Maybe the most fascinating thing . . .

[sonofdaxjones]

about the indefinite detention debate has been the realization by many after studying the administrations letters to Congress about this issue, is the fact that the administration didn't want codification because they argued that it would interfere with the Presidents ability to "defend the country".    Translation:  We don't want any rules at all.   Which is the real reason they threatened a veto at first . . . now they've backed off the veto threat, or so it appears.

What a terrible time for our country, but even more so, one needs to ask why this administration is acting the way they are, what is their endgame here?

[sonofdaxjones]

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.[/u][/size]

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think it's funny how we can't "torture" or detain terrorists without a trial in civilian court, but we can kill them with a drone strike without any due process whatsoever. Anybody else confused by that? Is that the "Obama Doctrine"?

[LickNeckey]

do not agree with indefinite detention on any level however i believe the doctrine of drone strike was set before barry

[Dugout DickStone]

I think it's funny how we can't "torture" or detain terrorists without a trial in civilian court, but we can kill them with a drone strike without any due process whatsoever. Anybody else confused by that? Is that the "Obama Doctrine"?

drone strike is part of an armed conflict.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think it's funny how we can't "torture" or detain terrorists without a trial in civilian court, but we can kill them with a drone strike without any due process whatsoever. Anybody else confused by that? Is that the "Obama Doctrine"?

drone strike is part of an armed conflict.

Ok, cool. That makes sense. So from now on, instead of capturing people, we should just kill them. We may get less information, but it avoids all the red tape.

[Bookcat]

"armed conflict"

that's rich.

All the U.S. needs to do is slap a label on it called conflict...then launch the drones. (wipes hands).

[Dugout DickStone]

"armed conflict"

that's rich.

All the U.S. needs to do is slap a label on it called conflict...then launch the drones. (wipes hands).

Yes.  And?

[AbeFroman]

At what point will Americans abandon both parties and their totalitarian desires?

We either have someone like Bush in office signing the Patriot Act.
or
We have someone like Obama in office signing this.

[Rage Against the McKee]

At what point will Americans abandon both parties and their totalitarian desires?

We either have someone like Bush in office signing the Patriot Act.
or
We have someone like Obama in office signing this.

I think Ron Paul will win Iowa. We are closer than you might think.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

At what point will Americans abandon both parties and their totalitarian desires?

We either have someone like Bush in office signing the Patriot Act.
or
We have someone like Obama in office signing this.

I think Ron Paul will win Iowa. We are closer than you might think.

LOL, Huckabee won in Iowa 4 years ago. It's really irrelevant who wins there. Very similar to Minnesota politics with respect to the rest of the country.

[Rage Against the McKee]

At what point will Americans abandon both parties and their totalitarian desires?

We either have someone like Bush in office signing the Patriot Act.
or
We have someone like Obama in office signing this.

I think Ron Paul will win Iowa. We are closer than you might think.

LOL, Huckabee won in Iowa 4 years ago. It's really irrelevant who wins there. Very similar to Minnesota politics with respect to the rest of the country.

It might be for this election, but a candidate like Ron Paul actually winning a primary in any state would be pretty eye-opening.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

At what point will Americans abandon both parties and their totalitarian desires?

We either have someone like Bush in office signing the Patriot Act.
or
We have someone like Obama in office signing this.

I think Ron Paul will win Iowa. We are closer than you might think.

LOL, Huckabee won in Iowa 4 years ago. It's really irrelevant who wins there. Very similar to Minnesota politics with respect to the rest of the country.

It might be for this election, but a candidate like Ron Paul actually winning a primary in any state would be pretty eye-opening.

A caucus system always gives the candidate with the most fanatical supporters the win even if they have the least support in actual numbers.

You're right though, if he were to win an actual primary, that would be something.

[OK_Cat]

A cauc

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

A cauc

Yes, Gaga had to prove she had one in a video.