NDAA/AUMF is a post 9/11 requirement.

Rivalry Side A | Politics | News

Infringes on the rights of Americans.

Rivalry Side B | Politics | News

While I have some issues with the AUMF/NDAA passed by Obama in 2011 I believe it serves the country's best interest in keeping Americans safe. What do you think?

Posted by in Politics / News on 3/14/12

Side A fans: (6)

Neutral Fans: (1)


Side A Comment

Rep - 3/14/12 @ 7:29 PM:
Whatever it takes to keep us safe. Our troops too!

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 3/14/12 @ 6:41 PM:
This particular issue came up in a recent rivalry. I was curious what some of you think about the bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in November of 2011. I have a few issues with the AUMF portion of the National Defense Authorization Act, but overall I do believe it necessary for the security of the United States. After reading quite a bit of the bill itself it became fairly apparent that this bill makes a very clear separation between an everyday normal lawbiding American citizen and a person whose affiliations with the Taliban or Al Qaeda are detrimental to the security of the United States. Now I know some of you love to bash Obama for his policies, and that's fine. You have every right to feel and voice your opinions about the matter. However, let's not forget that the powers to detain prisoners without due process were not created by President Obama, but his predecessor. This Act simply states that the current United States President still has that power, and Congress approved it. President Obama had serious reservations about signing it, but eventually did so in order to ensure funding for our troops and military. I sincerely doubt he has any intentions of hoarding American citizens into camps and detaining persons without due process of law any time soon. I know some of you may think that way, but I do not. Sometimes you simply have to take the bad with the good.

As far as infringing upon our own rights as American citizens I saw nothing in the language of the bill that would suggest that the Executive branch of the United States was given any more authority that it did not already have as contained within Article 5 of the Bill of Rights. As far as I'm concerned President Bush did not overstep his authority with the initial action after 9/11 with the exception of other parts of the Patriot Act. The AUMF portion of both seemed to be inline with the Bill of Rights. I have no problem with it. What are your thoughts?
Add new comment:

You must either login or register before you can comment.

Side B fans: (2)

You need to be logged in to do that!
Login with Your Facebook Account:
Already have a JealousBrother account? Login
Register for a JealousBrother Account! Register