Is he afraid of looking "soft on terror?"

eom

Just wondering.

protesters and end freedom of speech.

But do you want that power in the hands of a President Bachmann who believes that the government is being infiltrated by Islamic radicals?

We are a nation of laws not of men. The President saying "trust me I won't indefinitely detain Americans" isn't a good enough guarantee against a future leader who may use the law to quell domestic dissent.

And, in regards to this particular president, this law has been on the books ever since the 2002 AUMF.

Odd, that suddenly everyone is so interested the DRY bones of Habeas Corpus, which died in the Fall of 2002, with barely a nod from anyone. Quite interesting.

Honestly, I DO understand most people's concerns and credit them as much as I can, but there's one thing missing from everything I have seen about this. What does he do about current risks to the security of this land? current and future risks that are rooted in the current?

I (and many like me) am completely capable of handling all of the liberty I can find, others aren't and our history of "exceptionalism" in the world, especially our more recent activities in which we killed and enabled the killing of a few million INNOCENT Muslims, means something to the dysfunctional, who are at a disadvantage against superPAC powers, domestic and foreign, who can bank anywhere on Earth. Do you really think Romney is somekind of mistake?

Now you and I may be willing to take our chances against this situation (we'll just cure this patient with our ideological vibes), so we can rail against this process in which THIS President works out the legal parameters, through several rounds of this kind of stuff over the next several years, for a law that has been on the books ever since 2002, something that was absolutely going to happen one way or another anyway, because that's how it IS done in the legal universe.

We can rail and some of us can do the ignorant single-issue voter thing (after-all we're Americans we can do WHATEVER we want, fuck the difference between what wanting is and what actual freedom is). Yeah, the purists can get all high on purity and defend _______________________ (while __________________ likely gets blind-sided anyway from another direction, mind you). And we may even be right about all of that.

But the guy who is President has to represent ALL of the people who don't know, or if they do, they quite simply want the land protected. Why are their lives/their desires less valuable than yours or anyone else's lives? If they are in danger, shouldn't THEY be allowed to choose their own consequences? Or should some intellectual/political/economic plutocracy force those consequences on them?

And therein lies one of my basic issues about this stuff. People who don't necessarily know enough? everything? the things one would need most to know? are pushing on this POLITICALLY and, yet, they don't seem to care about the wishes of millions and millions of other people, here in America, and across the World, who, given a voice, would likely CHOOSE protection and, in the situation that we are in, that means by the most expedient means possible, detention, and, also at this point, detention IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, for some unspecified period of time, i.e. indefinite detention. Apparently ideologies are more important than the desires of all of those people for their own safety from other people, similar to those fighting Obama on this, who don't care about their safety, or who have decided the risks are worth _____________________.

Why don't we ever hear a "Let's solve this dangerous problem this way!" from your camp? I know the answer to that question: YOU DON'T CONSIDER THAT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, but guess-what? Presidents ARE charged with that responsibility.

And, in regards to this particular president, this law has been on the books ever since the 2002 AUMF.

Odd, that suddenly everyone is so interested the DRY bones of Habeas Corpus, which died in the Fall of 2002, with barely a nod from anyone. Quite interesting.

Honestly, I DO understand most people's concerns and credit them as much as I can, but there's one thing missing from everything I have seen about this. What does he do about current risks to the security of this land? current and future risks that are rooted in the current?

I (and many like me) am completely capable of handling all of the liberty I can find, others aren't and our history of "exceptionalism" in the world, especially our more recent activities in which we killed and enabled the killing of a few million INNOCENT Muslims, means something to the dysfunctional, who are at a disadvantage against superPAC powers, domestic and foreign, who can bank anywhere on Earth. Do you really think Romney is somekind of mistake?

Now you and I may be willing to take our chances against this situation (we'll just cure this patient with our ideological vibes), so we can rail against this process in which THIS President works out the legal parameters, through several rounds of this kind of stuff over the next several years, for a law that has been on the books ever since 2002, something that was absolutely going to happen one way or another anyway, because that's how it IS done in the legal universe.

We can rail and some of us can do the ignorant single-issue voter thing (after-all we're Americans we can do WHATEVER we want, fuck the difference between what wanting is and what actual freedom is). Yeah, the purists can get all high on purity and defend _______________________ (while __________________ likely gets blind-sided anyway from another direction, mind you). And we may even be right about all of that.

But the guy who is President has to represent ALL of the people who don't know, or if they do, they quite simply want the land protected. Why are their lives/their desires less valuable than yours or anyone else's lives? If they are in danger, shouldn't THEY be allowed to choose their own consequences? Or should some intellectual/political/economic plutocracy force those consequences on them?

And therein lies one of my basic issues about this stuff. People who don't necessarily know enough? everything? the things one would need most to know? are pushing on this POLITICALLY and, yet, they don't seem to care about the wishes of millions and millions of other people, here in America, and across the World, who, given a voice, would likely CHOOSE protection and, in the situation that we are in, that means by the most expedient means possible, detention, and, also at this point, detention IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, for some unspecified period of time, i.e. indefinite detention. Apparently ideologies are more important than the desires of all of those people for their own safety from other people, similar to those fighting Obama on this, who don't care about their safety, or who have decided the risks are worth _____________________.

Why don't we ever hear a "Let's solve this dangerous problem this way!" from your camp? I know the answer to that question: YOU DON'T CONSIDER THAT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, but guess-what? Presidents ARE charged with that responsibility.

make that Quite Interesting , in light of the Republicans'/Romney's trashing of the "Two State Solution" and their push to war against Iran?