Obama signs NDAA

• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-01 00:40

  Quote from Yoorah;715783:

  I think they needed to sign it ASAP to ensure for proper funding for the DOD/military?
  Vetoing it wouldn't be a good idea, as from what I remember, it had strong bipartisan support. No point in fighting it when it will most likely not be abused. There's a provision in the bill that states that citizens and legal residents actually are exempt from this, but there is an issue with the wording, which makes it a bit confusing.
  I started a thread about it earlier, here.
  
  Besides, they don't need this bill to be able to designate American citizens as terrorists and then put them on an assassination list. It's been done already, with that American dude who went to Yemen or whatever and became an author of some terrorist magazine.

  
  
  I'm kind of curious as to why they want to use camps now instead, though. Their biggest facility is a medical facility in Alaska, which leads me to believe they might want to repeat the same sh*t with Mengele and his supposed "medical research/experiments" all over again, but I have no clue.
  
  They seem ridiculously power hungry and in a rush, which just worries me all the more.
• Morrigan wrote on 2012-01-01 00:40

  Quote from Cynic;715778:

  That doesn't mean that he himself approves of their methods. Naturally the government in charge of these camps will use any excuse when detaining their victims, but to put blame on Obama for it? That's just silly. It would be the same even if we had another President. They'll throw around whoevers name for whatever reason if it serves their purposes.

  
  
  Didn't say Obama was to blame for it :b The only thing Obama was involved in what I said was the anti-Obama supporters.
• Cow wrote on 2012-01-01 00:42

  Quote from Morrigan;715763:

  So basically they can throw anti-Obama supporters into jail, by accusing them of being "terrorists".

  
  Wtfurk? That's messed up e-e...
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-01 00:43

  Quote from Morrigan;715794:

  Didn't say Obama was to blame for it :b The only thing Obama was involved in what I said was the anti-Obama supporters.

  
  
  Well, he's not technically involved in it, but I see what you mean. Kind of guilt by association or some sh*t.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-01 00:43
  I wouldn't say they're power hungry. They just want to be able to do their jobs as efficiently as possible, with less crappy red tape. Red tape can be a huge pain in the ass when you work for anything government related.
  
  But that doesn't change the fact that it lets people imagine rather creepy "what if" scenarios as a result.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-01-01 00:44

  Quote from Cynic;715715:

  Not surprised, but still ashamed.
  
  I wonder who forced him into signing it.

  
  
  the Republican majority in both houses of congress (or rather the growing amount of Republicans)
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-01 00:47

  Quote from Yoorah;715804:

  I wouldn't say they're power hungry. They just want to be able to do their jobs as efficiently as possible, with less crappy red tape. Red tape can be a huge pain in the ass when you work for anything government related.
  
  But that doesn't change the fact that it lets people imagine rather creepy "what if" scenarios as a result.

  
  
  Doing their job efficiently should never involve detaining innocent people, which is what they will do. With the amount of camps being set up and the type of guards there, there is no way we need THAT much space for just suspected terrorists. They can be easily used to hold innocent people who happen to go against the government and they won't be able to do jack squat to stop it.
  
  The Nazi thing started out somewhat innocently, too. But we all know how out of hand that got. Just because it's decades later doesn't mean human nature has changed. Especially since the soldiers stationed at these camps are going to get bored with their babysitting eventually, and unlike Nazis, these men were trained not to cringe at the sight of even a woman or child getting killed.
• Rocketjarate wrote on 2012-01-01 00:48
  [Image: http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u215/MilkRath/newronpaulgandalf22TESXT2.jpg]

  
  Where is President Paul when you need him? DX
• Cynic wrote on 2012-01-01 00:50

  Quote from Rocketjarate;715816:

  [Image: http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u215/MilkRath/newronpaulgandalf22TESXT2.jpg]

  
  Where is President Paul when you need him? DX

  
  
  > Implying that he or anyone else could have stopped it
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-01-01 00:51
  Congress would have laughed and roflstomp Ron Paul's veto if he was President
• Chillax wrote on 2012-01-01 01:09

  Quote from Yoorah;715783:

  There's a provision in the bill that states that citizens and legal residents actually are exempt from this, but there is an issue with the wording, which makes it a bit confusing.

  
  
  Do you happen to know what that issue is? No one criticizing the bill that I've run into seems to be able to give me anything concrete about the supposed loophole that exists.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-01 01:43
  The issue with wording is that it says they're not required to detain citizens/residents. But does that imply that they still can if they want to? I'm not familiar with law (especially military law or w/e) so I can't really take a definitive stance on it either way.
• Zid wrote on 2012-01-01 02:47
  [s]There goes Plan C.[/s]
• Juno wrote on 2012-01-01 03:12
  They're not going to start arresting random citizens and throwing them in camps.
  
  Calm down .-.
• paladin wrote on 2012-01-01 03:19
  Thats a shame
  Obama got over ruled by congress
  Atleast he was open about it