Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Rand Paul filibustering


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#196    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 15 March 2013 - 05:22 AM

View Postninjadude, on 15 March 2013 - 03:29 AM, said:

unless I'm wrong, isn't it basically forever?
It's open-ended, until Congress decides to stop funding it, basically.


#197    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 15 March 2013 - 05:29 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 15 March 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

Are we referring to the same law? The provision, that I'm referring to, makes no such distinction. If you and I are referring to the same law, the two provisions are contradictory. I'm a bit confused, at the moment.
I'm referring to the Section 1021 of the NDAA, -  Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the AUMF - the entire text of which I quoted earlier.

Which are you referring to?


#198    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 March 2013 - 06:14 AM

Let's clear this confusion up.

All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the option to have U.S. citizens detained by the armed forces but this requirement does not extend to them, as with foreign persons. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."[32][33]

http://en.wikipedia....y:_Section_1022

Obama obviously wants to have this power when he's appealing injunctions and rejecting initiatives to strip the indefinite detention clause in section 1022 out of the NDAA that OPTIONALLY applies to US citizens .  DM2013 and BR got it right.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#199    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,550 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 15 March 2013 - 02:19 PM

View PostTiggs, on 14 March 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

The military, contrary to popular opinion, requires funding. That funding authorization comes from Congress. See the NDAA discussions above.

The AUMF is exactly what it was meant to be - a mandate from Congress for the President to use military force to wreak revenge for the 9/11 attacks for an extended period of time.

Regardless - I have no idea what your obsession is with trying to classify the AUMF as "political posturing", as if the political motivation behind any law to pass Congress makes them any less legal.

The Congress cannot abdicate its responsibility to legitimate and responsible government.  By way of the open-ended AUMF, it has done so.  Just one example is that no reports required by WPA have ever been offered, much less discussed by the legislative branch.

The AUMF was political theater meant to distract the public.  It succeeded.  Ignorance and misinformation was the basis for the document, and 11 years later that is obvious to anybody that is curious and informed of recent events.  The proper remedy for bad legislation is repeal, and that's what responsible leaders would be talking about.

As former US Army, I completely understand the Article II powers granted the President.  I have no problem whatsoever with that provision of the law.  I support it.

That said, when the power is abused, as it has been by at least the last 2 presidents, the man or men who abuse it should be punished by impeachment at the very least.  Through at least 2 administrations, the government makes a mockery of the rule of law.


#200    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,916 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 March 2013 - 05:01 PM

I see the political posturing in Obama's signing statement and other verbal statements.   I sign this bill with deep reservations, but don't worry, my administration won't execute that provision you're uncomfortable with.  So long as I'm here, you're safe with me.  That other guy over there though, Mitt Romney, I can't give you any such reassurances under him.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#201    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 15 March 2013 - 06:15 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 March 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

The Congress cannot abdicate its responsibility to legitimate and responsible government.  By way of the open-ended AUMF, it has done so.  Just one example is that no reports required by WPA have ever been offered, much less discussed by the legislative branch.
But they have been offered. There's this six monthly report from the Whitehouse Press Releases, for example. I expect you'll find that the Armed Service Committee's of both the Senate and the House discusses the whole war on terror thing on occasion, too.

No-one normally legislates restrictive timescales on military actions, because Stuff Happens™.


Quote

The AUMF was political theater meant to distract the public.  It succeeded.  Ignorance and misinformation was the basis for the document, and 11 years later that is obvious to anybody that is curious and informed of recent events.  The proper remedy for bad legislation is repeal, and that's what responsible leaders would be talking about.
The death of thousands of US citizens was the basis for that document. Anything else is pure conspiracy theory.

You can repeal whichever legislation you wish, but terrorist threats do not disappear just because you close your eyes and pretend that they're not there.


Quote

As former US Army, I completely understand the Article II powers granted the President.  I have no problem whatsoever with that provision of the law.  I support it.

That said, when the power is abused, as it has been by at least the last 2 presidents, the man or men who abuse it should be punished by impeachment at the very least.  Through at least 2 administrations, the government makes a mockery of the rule of law.
In your opinion. In mine, not so much.


#202    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,550 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 15 March 2013 - 07:50 PM

Yes I know Tiggs.  In your opinion.


#203    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,582 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 15 March 2013 - 11:58 PM

Which is always final.

Posted Image

#204    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:07 AM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 15 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

Which is always final.

Actually - it's not.

My opinion is falsifiable - in this case, it would just take Congress to impeach a President to persuade me that the President had committed an impeachable offense.

You'll note that there's no possible future event that could ever occur that would change Babe Ruth's unfalsifiable opinion, however.


#205    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,582 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:49 AM

Guess it depends on the time of day. You've told me otherwise before. Sounds good to me though. Point taken and noted. No hard feelings.

Posted Image

#206    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,550 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 March 2013 - 03:21 PM

View PostTiggs, on 16 March 2013 - 12:07 AM, said:

Actually - it's not.

My opinion is falsifiable - in this case, it would just take Congress to impeach a President to persuade me that the President had committed an impeachable offense.

You'll note that there's no possible future event that could ever occur that would change Babe Ruth's unfalsifiable opinion, however.

Is falsifiable really the correct word?

It seems to me that an opinion, once exposed to rational public dialogue, is either valid or invalid.  I understand that like belly-buttons everybody has one, but some opinions are informed, and others are not.

I never have a problem standing corrected on any given issue.  So far on this matter, you have not offered much to support your contention/opinion/whatever that the President can usurp power.

As for impeachment as it relates to the US Congress, in the first place politicians assembled are notoriously corrupt and self-serving.  Keep in mind that Kucinich, Wexler, and a few other honorable men (those two gone from Congress now, Mr. Smith) brought the case for impeaching Bush for his crimes.  The Leader Of The Democrats, Pelosi, thwarted those good efforts.

For virtually the same crimes Obama should be impeached, but I'm old enough and cynical enough to understand that it ain't gonna happen.


#207    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 16 March 2013 - 05:31 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 March 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Is falsifiable really the correct word?
Yes.

You've created a conspiracy spanning over a decade and across multiple sessions of congress, where you claim that Congress refuses to impeach the President regardless of whether or not he's committed impeachable acts.

As opposed to the President not committing an act which it would be possible for Congress to successfully impeach him for.

Because you believe that conspiracy exists, you can now claim that any President, now or in the future, has committed an impeachable offence - regardless of whether he has or not - because you've created this conspiratorial shield that you can use to deflect the obvious "Then why hasn't Congress impeached him?" question, which makes your claim unfalsifiable.

In short - there's a single test for impeachability - actually impeaching someone - and you're claiming that that test is now and forever rigged, just because a President wasn't impeached at your whimsy.


Quote

It seems to me that an opinion, once exposed to rational public dialogue, is either valid or invalid.  I understand that like belly-buttons everybody has one, but some opinions are informed, and others are not.

I'm sure that your opinion is informed, but not all information holds equal weight.

In general, it's possible to form opinions which are non-falsifiable - which are then impervious to any form of rational public dialogue. Most Conspiracy theories take this form, and are generally created by an initial false assumption held sacrosanct, which is then worked backwards to invalidate any tests which would have shown their assumption to be false.

Such as believing that Adam Lanza didn't use an Assault Rifle, even though both the police and the coroner claimed that he did, for example.


Quote

I never have a problem standing corrected on any given issue.  So far on this matter, you have not offered much to support your contention/opinion/whatever that the President can usurp power.

Probably because it's not my position that he particularly has. That would be your case to attempt to make.

Edited by Tiggs, 16 March 2013 - 05:40 PM.


#208    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 16 March 2013 - 06:38 PM

Even if Obama was impeached (which I doubt would ever happen) it still doesn't mean that they would kick him out of office. Remember the whole Clinton fiasco?
If he DID get impeached and kicked out of office, then that would make BIDEN our president... :no:


#209    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,550 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:47 PM

Tiggs

I am just judging history, nothing more.  And then interpret the events of history through the prism of how humans behave.  Tempered with a fair knowledge of the law.  I can't help how people in government act--they never ask me my opinion on anything, but I know what the law says, and I know how it USED TO BE back before these last 2 administrations, those waging that notorious Global War On Terror.

So rant if you must, but I can see where you stand.  It appears to be squarely with John Yoo and Eric Holder.

Thanks, but no thanks.


#210    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 16 March 2013 - 08:10 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 March 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

I am just judging history, nothing more.  And then interpret the events of history through the prism of how humans behave.  Tempered with a fair knowledge of the law.  I can't help how people in government act--they never ask me my opinion on anything, but I know what the law says, and I know how it USED TO BE back before these last 2 administrations, those waging that notorious Global War On Terror.
Welcome to Terrorism. Apparently you're new here.

Some of us have been living our entire lives under terrorist threat. Some of us have lost friends and families to terrorist bombs. Some of us have survived being bombed by terrorists.

Terrorists really don't care what your particular interpretation of the events of history are. They're going to try and kill you, regardless.


Quote

So rant if you must, but I can see where you stand.  It appears to be squarely with John Yoo and Eric Holder.

Because in your head, everyone who disagrees with you obviously advocates torture.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users