Sure, Obama just signed the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial, and then said "Don't worry, I won't use it"
Right, he said he won't use it, so lets not worry! Good thing the courts have currently put the brakes on it!
I voted for Ron Paul last election (primary) and Gary Johnson in the final election, not because I agree with his (Ron Paul's) religious sentiments, or even his economic ideas. I had to vote for him because he was the only viable candidate that would guarantee our civil liberties.
That's an extreme oversimplification of what the 2012 NDAA said. In fact, the 2012 NDAA limited executive authority over US detainees; it did not expand it.
>A lawsuit was filed January 13, 2012 against the Obama Administration and Members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[62] The plaintiffs contend that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for __detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S.__ on “suspicion of providing substantial support to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.[62]
I'm probably not wrong. The 2002-2003 AUMF resolutions provided more or less open-ended detention capabilities to the executive. The NDAA limited those to settings in which Al Qaeda was directly implicated. It's not my claim that the Obama administration lacks indefinite detention capability (every "wartime" administration has that); it's my claim that the NDAA is a bad example of overreach on the part of the executive.
Put differently: the opposition party in Congress at the time the 2012 NDAA was proposed was lobbying for a much broader capability. The administration had to spend political capital to limit the degrees of freedom they had.
Right, he said he won't use it, so lets not worry! Good thing the courts have currently put the brakes on it!
I voted for Ron Paul last election (primary) and Gary Johnson in the final election, not because I agree with his (Ron Paul's) religious sentiments, or even his economic ideas. I had to vote for him because he was the only viable candidate that would guarantee our civil liberties.