The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

what it means is I believe in our military insofar as they conduct themselves in a wise and ethical manner.....and giving the military such power would not be wise and ethical conduct in the least

ah but in that case you're saying you don't trust them
after all even if granted unfettered powers, a "wise & ethical" military wouldn't abuse of it, they'd choose not to - in which case such a law wouldn't be a problem anyway; ethics is not about the power you wield, but how you use it (else that would make God himself unethical)

so basically you don't trust those you believe in? ^_^

[mad_gater]

ah but in that case you're saying that you don't trust them
after all even if granted unfettered powers, a "wise & ethical" military wouldn't abuse of it, they'd choose not to - in which case such a law wouldn't be a problem anyway; ethics is not about the power you wield, but how you use it (else that would make God himself unethical)

so basically you don't trust those you believe in? ^_^

more of a belief in the freedom our military is sworn to protect.....many soldiers believe in it too and very likely many will protest this bill....do I trust them? yess to a point....but it would be fool hardy of me to not acknowledge the fallen nature of man and that this fallen nature might lead some in the military to act unwisely...believing in the military's abilities doesn't mean not speaking out when they commit unjust acts during the prosecution of a war...in short my belief in the military is not the same as the belief I render to God

[SoulReaver]

more of a belief in the freedom our military is sworn to protect.....many soldiers believe in it too and very likely many will protest this bill....

o that'd be very interesting to see - will they protest about being granted too much power?
is it in man's nature to protest when given a gift?

("we have too many privileges! that's unacceptable!". credible? :-)

do I trust them? yess to a point....but it would be fool hardy of me to not acknowledge the fallen nature of man and that this fallen nature might lead some in the military to act unwisely...believing in the military's abilities doesn't mean not speaking out when they commit unjust acts during the prosecution of a war...in short my belief in the military is not the same as the belief I render to God

kewl

but that's a far cry from what your sig implies
you might wanna rectify & include all that you just said therein, pronto :|

[mad_gater]

o that'd be very interesting to see - will they protest about being granted too much power?
is it in man's nature to protest when given a gift?

("we have too many privileges! that's unacceptable!". credible? :-)

kewl

but that's a far cry from what your sig implies
you might wanna rectify & include all that you just said therein, pronto :|

well for one thing I didn't make it I just snurched it from elsewhere and for another I would hope most people with the intellectual powers God gave a horsefly would be able to differentiate that belief in the military and belief in God are 2 entirely different types of belief

[SoulReaver]

well for one thing I didn't make it I just snurched it from elsewhere and for another I would hope most people with the intellectual powers God gave a horsefly would be able to differentiate that belief in the military and belief in God are 2 entirely different types of belief

yeah but you see the thing is, considering how vehemently - and blindly - so many of your countrymen display those beliefs (they call it Patriotism, I believe), it would appear that even the horseflies have some serious competition to contend with. as such, surely you'll understand how an outside observer could easily be mislead by such a statement as that in your sig

Spoiler:

the fact that God & the military are mentioned in the same sentence doesn't help either :/

[KEK]

So, Obama has successfully created a third class of prisoner, now any American citizen (or otherwise) can be locked up indefinitely without charge or prospect of a trial just for being suspected of terrorist links. Maybe those loons who said the US was sleep-walking into a police state actually knew what they were talking about...

[SoulReaver]

the best part is how he said he had reservations about that bill
if so then why the hell didn't he veto it?
or does the President sign things at gunpoint? seriously :/

[LtColCarter]

not at all

and no it doesn't....the last part says LIMITED government....a law that allows government officials to indefinitely detain citizens without just cause would represent therefore a very large...and un-Constitutional EXPANSION of government power

When you pull that out of context of NDAA it looks bad...however...that portion of the act is pursuant to the AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was 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," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. However, as long as you're not doing anything that looks like terrorism, you shouldn't have any issues.

[SoulReaver]

When you pull that out of context of NDAA it looks bad...however...that portion of the act is pursuant to the AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was 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," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. However, as long as you're not doing anything that looks like terrorism, you shouldn't have any issues.

depends who gets to define what "looks like terrorism" - some folks regard flag desecration as such


btw who controls the Senate?

[LtColCarter]

depends who gets to define what "looks like terrorism" - some folks regard flag desecration as such


btw who controls the Senate?

I would consider it disrespectful...terrorism no. I'm aware of who controls the senate. However, that doesn't mean the President always agrees with the senate and vice versa.

[SoulReaver]

I would consider it disrespectful...terrorism no. I'm aware of who controls the senate. However, that doesn't mean the President always agrees with the senate and vice versa.

I meant, which party currently holds majority in the senate?

[lordofseas]

The Democrats, barely.

[SoulReaver]

**** I thought it was the republicans (with democrats prevailing in the congress)

anyway why the hell did the senate oppose a provision that would protect their own citizens? now that reeks of treason

[lordofseas]

**** I thought it was the republicans (with democrats prevailing in the congress)

anyway why the hell did the senate oppose a provision that would protect their own citizens? now that reeks of treason

No. In the House of Representatives, the Republicans hold the Majority, while in the Senate, the Democrats do.

[LtColCarter]

**** I thought it was the republicans (with democrats prevailing in the congress)

anyway why the hell did the senate oppose a provision that would protect their own citizens? now that reeks of treason

I agree...it does

No. In the House of Representatives, the Republicans hold the Majority, while in the Senate, the Democrats do.

You're correct...