Comments about ‘What others say: Troubling new law’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 6 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Agreed. The stated reason for the war on terror was that terrorists wanted to take away our freedoms. It isn't the terrorists that are taking away our freedoms, it is our response to the terrorists.

The cure is the same as the disease.

Clearfield, UT

To Tekakaromatagi | 6:07 a.m. Jan. 6, 2012
Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Agreed. The stated reason for the war on terror was that terrorists wanted to take away our freedoms. It isn't the terrorists that are taking away our freedoms, it is our response to the terrorists.


You're right. It started with THE PATRIOT Act, went through warrantless wiretaps, and now this. President Obama should have stood up to the far right extremists in the Republican Party and said "NO". Once again he caved in to them. I find that discouraging and appalling.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I am extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill. If our congess is so disfunctional, how did they manage to get this atrocity passed?

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Roland Kayser | 8:48 a.m.", "Furry1993 | 7:27 a.m." and any liberal out there, you do realize that Obama refused to sign the bill until it allowed the indefinate detention of US citizens. Since the DN editors couldn't find it, read "Obama Admin Pushed for Indefinite Detention Provision" in the New American, or else look up the YouTube video of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) stating that Obama would not sign the bill until the indefinate detention provision included US citizens.

spring street

this is disappointing but it is not new.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

As the American government of the United States of America retreats from the American experiment of government by the people, it is very likely that this law is only the tip of the iceberg.

The mission of the Tea Party and other conservatives is to weaken and diminish our national government by starving it of funds, canceling the protections of people and in general take us back to the world that we fought the revolutionary war to escape. Is it not logical that they would also return us to the laws of that other time.

Just like Obamacare this law is wrongly named to hide the actual people behind it.

Its too bad the media with its claim of accuracy and being fair and balanced does not give us the names the real source of the war against the American government.

Bronx, NY

I really don think this is one of those liberal versus conservative things this should be a disappointment to any american that values freedom. Our congress and our president failed us.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"

The 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 6th Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."


Can't Mr. Obama read?

Bronx, NY

its funny that everyone on this thread wants to pin this solely on obama. This was a failure at every level and is not the first time they have done so.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah


As Harry S. Truman sign said, "The Buck Stops Here".

Mr. Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Do you think that SIGNING a bill that allows Americans to be jailed without telling them why, without giving them access to council, and without a trial is upholding the Constitution?

Mr. Obama claimed to be a Constitutional Scholar. He claimed to have taught Constitutional Law. I'm beginning to wonder which Constitution he used.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Laws can be used to protect the People,
Those very same laws can also be used to Oppress and enslave the People.

When "Terrorists" fire-bombed the Reichstag (German Parliment Building) in 1933, it was a matter minutes for Adolph Hitler to use anti-Terrorists laws just like these, created to "protect" the Fatherland, to declare a National Emergency, declare Marshall Law, and strip all-Germans of their rights.

He then spent the next 5 years going on his uber-Right-Wing manhunt for the evil Leftist-Communists vandals who had set the fire, and quickly expanded it everyone else who might be considered by the State a threat to Germany.
We all know it went downhill from there.

The National Emergency never went away, no elections were ever held again, and Hitler became a ruthless Dictator....all perfectly legal.

The Patriot Act, The defeat of Citizens United, and this piece of garbage law are the REAL threats to our Constitution -- not Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or anyother name mentioned by right-wing Radio hacks.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I'd would like to quote your verbatim from yesterday:

Mike Richards | 6:28 a.m. Jan. 6, 2012
South Jordan, Utah
It looks like many posters have lost sight of what the President is supposed to do, according to the Constitution.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

There are only four sections in Article II. The President has very limited authority and very limited duties. He is not a king or a dictator. He executes the laws passed by Congress.


Blame Pres. Obama all you care to Mike,
But like you said, by your very own words -- He is not a king or a dictator. He executes the laws passed by Congress.

It was a Repbulican lead Congress who makes the laws.

I'm just saddened that the President didn't stand up to them, caved, and signed it anyway.

Blame Congress,
and save the rhetoric for AMradio.

Bronx, NY

@mike richards
Did congress and the senate (republicans and demarcates) also not take an oath of office stating the same thing. Obama does bare as much blame as the rest of them but the congress and the senate failed as well, its that simple and your blind hatred of this president will not change that sorry mike. This is a mater of our representatives failing us on every level be they liberal or conservative.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Liberal and George,

If you're saying that Mr. Obama has no spine, I agree with you.

Do you two cave whenever someone tells you to sign something, or do you have the integrity to tell them to take a walk when that "something" is contrary to everything this nation stands for?

You're both implying that Mr. Obama was forced to sign that law. What you either don't know or prefer to cover up is that he would NOT sign the bill until it contained that provision. HE DEMANDED that American citizens be imprisoned without trial, without legal representation and without giving a cause. That was HIS idea.

Wake up and admit that the President that you defend has just made it possible for YOU to be arrested without telling YOU why, without allowing YOU access to council, and without allowing YOU to be tried.

NOT ONE REPUBLICAN signed that bill. Only one Democrat signed it. That single Democrat was Mr. Obama.

Are you going to let Mr. Obama get away with it?

How many OTHER bills did Mr. Obama reject, even when our economy was the pawn? He's had no trouble NOT signing legislation that he disagrees with.

spring street

@mike richards
While it is nice to see you finally speak out about something many of us have been concerned about for almost a decade now it is sad that it took your obvious destine for this president to speak out against something that stared so long before he took office. This has ben an epic failure of all of our representatives for more then a decade now and is not isolated to one party or the other. I fear you may redact your statements when either one this president leaves office (not when the policy actually changes) or you find out that your statements fall in lines with what organizations like the ACLU and human rights international have been saying for many years.

Bronx, NY

@mike richards
I think you have gotten me wrong I am glad you finally decided to join the opposition to this type of legislation that many of us have been fighting against a decade now, but having said that I take exception to your mischaracterizations of my post.
"You're both implying that Mr. Obama was forced to sign that law." where exactly did I imply that? thats right I did not I stated it was a disappointing failure on his part. no excuses.
Could it be that the only person hat signed it was Obama be because he is the president? The congress and the senate sent him the bill. he did not create it out of thin air. Let me state this again very clearly for you OBAMA IS TO BLAME but so is the congress and the senate. this bill should have never made it to his desk. He should never have been given the option to sign it and when given the chance he should have vetoed it.


I do agree wholeheartedly that this need to be a bipartisan rejection of the Bill, all those who voted to enact it, and he who signed it.

We could begin by finding out if your own representative and senator supported it and, if they did, giving them an ear-full of how you feel. This can be done telephonically, by e-mail, USPO, in person, or as part of a peaceable assembly to petition for redress of grievances. This forum is an indirect way to get the ball rolling. Thanks to everyone and keep it up; when all parties unite to get something fundamental done, they usually prevail. This one is worth our time and effort. We cannot fail to ignore it without dire consequences.

I'll volunteer to be an "Independent Republi-crat" in this cause and "join" the unanimous outcry. Remember them all at election time!

J Thompson

Look how many are back-peddling as fast as they can.

Look how many finally see that President Obama is destroying this nation. George admits it. Liberal admits it. Ultra Bob admits it. Furry admits it. Roland admits it.

Only Redshirt and Mike Richards have had the courage to tell us all, all the way along that President Obama was up to no good. Only they consistently told us to watch out. Everyone else covered for President Obama. Everyone else agreed with him that everything was someone else's fault.

Now everyone can see that the emperor is wearing no clothes. We can see him for what he is. We can judge him for what he is doing. He can no longer hide behind lies and distortions.

If this bill is not enough to fire him, what will it take?


@J thompson

So it looks like mikes alter ego is agreeing with himself again. Actually what I see is all these people congratulating Mike for finally joining the conversation about the horrible mindset of our government (including Obama) over the past decade regarding these issues not a complete repudiation of president Obama as you want to claim and certainly not trying to treat Obama like the scapegoat you would like him to be.

spring street

@J Thompson
Was Obama wrong in this issue? yes. Is he destroying our country? Hardly. Only in your overly simplistic world could you see people disagreeing with Obama on this one law as a complete reversal of opinion about Obama by the other posters. Out here in the real world we get to disagree with our president on certain issues without actually having to completely abandoning our views on other issues we agree with him on.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments