AAR

[dick]

Just might make 2012 a bit more interesting, and certainly will provide a few more chuckles.

[Kayne]

[KarenS]

So who likes Newt?

[Tee]

[dick]

I don't think I could be convinced to vote for Newt, but I'm sure wondering who in the hell I CAN be convinced to vote for in 2012. At this point, I'm wishing the Dems would leave tradition behind and run someone besides the incumbent, especially now that he's backing away from vetoing the law that will allow the military to arrest US citizens in the US and hold them without charging them.

[erhea13]

See, here's the thing . . . if you look at the field, it's pretty sparse. I watch the debates (I am a Republican and this is the crappy field from which I have to choose at the moment) and chuckle. Newt tends to run intellectual circles around the other candidates - not very hard to do for some of them. Then they slowly circle around his "conservatism" which I view as a veiled reference to his personal failings because he has a consistently conservative fiscal and social record. I simply am curious to see how long it will take for someone to seriously toss out a comment about Newt's questionable personal choices. It would not surprise me if none of the men do so for fear of serious digging into their personal lives. My money is on Bachman to throw that stone because she has been attacking Newt heavily lately, but when she confronts him toe to toe she just gives Newt a bigger opportunity to reveal her vulnerabilities in debate. All in all, Newt is the most equipped to govern and the best politician of the group. He is also the only one who can debate well enough not to be ground into the dust by Obama's charisma when the General rolls around. This is game of electability and not one of policy because like Obama's '08 run, this one is going to be about running against a "failure" of an administration. It will be more about how much the last guy sucked than anything else, and Obama hasn't done much to shore up his own record - which is mediocre at best. So, I am just going to wait this out and do as I have done since I turned 18: pick the lesser of two evils becuase God forbid either party put someone out there who is worth voting for.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

[erhea13]

[monica]

[dick]

@monica: However, doesn't it, a few sentences down state that those who are considered "terrorists," even if US citizens, can thus be treated, which however one looks at it, denies a constitutional right. I think, as voters, we should all be wary of a bill that even suggests such a possibility.

[monica]

Section 1021 e) specifically excludes US citizens.

NDAA conference report section 1021: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

If you were referring to section 1022 a) 2, regarding FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS, it specifically states:

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021...

Per section 1021, "Persons whose detention is authorized" excludes US citizens.

[Kristie(J)]

Monica, I am appalled that you would defend this bill with its possibe terrifying loss of rights for American citizens. I don't claim to understand too much about it as (Thank God) I don't live in the US! But from what I can understand, it gives carte blanche for the government to arrest anyone on just the slightest pretext.

You can argue semantics all you want with tiny little individual sections, but it won't amount to anything if someone on a power trip wants to have someone arrested.

People in other parts of the world are giving up their lives in order to gain freedom from tyranny whereas American citizens, in the birthplace of freedom from oppression, have lost theirs. They just don't seem to realize it yet.

I find this truly, truly frightening.

[erhea13]

There is a classification process for the term "terrorist" to be applied which includes some evidentiary findings. So long as that process is sufficiently developed (I can't speak to that) and adhered to, there is not serious risk to civilian liberty. The military has very limited authority where citizens are concerned and I don't really see this as going beyond that authority. The bill reads more like a codification of a function the military already carries out.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

[monica]

[Tee]

So, Santorum is appearing to be getting stronger. Do any of you who normally vote Republican have any thoughts about him? He's looking good to me. Seems honest enough. But then he's still a politician and they all play games. It's just in the strategy of how they do it, I guess.

[erhea13]