Troubling new law

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 8, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    Truth - equating the TSA ( a republican creation ) to the SS or KGB..... it really shows you didn't pay too much attention to history class or understand those organizations at all. Making such outlandish statements only really degrades your statements.

    The problem with your Nazi/Communist rants is the closest thing you can find is a mandatory commercial (not government run) health insurance for all workers. If somehow you equate this to Nazi'ism, I am truly sorry. Go to Germany, Poland, or even the former soviet block and find where our government has done what the Nazi's did in these places. You really need to learn your history better... a lot better.

    Stop listening to hate mongering shock radio... its all for ratings - not much of it is real. On either side.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    So the President reluctantly signed a defense spending bill into which Republican conservative warmongers had inserted an amendment that will deprive people of their rights.

    Let's see. Republicans pushed this thing into the bill. They trapped Obama by attaching it to a bill that would cause a political explosion if he vetoed it.

    And now Obama is being blamed for the mess?

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh! More conservative insanity.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 7, 2012 7:29 a.m.

    re: alt134,

    President Obama is counting on a majority of people, who like you, prefer his popularity to Constitutional principles. He's counting on you to give him a pass when he breaks the law of the land. If there are enough people who believe as you believe then we will continue to have a President who violates the most fundamental principles of freedom.

    Then, when he enforces those illegal laws, you will have no one to blame but yourself.

    When people have no more respect for the Constitution than a President who thumbs his nose at both the people and the Constitution, they don't deserve to be free. They deserve to become slaves to a man who is signing legislation that will do that very thing. He will jail you without giving a reason. He will not allow you access to an attorney. He will never give you your day in court. That's the person that you support. He has signed a bill that will do exactly that.

    What part of freedom don't you like?

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Jan. 7, 2012 7:27 a.m.

    Of the Utah delegation only Mike Lee and Jason Chaffetz voted against the NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act.

    That means that Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop, and Jim Matheson did not oppose it.
    We might want to contact them on that.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    @mike richards
    "What you either don't know or prefer to cover up is that he would NOT sign the bill until it contained that provision."

    That's not even true. The original bill he threatened to veto had that provision in it.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 9:09 p.m.

    Um... the bill passed with a veto-proof majority. It was a bipartisan rights-trampling.

    @J Thompson
    "If this bill is not enough to fire him, what will it take? "

    I'll vote for Obama because I support him most of the time and just because this is the rare time I disagree with him and agree with the Pauls... that doesn't mean I should vote differently.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 5:50 p.m.

    RE: LDS Liberal

    Lets get some real history, and not the leftest indoctrinated version.

    Nazis's were the left and the communists were also on the left,

    Two siblings fighting over who would rule.

    Politically they were very similar,

    Facism has nothing to do with right or left. Yet it is a mixture of two with other attributes, something mussolini created.

    The facts are Obama continued the patriot act, when it was set to expire,

    Obama wants to detain americans indefinately,

    And Obama stated he wants a civilian military force:

    "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

    TSA anyone? kgb, ss...?

    OBama has expanding government control and size and power,

    And the left want elistist lestest rule to dictate our lives, from the light bulbs we can, to the food we eat, to schools, to bake sales, to what energy you can use.

    Is this road going where the conseravtive right wants to go (freedom), or is the path Obama taking going where communists and socialist have gone?

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 5:39 p.m.

    Well golly gee, it looks like situational ethics have finally caught up with the President. When nothing matters except public opinion it is easy to believe that wearing the hat makes you the man. The President got caught. He got caught destroying our freedom. He tried to sweep it under the rug by saying that he would never use that power. Sure. He would never do anything to steal two car companies or to plunder the treasury of trillions of dollars either, would he?

    Because of what he has done during the last three years, I do not have any confidence in his word, especially when my freedom is now in his hands. He could lock me up for writing this comment. He does not have give any reason for locking somebody up and because nobody can talk to an attorney, who would even know if he sent someone in the middle of the night to take you away?

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 5:05 p.m.

    @J thompson
    Has anyone on this thread including spring street at any point said they think that Obama or anyone in our government should be able to throw people in jail? Of course not that would be ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous that you think that someone must reject everything Obama has ever done or agree with him on this one issue. I am not sure how any of us can be more clear about this point with you. at some point we are only left to assume you just do not want to understand this very simple point. I don't no if you noticed but none of your usual conservative buddies have been commenting on this thread because they get this is not a liberal versus conservative issue this is our government (yes including Obama) failed us.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    @mike richards

    "You are saying, just like he says, that it is somebody else's fault. That because others did it, that you and he can do it too."

    I have read through this entire thread and have found no such statement by George and in fact just the opposite. Please quote exactly where George says any such thing. Your complete inability to actually address the actual statements people makes speaks very poorly of both your own moral code and of your position on this issue.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 4:55 p.m.


    Spring Street wrote: "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."

    Pick nits if you want. Spring Street implied that I live in a "simplistic world". I countered by asking whether this is a "simplistic problem".

    What do you think? On which side of the fence do you stand? Do you agree with President Obama that he, as Commander in Chief, has the right to throw you in jail for whatever reason he deems necessary to keep this nation safe? Or, do you agree with the Constitution that FORBIDS him or anyone else the "right" to do that?

    The Supreme Law of the Land, protects us from people like Mr. Obama. We, the people, are represented by the Constitution. He, our President, has been told exactly what he can and cannot do. He CANNOT do what he has just done without breaking the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Are you going to pretend that he didn't abuse his office? Are you going to pretend that he did not sign away YOUR freedom?

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    @J Thompson
    Where did spring street call this a simplistic problem? They stated that your apparent belief that if someone disagrees with Obama on one issue that they then have reversed everything they think about Obama. Very simplstic thinking on your part.
    Perhaps you should read the post a little more closely and try to actually understand what people write before commenting.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2012 4:38 p.m.


    I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but you're playing right into Mr. Obama's hands. You are echoing what he has said since the day that he took office. You are saying, just like he says, that it is somebody else's fault. That because others did it, that you and he can do it too.

    A LEADER doesn't point fingers at others. A LEADER doesn't blame others. A LEADER takes full responsibility for his own actions. PERIOD.

    Mr. Obama has never taken responsibility for anything except the killing of Osama Bin Laden. He has not accounted for the trillions that he has taken from the treasury and given to his friends - but that was only money.

    This is infinitely more valuable.

    He's signed a bill that lets him take away your FREEDOM. He can let you rot in jail for the rest of your life without giving you a reason, without ever letting you speak to a lawyer and without you ever going to trial.

    That is not a petty offense. That is a "high crime", unless you do not value freedom.

    No one who believes in the Constitution would make excuses for Mr. Obama.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 4:19 p.m.

    Spring Street,

    Is this a simplistic problem? Is being thrown into jail at the whim of anyone (President or army private) something that is trivial?

    Do you believe in the Constitution or don't you? Mike cited three of the Amendments that were tromped on. Do those GUARANTEES not matter to you? Are you willing to give them up because President Obama is "likeable"? Is this just another thing that you will allow him to get away with, saying, "Oh dear, I wish he hadn't done that, but boys will be boys"?

    Either you believe in freedom or you don't. President Obama does not. He believes that no one has to be given a reason for being held by the government at anytime without access to a lawyer or the hope of ever facing their accusers in court.

    Look at history!

    Look at others who have carefully convinced the people that nothing was wrong; that they didn't need to worry; that everything would be just fine. How many examples do you want? How many times have lives been destroyed by crafty politicians who lied about their intentions?

    Read a little. Study history until you see the parallels.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 4:05 p.m.

    @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.

    Jan. 6, 2012 3:55 p.m.

    @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.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 3:43 p.m.

    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?

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    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!

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 6, 2012 3:22 p.m.

    @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.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    @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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2012 2:54 p.m.

    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.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 6, 2012 2:11 p.m.

    @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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 12:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2012 12:47 p.m.


    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.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 6, 2012 12:30 p.m.

    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
    Jan. 6, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    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?

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 6, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 10:37 a.m.

    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.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    this is disappointing but it is not new.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    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?

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 6, 2012 7:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 6, 2012 6:07 a.m.

    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.