with is a natural progression from this current law. Where does it end? It doesn't. That is because they are getting carried away with this terrorism issue, which has been reduced to food for the media and demagogy. The legislature constituents who created this section are clearly out of touch with reality and our country's core values. This has to stop or we will destroy ourselves.

[Leilin]

Quick addendum: Before I said "Federalist." I meant "Anti-Federalist."

[J Y F]

Well for the "We the People Act" it was built off the 10th Amendment that the Federal government shouldn't mess with stuff not delegated by the Constitution and instead leave it to the states without interference. I mean federal court rulings could go either way to either destroy an oppressive law on religion or sexual orientation or it can bring about new restrictions on these topics. An example would have been when the Supreme Court stated that people are no longer allowed to pray at football games on June 19, 2000. Ron Paul probably felt that if a community decided to protect one’s right to practice religion and as a result pray wherever one wants, the Supreme Court has no right to deny the community that freedom. I believe situations like that were what Ron Paul was aiming to get rid of.

The Act was meant “to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

[belinda_sue_fox]

The legislature constituents who created this section are clearly out of touch with reality and our country's core values.

What detaining people without trial??? Can't say i saw many complaining the last few years. It's nothing new.

[sarah_ab]

so the issue is that we can now do to american citizens what has been happening to all those people at guantanamo bay... so basically its ok for the usa to completely ignore human rights for non citizens but not for citizens? yeah .... thats right because 'god' loves america and no one else ..... gotcha

[aleyxsis]

No matter what the arguments are !.It is still damn scary stuff and can only get worse .Just wait until they want to put micro chips in all citizens so they can track what you are doing at all times .Sounds crazy ? .Just wait !

[daddy-jonny]

i also still support obama.. and im voting for him again... we gave bush how many years in office? and look what he did to this country. obama is getting hated for the wrong reason (not because of this) but because he's spending more money.. WHY?! to fix the mess bush did

[Diapered Jason]

What detaining people without trial??? Can't say i saw many complaining the last few years. It's nothing new.

I know, that is what I said in my previous post.

[Leilin]

Well for the "We the People Act" it was built off the 10th Amendment that the Federal government shouldn't mess with stuff not delegated by the Constitution and instead leave it to the states without interference. I mean federal court rulings could go either way to either destroy an oppressive law on religion or sexual orientation or it can bring about new restrictions on these topics. An example would have been when the Supreme Court stated that people are no longer allowed to pray at football games on June 19, 2000. Ron Paul probably felt that if a community decided to protect one’s right to practice religion and as a result pray wherever one wants, the Supreme Court has no right to deny the community that freedom. I believe situations like that were what Ron Paul was aiming to get rid of.

You mean this tenth amendment? I'll bold the part that libertarian philosophy focuses on. The tenth amendment is NOT a right for the states to oppress people's individual liberties and writing off things like that and DADT is explaining away HUGE holes in Paul's philosophy. You cannot support those things and be a Libertarian. It is not a matter of positive and negative connotation. It is a matter of definition. To a Libertarian, individual liberty is paramount. Libertarians DO NOT sponsor or vote for bills preserving the rights of states or federal agencies to infringe on individual liberty.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to discriminate, by the way, is prohibited both to the Federal and to the State, assuming one isn't daft enough to think that our constitution doesn't promote the concept that "all men are created equal." (You know? From that pesky declaration?)

[J Y F]

I know what a libertarian is. You can’t support Ron Paul and not know what a libertarian is. I'm just saying that the intention that Ron Paul went into the We the People act was done so that individual liberties could be better supported by making sure the federal government doesn't interfere with them. The intention behind the We the People act could be interpreted different ways, one is that he went into it desiring to make the states more powerful than the federal government and the other is that he did it to make sure the federal government could no longer restrict individual freedoms like in the June 19, 2000 case. And this is where the question of whether or not he was following libertarian beliefs becomes subjective. For what intention did he do it for? I argue that he did it because he didn’t want the federal government to oppress individual liberties and if he had the power to restrict the states as well from interfering with individual liberties, well I think he would have. But he’s a congressman and has no power over state legislature.

Of course you could have interpreted it as he wanted to make the law to make states more powerful, but I personally don’t follow that logic. The making states more powerful part was in my opinion an implication that he would have rather not have happened. I know that the tenth amendment is not the right of the states to oppress civil liberties, but rather the lack of right of the federal government to oppress civil liberties, and that’s what I think he was aiming for. Of course, neither of us can know what he was thinking and thus this becomes subjective opinion and not objective fact.

Now again, about DADT, I feel the blog post at the link to a lobbyist’s blog that I pasted is very interesting in trying to understand Ron Paul’s mindset. I’ll bring up his death penalty contradiction. He was originally for the death penalty, but he changed his mind on it simply because it was not practical. In the PBS debate for the 2008 Presidential election, he stated he changed his mind because he knew from DNA tests that many past executions due to the death penalty were incorrectly done on innocent civilians. This impracticality changed his mind and I personally agree with his change in stance.

And that brings us back to DADT. Ron Paul originally thought that DADT protected gay soldiers and their choice of sexual orientation and for that reason supported it as a libertarian. But the issue is that DADT has the potential of making gay soldiers more vulnerable. I mean its very origin was a compromise between a gay ban law and Bill Clinton’s desire to veto said law. It pretty much states that if you revealed you were gay in the military, you’d be fired, which is in my opinion more of a threat than protection. Ron Paul later explained why he changed his mind from supporting to wanting to repeal DADT.

"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual. To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense." –Ron Paul

Like with the death penalty inconsistency, Ron Paul though initially supportive of DADT changed his mind since it simply wasn’t the best possible law that could be made to protect homosexuals since extremely well trained officers could be fired for simply their sexual orientation. This didn’t make much sense in Ron Paul’s and my opinion and I respect a politician who listens to his constituents rather than stay stubborn on his original beliefs. And it is for that reason that I still support Ron Paul as a libertarian though there have been like 2 incidents where he has changed position, since I see those changes in position as being quite rational decisions.

[Leilin]

I know what a libertarian is. You can’t support Ron Paul and not know what a libertarian is. I'm just saying that the intention that Ron Paul went into the We the People act was done so that individual liberties could be better supported by making sure the federal government doesn't interfere with them.

No. It wasn't. It's ridiculous to even think that when reading the bill. It was designed SPECIFICALLY to prevent the federal government and courts from stepping in when states make laws that infringe on individual liberties. In the law, he specifically cites Roe V Wade as something the law is designed to overturn, you know, that case where federal courts overrode a state ruling that limited individual rights? He OVERTLY provides that interpretation in his own writing. There is no second way to read this. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the actual text of the bill?

... and the TEA party tells us that you can most definitely support Paul and have not the slightest inkling of what it means to be a Libertarian, moreover since Paul himself frequently misuses the term.

And you're right. Paul's change of opinion on DADT to the right side of the issue is a good thing. (There is only one right side to that issue. Sorry, ignorant bigots. Pick another issue). But it doesn't excuse the fact that a person who favors state rights over the individual is NOT a Libertarian by the strict definition of the word.

[J Y F]

Hm ok I think I half agree with you on the We the People Act. I've reread the Act and I'll admit that I didn't fully remember the actual contents of the act before. Upon my reread, I find that this quote of Section 2 article 7 is most relevant to our discussion.

"Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Now my disagreement I feel is stemming from what you typed

"It was designed SPECIFICALLY to prevent the federal government and courts from stepping in when states make laws that infringe on individual liberties." -Leilin

Now, I find that is only half of the truth. The other half is the fact that this bill would have also prevented federal governments and courts from stepping in and destroy laws that promote individual liberty. I'm repeating myself, but I thought the Supreme Court was totally out of line in restricting the freedom of people to pray. I looked up the actual name of the June 19, 2000 case which was "Santa Fe Independent School Dist. vs Doe" where a student organization was accused of breaking the law for allowing prayer at football games. This organization that tried to promote an individual freedom was infringed upon by the Supreme Court making it so that you cannot pray wherever you want. It's just from this that I do not believe that this bill was written only for the sake of state power at the expense of individual liberty, but rather that is only one of the possible implications because it has the possibility of defending individual liberties as well. I feel like in this bill, he simply put his devotion to the constitution aka the 10th amendment that limits the federal government's power.

But I will say that from your posts, I have to agree that Ron Paul does not live up to being a strict libertarian since he has to balance his libertarianism with his constitutionalism. And sometimes those two sides just don't mix very well as shown by the We the People Act. I mean it's not like he can sponsor a law that states "all people should be able to freely express whatever religion or sexual orientation without any negative repercussions" since that would directly contradict his belief that the federal government has no power to instate that kind of law.

I wouldn't go as far as to call him an anti-Federalist in that he only tries to take away power from the federal government when the federal government steps past the boundary that is Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution. At the very least, I feel like he's just trying to obey his oath of loyalty to the Constitution upon entering congressional office.

The issue for me though is that despite this, I don't think he warrants the "fake libertarian" title from a couple of infractions. DADT and the death penalty changes of stance were in my opinion reasonable, and I can see the conflict between being a strict constitutionalist and a strict libertarian in We the People. Of course this is I believe a subjective opinion and anyone can disagree with my stance. Though if you have any other examples, I'm all for hearing about them.

I've learned a lot in writing these responses and thanks for starting this conversation with me

[Leilin]

I wouldn't go as far as to call him an anti-Federalist in that he only tries to take away power from the federal government when the federal government steps past the boundary that is Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution.

Which, in his position, seems to be always, unless gay people are involved.

[redneck diaper boy]

I have always hated Obama because he is a Marxist. For those that tell me that I don't know what Marxism is, I was educated by someone that escaped from Joseph Stalin.

Both Newt and Romney are flipp-floppers. They cannot be trusted. They both bought in to the "climate change" nonsense and forced healthcare insurance.

After Herman Cain was assassinated by the media, my support goes to Ron Paul.

If you are anti war, Paul is your man. If you are gay, Paul is your man. If you are for financial sanity, Paul is your man. If you want less government interference in your life, Paul is the man.

Everyone should be aware that the media has a hard-on for Ron Paul.

As of this minute, Ron Paul is ahead in Iowa.

As for NDAA it is scary stuff. If the government doesn't like you, you can be incarcerated indefineately with no trial! It was Obama that signed this into law. I said that Obama was trouble in 2008. Now I ask anyone that supported Obama; How is that "hope and change" working out for you"? Your "hope and change" put a Chicago thug in the Oval Office

May God allow the electorate to correct its mistake in 2012.

I held my nose when I voted for McCain in 2008. If necessary, I will hold my nose again and support whoever runs against Obama. Obama is the biggest flipp-flopper of them all!

NDAA should be a campaign issue. It was a power grab. It appears that we are headed for a totalitarian dictatorship. Who else wanted a license to do away with anyone that they wanted to? Who took over banking, healthcare and manufacturing in 1933? Who took over banking healthcare and manufacturing in 2009?

On a positive note, Osama binLaden is dead. I have no problem with the US Navy killing Osama.

Now we have the Obama administration assassinating an American citizen. Al Alwiki was a piece of shit but he was also an American citizen! In his campaign, Obama wanted terrorist to be tried in court. My objection was that the terrorist were not American citizens. Now Obama and the military can target US citizens! So much for equal justice!