Hey gang,
Here's your second online discussion CEB option.
Remember your comments on this blogspot are due Thursday by 6 PM.
You can still provide me three articles WITH YOUR COMMENTS in your book or via email...OR...you can join the online discussion here on the class blogspot with weekly animated political cartoons from my favorite (and often intriguing) liberal cartoonist, Ann Telnaes.
Remember to provide in your discussion point two things:
- "I agree or disagree with Miss Telnaes' viewpoint"
- "Let me tell you why..."
- I'M ADDING ONE MORE THING YOU MUST HAVE FOR CREDIT - let me know that you read or watched one of the links below (you just have to indicate something like, "Yes, Mr. J. I read the article on the New American" or "I watched Senator Paul on YouTube")
This week's episode:
Click the image to open the video
or DOWNLOAD a copy (the file is a 282 KB)
IF you are having problems getting to this site, try going directly to the link at the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-signs-national-defense-authorization-act/2012/01/03/gIQApgMFZP_video.html BUT THEN COME BACK HERE TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS! |
President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act...over the New Year while you were sleeping. The controversy is over a portion of the bill that essentially allows law enforcement officials detain and imprison American citizens - without a lawyer or habeas corpus (if the President believes the suspect is a threat to national security).
Read about in the January New American article. Or read what The Blaze says out the NDAA.
Conservative Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky tried to warn us this was about to happen on December 31 - see it on YouTube here.
Even liberals hate this - check out what Young Turks say on YouTube.
If you have a few weeks to kill and nothing better to do, you can download and read the massive thing here.
Read about in the January New American article. Or read what The Blaze says out the NDAA.
Conservative Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky tried to warn us this was about to happen on December 31 - see it on YouTube here.
Even liberals hate this - check out what Young Turks say on YouTube.
If you have a few weeks to kill and nothing better to do, you can download and read the massive thing here.
So - is Obama's NDAA bill Constitutional or not? Be specific in your discussion - why is it Constitutional or not.
Join the darkside!....
"President Barack Obama signed a law on New Year's Eve granting himself absolute power to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected (by him) of being "belligerents." He promises he won't use it, however"...This is the first paragraph of the New American article. If he was not going to enforce this bill, then why make it at all?!?
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to get away from!! England was not giving the colonists their rights, specifically concerning being tried elsewhere than where the crime took place and on arbitrary charges! This "may prevent terrorists from attacking" but the people's rights are being taken away and hindered because of it. This bill is suppossedly protecting us, when it may indeed hurt us even more. What if the President (currently or future Presidents) takes this action on a single father? how will he take care of his children?
~emily
I think we might be looking at this bill wrong. Now, I'm using Wiki as my source, so it may not hold too much water, but it seems that there is a requirement for the President to detain someone via armed forces. any person "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" In other words, it seems to me that, in order for the President to be allowed this power, the person in question must have first committed or be highly suspected of treason. Doesn't it make sense that we would detain someone suspected of one of the most heinous crimes? Maybe people are just making assumptions before checking all of their facts? Yeah, Mr. Johnson, I watched the video and some of what Rand Paul said.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily's stance. If he "promises not to use it," why push it? However, I would say the President is basing this decision on the good ol' American ideal: keeping options open. For example, if one is driving on a freeway with 3/4 tank of gas and sees a gas station, most likely he'll stop and grab an extra quarter of gas JUST IN CASE. Now, this theory is probably more understandable ten years ago when gas was around $.99 a gallon, but the concept still stands :P Basically, driving with a quarter more of gas will give more options to stop at conveniences stores, shopping plazas, etc rather than with 3/4 of a tank. He doesn't need to use the NDAA YET, but in case he determines he needs use it (or abuse it), it will be readily available and waiting for him.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's constitutional because I would like to believe America still holds to the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty, rather than the other way around. Even in extreme cases of possible military threat, if the individual is an American citizen, I would like him or her to still be tried in the same way I would like to be tried myself.
I rest my case. :)
And I read the January New American article where Senator Lindsey Graham opened up the debate floor in the Senate
Good job on the debate today guys! :P But prepare for the THUNDER tomorrow though! ;)
But why not have this law? One of the most dangerous laws America has is diplomatic immunity. A “special” foreigner is exempt from nearly all laws and questionings. These foreigners can easily get away with anything they please. This law stops these “belligerents” from damaging the system. Desperate times call for desperate measures. This law enables the executive and military to hold anyone whom they deem “dangerous” until the danger passes. It is very similar to the rounding up of Japanese Americans during WW2. It’s a necessary precaution.
ReplyDelete-Signed, devil’s advocate
P.S. I read the January New American article.
This is from Gerry (computer problems):
ReplyDeleteI'm somewhere in the middle here, but I'm leaning more towards Emily and Michael's stance. (Yes, Mr. J, I read the January article as well.:) )
I agree with Tim and Zac only in the sense that we've become so hypersensitive in this nation to being racist that we will not overly suspect someone capable of treason who walks into an airport wearing a turban. His culture is affiliated with killing 6000 New Yorkers ten years ago in 9/11. This was the reason the TSA was put into action, and as Tim says, many will agree this is a "necessary precaution"...but is it?
The NDAA, as well as the TSA, while they are precautionary and are a part of the long and grievious mission to stomp out terrorism; neither are Consitutional. In my opinion, the ends do not justify the means. I would also like to point out, that Obama seems like he's being slightly paranoid. Do Muslims like to kill Christians? From what I understand, yes. But is it the Muslims that highjacked four major aircrafts and steered them clear through the heart of America? No. The Muslims didn't do this. Al-Quaeda did. I ask you, how many members of al-Quaeda are still left? And if their are many, it is still completely unconstitutional to "jump the gun" (no pun intended) and arrest people immediately who are suspected of terrorism. Put them on trial, certainly. But I agree with what Michael says about being innocent until proven guilty, and not vice versa.