On Sep 24, 9:07*am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:57*am, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 24, 8:43*am, Toots Sweet wrote:

How about it Pinheads - like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. You Lefties must be
getting mighty tired of all this whiffing on your important issues by
Dear Leader.

well...no. the right wing liar (a redundancy) forgets to tell us that
obama said he'd obey CONGRESSIONAL mandates...which is what this was

bush said he didn't need congressional oversight to detain people.
obama says he does.

so the right wing liar strikes again.

"In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress
to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is
adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in
years of debates about detention policies."

Idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

guess the moron didn't read the article:

"Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees
without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under
the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.

But President Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed
Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the
Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of
Congress.

The Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night that “the
administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress”
under the use of force resolution. “The administration is not
currently seeking additional authorization,” the statement said."


so the article says congress gave the president the power to hold
detainees...the president does not himself, apart from a congressional
mandate, have the power to hold detaineess...

the right wing is trying to have it both ways...arguing the president
CAN hold people without congressional approval AND saying obama's
arguing this.

which, of course, is a lie.