Comment · Wed, April 25, 2012
Ron Paul speaks out against CISPA
What they were answering
Sajun · 1 points
The vote to authorize military force after 9/11 was a 420 to 1 vote! Everyone in the House voted for it, save for Barbara Lee! It also went 98-0 in the Senate.
So, because everyone else agreed with it, that makes it okay? Obama is the anti-christ of civil liberties, but Paul is the savior? Sorry, that doesn't work here.
My problem is the fact that Obama feels as though that bill gave him the legal authority to suspend due process for US citizens, when that is not what it was intended for!
Well, I can't really argue with how you think Obama feels. However, in regards to what he actually wrote: "“Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb
You seem to be arguing with me as if I am a Republican and/or defending Ron Paul. Nowhere did I state anything to that nature. My original comment was explaining to cfreak why people are stating that Obama has destroyed civil liberties. My later point was that Obama has not fought to put law into place to protect our civil liberties. He merely says that even though he has the authority to take away our due process, that he will not use that power. That is not enough for me, I cannot just take someone's word for it. I want Obama to fight for our civil liberties by enacting laws to ensure them, not making statements that he will not use the authority. Your statements regarding Republicans railroading him are true. However, I want him to STOP playing politics and stand some ground! He says that he will be lauded as the person that screwed over military families if he doesn't pass the legislation. Well perhaps he should, then it would force the issue! He extended the Patriot Act without standing his ground as well. My point was he is not "fighting" for our civil liberties. He is only saying that they are safe as long as he is in office, since he chooses not to use the powers he is afforded. My other point about his "feeling" was that he was interpreting the AUMF to include American citizens because it specifically did not exclude them. He does legally think he has the authority under the AUMF. I do not like that interpretation of the law. I would rather powers not be afforded unless explicitly stated. Those are the issues from my perspective.