As most Americans are celebrating the New Year, or sleeping, I'm busy becoming more annoyed with the US government.
Today, President Obama signed a military funding bill that included provisions that he claims to have not liked. He said that he signed the bill anyways because military funding would have run out on Monday. Maybe it would be nice if he decided to stand up against Congress this time. Of course, he has no history of doing so. And he said that he would not use the provisions for limitless, lawless detaining of people, American citizens or not, during his time in office. That however proves nothing, as he said he would close Guantanamo, yet he didn't (which is basically the same problem). And those provisions will stay in place for any future presidents who are completely okay with using them.
And what would be so bad about military funding running out? Maybe Congress would figure out a better bill the next time. It could force Congress to compromise. Or it would just prove that Congress can't agree on ANYTHING, even something they agree on. I'm not sure if you agree with me, but I have the odd feeling that giving the President the ability to detain people without a trial, for indefinite periods of time, is a minor problem for rights. And if Obama had problems with this, why didn't he mention them when Congress was still in session?
Maybe you'll consider joining me by fleeing to Canada.
Nakamura, David. "Obama Signs Defense Bill, Pledges to Maintain Legal Rights of Terror Suspects -
The Washington Post." Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. 31
Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Dec. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-signs-defense-
bill-pledges-to-maintain-legal-rights-of-terror-suspects/2011/12/31/gIQATzbkSP_story.html?
tid=pm_politics_pop>.
Nicholas, Peter. "Obama Signs Defense Bill but Balks at Terrorism Provisions - Latimes.com." Los Angeles Times - California, National and World News - Latimes.com. 31 Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Dec. 2011. <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-defense-20120101,0,1970762.story>.
Today, President Obama signed a military funding bill that included provisions that he claims to have not liked. He said that he signed the bill anyways because military funding would have run out on Monday. Maybe it would be nice if he decided to stand up against Congress this time. Of course, he has no history of doing so. And he said that he would not use the provisions for limitless, lawless detaining of people, American citizens or not, during his time in office. That however proves nothing, as he said he would close Guantanamo, yet he didn't (which is basically the same problem). And those provisions will stay in place for any future presidents who are completely okay with using them.
And what would be so bad about military funding running out? Maybe Congress would figure out a better bill the next time. It could force Congress to compromise. Or it would just prove that Congress can't agree on ANYTHING, even something they agree on. I'm not sure if you agree with me, but I have the odd feeling that giving the President the ability to detain people without a trial, for indefinite periods of time, is a minor problem for rights. And if Obama had problems with this, why didn't he mention them when Congress was still in session?
Maybe you'll consider joining me by fleeing to Canada.
Nakamura, David. "Obama Signs Defense Bill, Pledges to Maintain Legal Rights of Terror Suspects -
The Washington Post." Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. 31
Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Dec. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-signs-defense-
bill-pledges-to-maintain-legal-rights-of-terror-suspects/2011/12/31/gIQATzbkSP_story.html?
tid=pm_politics_pop>.
Nicholas, Peter. "Obama Signs Defense Bill but Balks at Terrorism Provisions - Latimes.com." Los Angeles Times - California, National and World News - Latimes.com. 31 Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Dec. 2011. <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-defense-20120101,0,1970762.story>.
No comments:
Post a Comment