djsunyc wrote:did trump destroy democracy yet?

Fucker is trying his best, he’s got some dumbass accomplices too

Pompeo refuses to acknowledge Biden has won election, enables Trump's denial

Pompeo's remarks added to confusion generated by President Donald Trump's refusal to concede the 2020 election and growing concern that a chaotic transition period could undermine indeed national security. Senior Republican lawmakers and other Cabinet officials have also been silent about the former vice president's projected victory.

Even as foreign leaders call to congratulate Biden, Trump has refused to accept the result, with his campaign launching legal challenges and making baseless claims about voter fraud and illegal votes. On Monday, his attorney general authorized federal prosecutors to investigate allegations of voter irregularities -- a directive that led the Justice Department's top election crimes prosecutor to resign.

BigDaddyG wrote:How is this making America great? This country has become even more of a laughing stock.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/pompeo-transition-trump/index.html

Pompeo refuses to acknowledge Biden has won election, enables Trump's denial

Pompeo's remarks added to confusion generated by President Donald Trump's refusal to concede the 2020 election and growing concern that a chaotic transition period could undermine indeed national security. Senior Republican lawmakers and other Cabinet officials have also been silent about the former vice president's projected victory.

Even as foreign leaders call to congratulate Biden, Trump has refused to accept the result, with his campaign launching legal challenges and making baseless claims about voter fraud and illegal votes. On Monday, his attorney general authorized federal prosecutors to investigate allegations of voter irregularities -- a directive that led the Justice Department's top election crimes prosecutor to resign.

This is what fascists do....

When I said back when Obama signed it into law, that this is precisely the kind of tool, a future president could use to disappear his enemies. The tools of a dictator.

Some Obama fanboys suggested that this was no big deal. Even though the law went against hundreds of years of legal precedent, going back to the Magna Carta. Obama likes it, so it must be a good idea!

We just have to hope that Trump doesnt invoke it. Depends on who follows his orders.

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Lets not forget to thank Obama/Biden for the NDAA. It gives the president the legal authority to kill, arrest and imprison, an American citizen, anywhere in the world. Without a trial, without due process. On national aecurity grounds, which can mean anything.

When I said back when Obama signed it into law, that this is precisely the kind of tool, a future president could use to disappear his enemies. The tools of a dictator.

Some Obama fanboys suggested that this was no big deal. Even though the law went against hundreds of years of legal precedent, going back to the Magna Carta. Obama likes it, so it must be a good idea!

We just have to hope that Trump doesnt invoke it. Depends on who follows his orders.

Perhaps you can point us to more specific meaning of what you are trying to pin on Obama/Biden. NDAA was created in like the 60's and gets updated yearly'ish I think. The section you are referring to was authorized after 9/11 in 2001. And it doesn't give "legal authority to kill, arrest and imprison, an American citizen, anywhere in the world. Without a trial, without due process. On national aecurity grounds, which can mean anything", that's just your interpretation of it.

If you have some trouble with NDAA, hit up Bush and then find the trail.

Easy, I can point to him signing it into law in 2012, when he should have vetoed it out of principle. I can point to the Obama administration invoking it after they killed a 16 year old American boy with a drone strike. The son of a terrorist, who had been dead for 2 weeks.

Obama wasnt a bystander in all this. That law is supposed to be for a wartime footing Against traditional enemies. Its supposed to end when hostilities cease. Can you provide me with an end date to the "war on terror"?

If Trump had won a second term, he could have used this to snatch people off the street, hold them indefinitely. Using antifa as a legal justification. This country's legal system was built on due process.

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Lets not forget to thank Obama/Biden for the NDAA. It gives the president the legal authority to kill, arrest and imprison, an American citizen, anywhere in the world. Without a trial, without due process. On national aecurity grounds, which can mean anything.

When I said back when Obama signed it into law, that this is precisely the kind of tool, a future president could use to disappear his enemies. The tools of a dictator.

Some Obama fanboys suggested that this was no big deal. Even though the law went against hundreds of years of legal precedent, going back to the Magna Carta. Obama likes it, so it must be a good idea!

We just have to hope that Trump doesnt invoke it. Depends on who follows his orders.

Perhaps you can point us to more specific meaning of what you are trying to pin on Obama/Biden. NDAA was created in like the 60's and gets updated yearly'ish I think. The section you are referring to was authorized after 9/11 in 2001. And it doesn't give "legal authority to kill, arrest and imprison, an American citizen, anywhere in the world. Without a trial, without due process. On national aecurity grounds, which can mean anything", that's just your interpretation of it.

If you have some trouble with NDAA, hit up Bush and then find the trail.

Easy, I can point to him signing it into law in 2012, when he should have vetoed it out of principle. I can point to the Obama administration invoking it after they killed a 16 year old American boy with a drone strike. The son of a terrorist, who had been dead for 2 weeks.

Obama wasnt a bystander in all this. That law is supposed to be for a wartime footing Against traditional enemies. Its supposed to end when hostilities cease. Can you provide me with an end date to the "war on terror"?

If Trump had won a second term, he could have used this to snatch people off the street, hold them indefinitely. Using antifa as a legal justification. This country's legal system was built on due process.

Then do so. Point to the sections.

From wikipedia..

for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub.L. 112–81 (html) (pdf). This NDAA contains several controversial sections (see article), the chief being §§ 1021–1022, which affirm provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of civilians, including U.S. citizens, without habeas corpus or due process, contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub.L. 107–40 (html) (pdf).

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Lets not forget to thank Obama/Biden for the NDAA. It gives the president the legal authority to kill, arrest and imprison, an American citizen, anywhere in the world. Without a trial, without due process. On national aecurity grounds, which can mean anything.

When I said back when Obama signed it into law, that this is precisely the kind of tool, a future president could use to disappear his enemies. The tools of a dictator.

Some Obama fanboys suggested that this was no big deal. Even though the law went against hundreds of years of legal precedent, going back to the Magna Carta. Obama likes it, so it must be a good idea!

We just have to hope that Trump doesnt invoke it. Depends on who follows his orders.

Perhaps you can point us to more specific meaning of what you are trying to pin on Obama/Biden. NDAA was created in like the 60's and gets updated yearly'ish I think. The section you are referring to was authorized after 9/11 in 2001. And it doesn't give "legal authority to kill, arrest and imprison, an American citizen, anywhere in the world. Without a trial, without due process. On national aecurity grounds, which can mean anything", that's just your interpretation of it.

If you have some trouble with NDAA, hit up Bush and then find the trail.

Easy, I can point to him signing it into law in 2012, when he should have vetoed it out of principle. I can point to the Obama administration invoking it after they killed a 16 year old American boy with a drone strike. The son of a terrorist, who had been dead for 2 weeks.

Obama wasnt a bystander in all this. That law is supposed to be for a wartime footing Against traditional enemies. Its supposed to end when hostilities cease. Can you provide me with an end date to the "war on terror"?

If Trump had won a second term, he could have used this to snatch people off the street, hold them indefinitely. Using antifa as a legal justification. This country's legal system was built on due process.

Then do so. Point to the sections.

From wikipedia..

for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub.L. 112–81 (html) (pdf). This NDAA contains several controversial sections (see article), the chief being §§ 1021–1022, which affirm provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of civilians, including U.S. citizens, without habeas corpus or due process, contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub.L. 107–40 (html) (pdf).

When you can't even provide a link or full text, you know you are holding back.

What you have going on is all the crap you don't like was authorized after 9/11, by Bush. Obama did add some clarifications; it wasn't so much passed in full by Obama as you had initially suggested. What you don't like is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF). Everything after that is just legal minutia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Detention_without_trial:_Section_1021

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person, including a U.S. citizen,[12][20] "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the United States or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".[21]

Addressing previous conflicts with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate–House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "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". As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.[16]

An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the Senate.[22] According to Senator Carl Levin, "the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section".[23] The Senator refers to section 1021 as "1031" because it was section 1031 at the time of his speaking.

I gave you the condensed version. Dont get all Q on me, no conspiracy. The "crap I dont like" goes against 400 years of law. You dont give a rats ass about Habeus Corpus? I do. Its the bedrock of our legal system, and Obama signed a law that gave him a legal justification to assassinate a boy, half a world away. Without a trial or charges.

The only thing you're giving me is BS 'whataboutism". I thought Democrats where supposed to be better than this.

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Lets not forget to thank Obama/Biden for the NDAA. It gives the president the legal authority to kill, arrest and imprison, an American citizen, anywhere in the world. Without a trial, without due process. On national aecurity grounds, which can mean anything.

When I said back when Obama signed it into law, that this is precisely the kind of tool, a future president could use to disappear his enemies. The tools of a dictator.

Some Obama fanboys suggested that this was no big deal. Even though the law went against hundreds of years of legal precedent, going back to the Magna Carta. Obama likes it, so it must be a good idea!

We just have to hope that Trump doesnt invoke it. Depends on who follows his orders.

Perhaps you can point us to more specific meaning of what you are trying to pin on Obama/Biden. NDAA was created in like the 60's and gets updated yearly'ish I think. The section you are referring to was authorized after 9/11 in 2001. And it doesn't give "legal authority to kill, arrest and imprison, an American citizen, anywhere in the world. Without a trial, without due process. On national aecurity grounds, which can mean anything", that's just your interpretation of it.

If you have some trouble with NDAA, hit up Bush and then find the trail.

Easy, I can point to him signing it into law in 2012, when he should have vetoed it out of principle. I can point to the Obama administration invoking it after they killed a 16 year old American boy with a drone strike. The son of a terrorist, who had been dead for 2 weeks.

Obama wasnt a bystander in all this. That law is supposed to be for a wartime footing Against traditional enemies. Its supposed to end when hostilities cease. Can you provide me with an end date to the "war on terror"?

If Trump had won a second term, he could have used this to snatch people off the street, hold them indefinitely. Using antifa as a legal justification. This country's legal system was built on due process.

Then do so. Point to the sections.

From wikipedia..

for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub.L. 112–81 (html) (pdf). This NDAA contains several controversial sections (see article), the chief being §§ 1021–1022, which affirm provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of civilians, including U.S. citizens, without habeas corpus or due process, contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub.L. 107–40 (html) (pdf).

When you can't even provide a link or full text, you know you are holding back.

What you have going on is all the crap you don't like was authorized after 9/11, by Bush. Obama did add some clarifications; it wasn't so much passed in full by Obama as you had initially suggested. What you don't like is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF). Everything after that is just legal minutia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Detention_without_trial:_Section_1021

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person, including a U.S. citizen,[12][20] "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the United States or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".[21]

Addressing previous conflicts with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate–House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "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". As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.[16]

An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the Senate.[22] According to Senator Carl Levin, "the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section".[23] The Senator refers to section 1021 as "1031" because it was section 1031 at the time of his speaking.

I gave you the condensed version. Dont get all Q on me, no conspiracy. The "crap I dont like" goes against 400 years of law. You dont give a rats ass about Habeus Corpus? I do. Its the bedrock of our legal system, and Obama signed a law that gave him a legal justification to assassinate a boy, half a world away. Without a trial or charges.

The only thing you're giving me is BS 'whataboutism". I thought Democrats where supposed to be better than this.

Get your facts straight

Eat your vegetables

Discussed in relevance via Reuters.