Senate supports Obama plans for indefinite detention 93-7

[Warren Dew]

President Barack Obama has outlined plans to use indefinite detention and lawmakers in both parties sought to make clear such a tactic is legal....

Some Republicans aligned with the tea party movement, led by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, have railed against provisions that Mr. Paul argued violated the Constitution, aligning himself with liberal Democrats.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... %3Darticle

Obama doesn't like the amount of red tape involved, though.

Pity Rand Paul couldn't rally another 34 votes.

[Schneibster]

In the real world, Obama has announced he will veto the final bill if it contains that provision.

But don't let reality spoil your great story.

President Obama has promised to veto the Defense bill if it includes the controversial provision, with his administration arguing that applying the new rules within the U.S. would challenge the "fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."

Source.

[Gawd]

America has no principals. They were revoked.

[Schneibster]

America has no principals. They were revoked.

Snicker.

[Warren Dew]

In the real world, Obama has announced he will veto the final bill if it contains that provision.

Because the Obama administration doesn't want even the restrictions that bill would include, yes. From the original source:

The Obama administration has threatened to veto the legislation, arguing the executive branch should decide how to try terror detainees.

The Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies voiced opposition to the military-detention provision, arguing it would interfere with the work of terrorism investigators and interrupt intelligence collection.

In other words, the Obama administration wants to be able to do whatever it wants without even following the limited rules in this bill.

[Schneibster]

... the Obama administration wants to be able to do whatever it wants without even following the limited rules in this bill.

Senate supports Obama plans for indefinite detention 93-7

Duh umm.

[Coito ergo sum]

UPDATE: Obama has dropped his threat to veto the bill and is now expected to sign it into law. Remember – it was Obama’s White House that demanded the law apply to U.S. citizens in the first place.

http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-dete ... amas-desk/

[Clinton Huxley]

UPDATE: Obama has dropped his threat to veto the bill and is now expected to sign it into law. Remember – it was Obama’s White House that demanded the law apply to U.S. citizens in the first place.

http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-dete ... amas-desk/

Infowars?!?

Alex Jones is a nut.

[Ian]

Um, let's not ignore WHY the veto threat was dropped - because the bill's language WAS CHANGED to allow civilian prosecution of suspected terrorists, rather than simply handing them 100% over to military for potentially indefinite detention.
http://www.politico.com//blogs/under-th ... 07514.html

[Coito ergo sum]

UPDATE: Obama has dropped his threat to veto the bill and is now expected to sign it into law. Remember – it was Obama’s White House that demanded the law apply to U.S. citizens in the first place.

http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-dete ... amas-desk/

Infowars?!?

Alex Jones is a nut.

Yes, to both.

[Clinton Huxley]

Reading Infowars or PrisonPlanet can make you feel dizzy...

[Coito ergo sum]

Reading Infowars or PrisonPlanet can make you feel dizzy...

Lot's of:

[Tyrannical]

Shame we can't add socialist and communist sympathizers to the list since Senator McCarthy was right, but I degrees.
But it is a violation of the 5th and 6th amendment.

[Warren Dew]

Um, let's not ignore WHY the veto threat was dropped - because the bill's language WAS CHANGED to allow civilian prosecution of suspected terrorists, rather than simply handing them 100% over to military for potentially indefinite detention.

No, the law was changed to permit indefinite detention of civilians and legal aliens on U.S. soil without a trial. That's what got Obama to drop the veto threat.

He wants more though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7mwP5Di5NE

[Seth]

Shame we can't add socialist and communist sympathizers to the list since Senator McCarthy was right, but I degrees.
But it is a violation of the 5th and 6th amendment.

"Digress?"

Anyway, me too, and I agree that any "indefinite detention" of a US citizen on US soil absent suspension of the right of Habeas Corpus during time of war is a constitutional non-starter.