Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: An open letter to folks like myself who cannot in good conscience vote for Obama [View all]Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)374. And your response is fairly inadequate, really
Actually, what he has to do is simple: Nothing. He needs to STOP appealing court decisions that say he does not have the right to hold people forever without trial. He is fighting to keep people at Guantanamo. All I ask that he do is STOP THAT. Take the court ruling and say, well, the judge said we (actually Bush) were wrong.
Military commissions aren't civilian trials but they take the place of them under the law we have. Indefinite detention as such is authorised under the National Defense Authorization Act:
Subtitle DCounterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 10740;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a 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,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 11184)).
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 10740;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a 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,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 11184)).
see here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf
Note that the authorisation of indefinite detention is "pursuant to the laws of war" and such persons deemed to be enemy combatants are detained until cessation of hostilities. This is an altogether normal procedure for prisoners of war. If you accept that the US is "at war" with Al Qaeda then these provisions are perfectly standard. (And US citizens who take up arms against the US are probably luckier to be treated as enemy combatants considering that the penalty for treason is still death.) The distinction seems to mostly be in the argument of whether one accepts that the US is "at war" with Al Qaeda, and whether Al Qaeda operatives should be treated as prisoners of war, or as common criminals. The US government at present maintains the former postion, and all of the laws passed by the US Congress relating to detention of enemy combatants re the war on terror adhere to that view as well. It's an unfortunate political reality but it is nonetheless a political reality. Would I like to see it changed? Yes; do I think it will be? Not unless the votes magically appear in Congress to repeal the existing detention laws.
And the argument for drones is not Nuremberg; it's Dresden. Or Hamburg. Legitimate military targets; collateral damage. Unfortunate, but an action that nonetheless materially injures the enemy's capacity to wage war. Targeted execution of Al Qaeda fighters by drone strikes is if anything considerably less deadly than the WWII mass bombings.
And your example of "soldiers in Vietnam being tried for waterboarding" just proves my point. Show trials. One or two examples. Few bad apples, that's all, it's not the whole system that's rotten, nothing to see here, move along.
Re Iceland: I would like to invite you to compare the relative size of the financial sector in Iceland and in the US. And the average level of individual debt in Iceland and the US. Iceland's recovery has more to do with an amnesty for private debts, which were officially retired, than it does with letting the banks fail. Iceland's economy contracted by 10% due to the economic crisis, and it hasn't yet recovered to 2007 levels. The US economic contraction, in terms of GDP? 3%. The difference? Quantitative easing. And Iceland has fewer people than a medium-sized US city. You can't really compare what works economically in a country with three hundred thousand people to what would work in a country of three hundred million with a vastly more diversified economy and significantly higher levels of personal debt.
Re healthcare, political capital doesn't translate into votes. Were the votes ever there for single payer? No, they were not. Are you old enough to remember Clinton's healthcare reform? I am. Do you know how that turned out? It didn't.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
537 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
An open letter to folks like myself who cannot in good conscience vote for Obama [View all]
Kelvin Mace
Sep 2012
OP
My take: A vote for Obama is a huge vote against Citizens United. That's enough for me.
nanabugg
Sep 2012
#299
It's best if you learn how the US Government works and get taught recent history but you're
uponit7771
Sep 2012
#66
From your posting history, I'm not sure you ever had "a cause", at least not one that....
Tarheel_Dem
Sep 2012
#161
i'm a life-long democrat who has never voted republican. i post here to discuss policy issues that
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#170
i posted the entire statement. i forgot nothing. as i said, if you have a problem with me or my
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#172
bush got no child left behind with increased spending to close schools, not to mention an entirely
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#193
Then let's stop spending all this money and time on the Presidential election and start focusing on
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#74
Thanks, Kelvin. You could also consider it a vote to try to help me gain equal rights.
Zorra
Sep 2012
#3
he sets his own ed policy too. and pubs are happy to vote the money to destroy public education.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#35
Republicans did not choose his cabinet, he did. I hope this time he can find some
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#85
He did NOT run on indefinite detention. He did not run on protecting War Criminals
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#175
Yep, if that slimy skunk or any of his ilk are involved in Obama's second term
tavalon
Sep 2012
#184
You got to read paragraph8, or is it 9?, so the guy will vote for Obama anyway..ok??
Stuart G
Sep 2012
#9
Why? Why are people on a Democratic board advocating that people just 'stfu and vote'?
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#80
Unfortunately there are many of us who will be voting with less enthusiasm this time.
unapatriciated
Oct 2012
#532
Have you been in a cave? You do know what happened in the 2010 midterms, right?
Tarheel_Dem
Sep 2012
#163
Oh, so you're saying none of us are disillusioned by what Obama promised and chose
tavalon
Sep 2012
#195
"please be as strident in pressing the President back to doing what is right" = dream on.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#13
Obamacare is not what was promised: It is a windfall for the insurance compaines
panzerfaust
Sep 2012
#436
Well if Utopia means simply not killing any more people in foreign countries, or
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#528
What did you want from Obama that he hasn't delivered? Serious question....
scheming daemons
Sep 2012
#16
I also appreciate your honesty. I am sick to death of the pretentious, dishonest system
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#90
In other words, you are suggesting that Republicans will trigger a Constitutional crisis.
longship
Sep 2012
#241
"In other words, you are suggesting that Republicans will trigger a Constitutional crisis."
Pab Sungenis
Sep 2012
#248
Fellow resident of NC--never was enchanted with Obama--but I don't need an excuse
mnhtnbb
Sep 2012
#46
Just like Senator Sanders said this very day (paraphrasing) "Vote for President Obama because
Egalitarian Thug
Sep 2012
#50
Thank you!! Obama will go down as one of the greatest presidents of ALL time!!
Liberal_Stalwart71
Sep 2012
#95
Well, that's good news. I'm glad you're onboard. I haven't been happy with everything,
Liberal_Stalwart71
Sep 2012
#396
If I had your patience. You completely de-constructed bullshit and showed it for what it is. nt
bluestate10
Sep 2012
#152
So basically you have just given up on all these issues. You have rationalized everything
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#365
But none of this stopped the Republicans when THEY decided to prosecute a US President
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#379
How is the OP violating the TOS? Is there some rule saying that valid concerns can't be raised
IndyJones
Sep 2012
#168
I love those who keep trying desperately to make this into something it isn't
Major Nikon
Sep 2012
#237
I'm going to say to you what I said to my friend who tried (like you) to keep me from voting Obama
DainBramaged
Sep 2012
#65
I love when someone obviously did not read the entire OP and then gets offended
RetroLounge
Sep 2012
#279
I was never behind Obama nor Hillary for that matter. I knew he was a conserva-Dem,
Cleita
Sep 2012
#100
Terms of Service : when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#110
So now those of us who don't like Obama but are supporting him anyway aren't welcome?
Pab Sungenis
Sep 2012
#240
"The 'disastrous on civil liberties' part especially does not ring true for me."
Pab Sungenis
Sep 2012
#247
MN, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think the best reaction to this OP is...
stevenleser
Sep 2012
#249
Or maybe the Jury actually read the OP and understood that Democrats will need
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#322
There is actually a difference between "support" and your now-disingenuous denial of your premise.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#235
I for one am not going to argue with someone who is doing what I want them to do
stevenleser
Sep 2012
#128
I don't hear similar sounding comments from most LGBT folks I know IRL or here on DU
stevenleser
Sep 2012
#254
I'm glad that there are people like the OP, without whom an awful lot of people
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#471
Column what column? Didn't read it. All I read was that someone was taking themselves out of the
grantcart
Sep 2012
#310
If Obama loses, in 8 years your ilk will be running to the next great democratic hope.
bluestate10
Sep 2012
#151
This is what NC DU'ers Kelvin Mace, Joyce McCloy, other DU'ers Did for Verified Voting!
KoKo
Sep 2012
#407
You are dancing around my main points and asserting things for which you offered no proof
stevenleser
Sep 2012
#339
Thank you for your posts in this thread. I have been saying the same things for years.
unapatriciated
Oct 2012
#534
Boy, you're gonna look kind of silly if Reply #169 gets shut down by jury, huh?
tavalon
Sep 2012
#221
So you don't want people to vote for this President? Then what are you doing on DU?
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#425
Yep. For the privileged it can be a "lesser evil." For the downtrodden, it is a necessity.
joshcryer
Sep 2012
#428
I don't understand how this thread is continuing. Is this DU or the Brietbart Report?
Walk away
Sep 2012
#167
Yes, it is DU, where people can think and discuss issues, even more so when elections
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#177
It definitely has helped resolve a troubling decision for me. To vote for someone who
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#181
he said he's voting for obama in the place of those likely to be purged from voting rolls.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#224
He's exhorting people to use his way to be able to vote for Obama, if they, like him,
tavalon
Sep 2012
#223
The title is grammatically clear, if not to the OP. Line 2 = "pro-Obama folk," clearly NOT the OP.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#243
I think you present a solution to those who feel as you do, but are rightly concerned that
gateley
Sep 2012
#307
I did the same thing back in 2001, exchanging my vote with someone in Georgia
twins.fan
Sep 2012
#275
I worked through the same dilemma and came to the same bottom line but with a different rationale.
eomer
Sep 2012
#276
While I understand your logic (although I disagree), I think it is only one half of the whole story.
DrewFlorida
Sep 2012
#288
I'm sorry. Embarrassingly, I didn't read your full post before hastily responding...
CreekDog
Sep 2012
#518
Speaking of Jill Stein....I wouldn't risk voting her her in a battleground state.
limpyhobbler
Sep 2012
#441
If it's a safe state like NY you can probably feel comfortable making a statement -
TBF
Sep 2012
#453
Kelvin, this is perhaps the most self-aggrandizing, specious, sophistic codswallop I've seen on DU.
Surya Gayatri
Sep 2012
#354
Thank you #354 ... A Legend in His/Her Own Mind. Poppycock. Santa didn't come. Deal with it.
cr8tvlde
Sep 2012
#367
It is an excellent way to foil those who would deprive people of their right to vote.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#416
Nauseating...I'm really sad you're allowed to spread your filth, but it is "Democratic Underground"
Rowdyboy
Sep 2012
#417
So you too are against encouraging people to vote for Obama? What is going on here?
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#427
My reading comprehension is fine-and I understand exactly what the OP is trying to do....
Rowdyboy
Sep 2012
#437
"I'll cast my vote for the disenfranchised despite that they're not as enlightened as me."
joshcryer
Sep 2012
#429
"Promises from Candidate Obama about hope and change"--You sound like a GOP candidate
Kolesar
Sep 2012
#430
You're a non-reality glass-half-empty purist who doesn't understand the real world.
RBInMaine
Sep 2012
#431
Uh, yes, my post is for people who had my reservations about voting for Obama, such as myself
Kelvin Mace
Sep 2012
#479
Seems to be the vibe I am getting from a LOT of people who object to this post.
Kelvin Mace
Sep 2012
#465
I don't know your gender, and I don't even care, but if things don't work out with Whisp.....
Tarheel_Dem
Sep 2012
#511
That would be "know." And that would be yours truly. And you would still be wrong in your idiom
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#482