I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus

[MannyGoldstein]

and the right to trial, if the President doesn't want it.

"But it's an emergency! We need to fight al Qaeda!"

I recommend that everyone study the rise of the Third Reich to see what happens when civil liberties are curbed to "deal with an emergency".

[teddy51]

1. Well on the record, I am not one of those! n/t

[Zalatix]

64. Me, neither. n/t

.

[RoccoR5955]

153. Nor am I

It's outrageous I tell ya.
Wait till they start hauling away protesters as "enemy combatants."
Obama failed to close the Pandora's box that Shrub opened.
I thought he was a man of principle, but I was wrong, he loves his power just like the rest of them.

[rhett o rick]

344. I would only add that he failed to close the Pandora's boxES that Bush opened. nm

[Jake2413]

205. One of my biggest objections with President Obama.

Not undoing Bush's attack on civil liberties and now codifying them.

[sabrina 1]

2. I was blown away when Bush was president and

so many Americans were perfectly willing to throw away the freedoms they claimed the terrorists wanted and 'we' were fighting for. It never made any logical sense aside from everything else.

It's a very bad sign for the future of this democracy that now even the left has joined in to defend this.

[hobbit709]

12. History always repeats.

The Roman Republic gave away its rights after a "terror incident'. That gave way way to the rise of the Caesars.

[bhikkhu]

18. You don't have to give up your rights

if you're already convinced they have been taken away.

[hobbit709]

27. I've always been a firm adherent of Franklin's comment.

[Pharaoh]

240. History repeats

And we all know how it ended for the third Reich.........

And that will be the end of capitalism. Which might not be a bad thing.

[dotymed]

156. It is Fascism. Go OWS!

TPTB can get these freedom robbing laws passed easily under the cover of a "democratic" President. I would not put much past Obama, even though 3 years ago I worked my butt off for his election. When we get an admitted repub in the White house, these laws will definitely be used, to our detriment.
IMO (which is not a minority opinion), we have one political party that is allowed to field candidates using 2 different names. Everything is pro-wealth and anti-people. When our President and over half of "our" Congress in in the 1%, what can we expect?
GO OWS! I cannot tolerate temperature extremes. This Spring, I will be a part of the revolution on the front lines. Our situation has become untenable. My children will have to suffer more than I do and that, to me, is unacceptable. Arrest me.

[sabrina 1]

345. I'll be there with you. Something has to be done to stop this and it's clear now

it will not be done by those we elected to do it.

[AlbertCat]

239. many Americans were perfectly willing to throw away the freedoms

Terrorists - 1
USA - 0

[awoke_in_2003]

298. we have become an echo chamber. nt

[bigtree]

3. I'm fine with

pie

[PufPuf23]

139. What about policy, tactics, and actions?

Enjoy your sweets.

Do you think neoliberals are morally bankrupt and traitors to the USA and international law?

Yes or no.

Or else explain the concept of neoliberal.

[Marrah_G]

409. I used to really enjoy your posts

[ProSense]

4. What's

"I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus"

...astonishing is the hyperbole!

[MannyGoldstein]

7. In what way is that hyperbole?

Please be very specific, thanks.

[ProSense]

11. You

"In what way is that hyperbole?"

...mean other than the fact that the claim is nonsense?

"I recommend that everyone study the rise of the Third Reich to see what happens when civil liberties are curbed to 'deal with an emergency'."

Hitler hyperbole!

[FarLeftFist]

15. And the fact that American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention without trial.

[Ken Burch]

63. It's really weird that you call yourself "Far Left Fist" when you spend most of the time

shaking your fist AT the Left.

It's not as though it could have progressive effects for people to Obama's left to shut up.

[FarLeftFist]

97. There's really nothing more Left than the truth. Which is all I'm speaking.

I haven't even mentioned whether I agree with it or not, just pointing out FACTUAL statements pulled directly from the bill itself.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

378. No, actually Ken Burch is correct.

Call yourself whatever you'd like, but that doesn't mean your chosen moniker is a reflection of reality. It just isn't, not in this case.

[nashville_brook]

191. +1

[bvar22]

206. That has always been SOP at DU for the 10 years I have been here.

Those who choose Screen names with "Progressive" or "Left" or "Liberal" are generally FAR from it,
especially if they choose the Che avatar or some other Leftist Avatar.
IMO, they are trying too hard.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[AlbertCat]

245. especially if they choose the Che avatar

And then there YOUR avatar....

[fascisthunter]

390. but that Avatar makes sense, and isn't used to deceive people

into thinking the avatar represents their political pov.

[rhett o rick]

341. I think you've got it. Support Bradley Manning. nm

[rhett o rick]

343. I have noticed that too. But his name is "Far Left Fist", so how can you question his "leftness". nm

[Riftaxe]

89. But not extrajudicial assasinations

carried out by the US Govt.

[DissedByBush]

96. I have no problem with those

Whether you like it or not, this is a war. There were American citizens serving with the German army in WWII, and they were killed in combat. Nobody raised a stink.

Nailing an Al Qaeda terrorist in Yemen with a Predator is very much the equivalent, and perfectly legal. His citizenship has no bearing on the case.

Now had he given himself up to American authorities, I would demand his full constitutional rights be respected, including a speedy trial.

[Luminous Animal]

126. In combat. Zero evidence presented anywhere at any time that Awlaki was a terrorist.

ZERO evidence. At any time. Ever. He was executed without due process.

By the way, full Constitutional rights apply to fugitives, accused criminals, convicted criminals, and suspected criminals. No U.S. citizen is required to give themselves up in order to benefit from full Constitutional rights.

[NutmegYankee]

163. Disagree - Awlaki was killed in a combat mission

Not every combat mission has fire going both ways. I had a neighbor, long since passed, who told me about destroying Japanese freighters in harbor. Civilian freighters were fair targets in WWII, even though they couldn't fire back against the planes.

[bvar22]

209. In your example, you use an incident from a "Declared War" against another Nation

..with defined borders and a Uniformed Army, with a Hierarchical Government existing in a Capitol City,
and a clearly defined GOAL for VICTORY.

The War on Terror is NONE of the above,
and has NONE of the limitations of the above.
The War on Terror is whatever our politicians choose to say it is,
and whoever they choose as an "enemy".

This is Nothing Less than expanding the Powers of the Unitary Executive to Permanent Wartime Status,
something NEVER intended by our Founders, or enshrined in our Constitution.

"We have ALWAYS been at WAR with EastAsia." (1984)
Doesn't this scare you just a little?




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[pscot]

233. Like the "war" on drugs

there are no plausible objectives and no end in sight. We live in an endless state of emergency which leads do an indefinite "suspension" of our civil liberties. Want to complain? Get thee to a free speech zone.

[indepat]

281. I have ony two thoughts as to the entirely of your thesis

[Uncle Joe]

363. That's an excellent observatiion bvar, there is no end to it and just as

the "War on Drugs" expanded and advancing technology allowed, the Bill of Rights; to be continuously eroded as a result, I see no difference in the ambiguous, eternal "War on Terror."

Those dynamics can only lead to an increasingly isolated, authoritarian, draconian government; oppressing the people on behalf of the oligarchs and mega-corporations.

If two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner Marine Corps General Smedley Butler was correct, when he said that "War is a Racket," and for the record I believe he was, then no racket can be greater than ambiguous, never-ending war.

[sabrina 1]

223. And we are still waiting for evendence that there was any combat involved in that killing.

The WH press secretary was unable to supply it. I would love to see it, because until it is presented, a US citizen was assassinated on the order of a US president without charges and without trial.

He was in a country whose government is very friendly to the US. Even going so far as to allow the US to bomb his own country and then pretend that he ordered it. A liar to his own people. So he would have been more than willing to cooperate with the US in arresting anyone they asked him to.

So far from being a combat zone Yemen was an ally.

Unless of course, you are presenting the ridiculous Bush claims that the whole world is a battle field and the US can kill whoever they want anywhere in the world because of the biggest lie ever told, that we are engaged in a 'WAR' which they have named the Great WOT??

Because if this is not your argument, there simply is no other argument to excuse these Bush policies, there wasn't when he was president, and there still is not.

The US is not at war. No country attacked it. But the US has attacked several countries now, making us a threat to an awful lot of people, such as the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis and whoever else got in the way.

To defend this is impossible under our Constitution. The laws had to be rewritten and twisted by Bush's gang of war criminals to even be able to come up with some of the excuses being made here. Because they certainly cannot be backed up by the Constitution.

And this was one of the reasons we worked so hard to get rid of Republicans, so that we could restore the rule of law to this country. Instead now we see Democrats defending Bush's policies.

No wonder people have given up on the political system and have taken to the streets.

[NutmegYankee]

280. The GWOT is similar to the Barbary Wars.

We are engaged against bands of "criminals" in military style conflict with just authorization from Congress rather than a formal declaration of war. Research the Barbary conflicts (1802-1805) and (1815-1816).

[DissedByBush]

340. There was most definitely combat

We launched a missile at an enemy soldier and killed him, fair and square by the rules of war.

That's combat.

[sabrina 1]

352. We are at war with Yemen? Since when??

You do know that if you go into a sovereign country and start killing people there, that is a crime?

Was Al Awlaki shooting at anyone? Maybe you can answer the questions no one else, including the WH Press Sec, seems able to answer. What crime was this person who received the death penalty on the order of the president, charged with?

Your appear to have a pretty cavalier attitude about the rule of law, but I am a pain in the neck about the US Constitution and its insistence on due process.

Unless Yemen is a country we are at war with, and Al Alwaki was engaged in a shootout with US troops, your little scenario is nothing more than a fairy tale, and not a very good one btw.

[NutmegYankee]

364. If that sovereign country gives us permission, then no, it's not a crime.

A historical example would be when South Vietnam gave us permission to fight the Viet Cong. The legality of this was never the concern, it was about whether we should have been in that war at all.

[DissedByBush]

366. Were we at war with Tunisia?

Yet we fought the Germans on that territory in WWII. The place does not matter if the opponent is there.

Rule of law of war: Your enemies are fair game to kill. Too simple?

Crime? No crime. It's not an issue of criminal justice. We don't consider those in service with a belligerent force in time of war to be committing crimes. Service with a belligerent in a time of war simply makes him a legitimate target.

Shooting? He doesn't have to do shooting himself. He was simply a legitimate target. Admiral Yamamoto didn't personally fire a round at our planes that shot him down. That isn't required. We simply took out a member of the opposing forces, and it was entirely legal.

[sabrina 1]

369. We are not at war, unless you are accepting the Bush/Cheney policies.

It's confusing how things have evolved from wanting these war criminals prosecuted for lying the US into war, to now defending them.

[DissedByBush]

373. We are at war

It is naive to think otherwise. A war by any other name...

The lying got us into Iraq. This isn't about Iraq. This isn't based on lies -- that is unless you need a couple more layers of tin foil and think Al Qaeda didn't do 9/11, the Cole, the African embassy bombings and a bunch of other attacks.

This is about Obama's legal conduct of a war against people trying to kill us. The war is practically worldwide, wherever the enemy is. In this case the enemy was in Yemen. That particular one isn't anymore.

Score another one for Obama. And to think the Republican sheep believed Obama would be soft on our enemies.

[sabrina 1]

377. Who are we at war with?

And where is the declaration of war by Congress?

[DissedByBush]

381. You need to read the news more

Several major world events seem to have flown right by you.

Congress exercised its war declaration power by passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force on
September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40).

This specifically authorizes the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"

That is who we are war with. That is who is fair game in any military attack.

Clear enough for you?

Note that our declaration of war against Japan just didn't say "we are at war." That's not the important part, which is, like this Authorization, where it authorized the president to use the military forces against Japan.

[sabrina 1]

383. OBL is dead. You cannot be at war with an idea.

Your comment only confirms that we are not at war. Every country experiences terrorism. Always have. None of them have ever gone to war over such individual attacks. And which nation, other than Iraq which was based on lies as it had nothing to do with 9/11, was responsible for 9/11? The only one that comes close is Saudi Arabia, and they appear to be our allies.

So no, even Congress cannot make up stuff to claim we are 'at war' and I thought that at least the 'left' had pretty much agreed on that, which is why we elected Democrats, to stop this 'forever war' with 'the world' nonsense.

[DissedByBush]

384. Did you read the Authorization?

It did not name OBL. Read it again for those we are at war against, if you bothered to read it at all, which does not appear to be the case. Nothing says it has to be restricted to nations either.

"Every country experiences terrorism"

Most experience home-grown terrorism and treat it as a criminal issue, as we did with Timothy McVeigh, as the Germans did with the RAF. This is a large, powerful foreign organization conducting military attacks throughout the world against us and our allies.

9/11 was Pearl Harbor, worthy of a declaration of war and the military action to follow up with it. The basic irrelevant differences are that the enemy has not constituted itself as a state, and as has been its habit for decades, Congress chooses to exercise its war powers using the language of "authorization of force" rather than "declaration of war."

"So no, even Congress cannot make up stuff to claim we are 'at war' "

Congress has that constitutional authority, like it or not. We were attacked, and Congress rightfully and constitutionally authorized military action against the organizations involved in the attack and those who materially support them. Obama, as is his constitutional duty, is implementing that authorization against them as Commander in Chief.

Unless you think 9/11 was a big conspiracy perpetrated by the Eeeeeevil Joooooos! But then you have much larger issues than simply not understanding Congress' authority.

"which is why we elected Democrats, to stop this 'forever war' with 'the world' nonsense"

Whether the mechanism is war or police action, those who have proclaimed themselves as our enemies and have vowed our destruction must be dealt with. The advantage of war is that we can strike them beyond our borders where they live, train and plot. Unless you'd rather we wait until they get here, ready to strike?

Part of my reason for electing Democrats was the hope that they could prosecute a war without also turning the US into a police state as Bush was trying to do. We're not doing well on this front. I also hoped that Obama could prosecute the war without pissing off every country in the world. He seems to be doing pretty well on that front.

[sabrina 1]

388. Regarding your last sentence, I don't know what you have been reading, but

the US certainly has 'pissed off every country in the world'. By huge majorities, the US is now regarded as a major threat to world peace by the people of the world.

If you mean the dictators who allow us to kill people in their countries, then yes, they are not 'pissed off' because we pay them to cooperate. But their people have no say in what those dictators decide. In fact, when given the chance, the people of those countries, Egypt eg, have expressed their disgust and fear of the US and its support for dictators like Mubarak. They have in fact asked for an apology for the harm done to them for decades by the support given by the US to their dictators.

9/11 was not an attack by any country. Pearl Harbor was. See the difference?

Bush refused offers to hand over Bin Laden, because he wanted to execute the PNAC plans for 'reorganizing the ME' so we were lied to and went to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Did you support that war btw?

Al Queda is NOT a huge, powerful military operation. It is a bunch of extremists who even according to our own military, is very small. The people of the ME have other things on their mind than to be joining extremist organizations like Al Queda. They are busy trying to topple all of our Dictator allies so they can experience some democracy in their own countries.

The US Government is extremely unpopular around the world. NOT the people, the government. And for good reason.

Yemen's lying dictator allowed the US to violate his country's sovereignty without the approval of his people. He knew he would not get it, so he lied.

Your post makes as much sense to me as these kinds of arguments made during the Bush years. It's just sad to see this acceptance of those policies. But I guess they counted on the fear factor eventually persuading people that they are in constant danger and approving of these horrendous, anti-Constitutional policies.

Statistics show the chances are so much greater of Americans dying of 1) No Healthcare 2) Murder 3) Accidents with terror being so far down the list of threats it's barely on the list.

So, who should we kill to save us from all those other threats? Who should we declare war on?

The world cannot be made safe for everyone. This incredible focus on fear to persuade people to approve of criminal activity for profit, is just plain shameful, as it was when Bush was doing it.

[DissedByBush]

407. Wow, where to start

First, you obviously didn't read the Authorization, and still speak from a position of ignorance, so I should just ignore this non-cognitive mess. But,

"9/11 was not an attack by any country. Pearl Harbor was. See the difference? "

They were attacks by organized groups. An irrelevant difference is that one called itself a country.

"Bush refused offers to hand over Bin Laden"

Wasn't that Clinton?

"so we were lied to and went to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. "

Exactly, yet the need to bring up Iraq, which has nothing to do with the overall conflict. That you keep hammering on Iraq shows you're having a problem building the larger case.

I'm just going to stop there. It's getting too stupid.

[sabrina 1]

408. I read that piece of garbage when it first was voted on, unfortunately by too many

Democrats, and airc, was fiercely opposed by the 'left' at the time. And is the reason I never supported any candidate, such as Hillary, who voted for it.

Again, did you support the Iraq War and all the rest of Bush's policies, because this flip flop by some on the 'left' now, is pretty amazing.

It was all wrong, the Patriot Act, the AUMF, the lies that we were ever 'at war' when Bush was president, it still is.

Speaking of 'getting too stupid'. That is putting it mildly.

[DissedByBush]

413. This wasn't the authorization for use of force in Iraq

You need to read again. The two are entirely separate.

"And is the reason I never supported any candidate, such as Hillary, who voted for it.

Then you're going to find it hard to vote for anyone. Only one representative in the entirety of Congress voted against it. There was no fierce opposition by the left at the time.

You remain confused. Bush tried hard to confuse the issue of Iraq with the issue of terrorists in order to justify the invasion, and it seems you are now incapable of keeping the two separate.

And, in the end, whether right or wrong, it is absolutely constitutional.

Too many people think "I don't like it" makes something unconstitutional. They, including you, are wrong.

The only constitutional issue in this whole mess is that the Congress must authorize offensive military action, that the President can't do it unilaterally. Congress has expressly given its authorization, like it or not.

[sabrina 1]

414. I do not support Bush policies, the US Government has adapted Bush policies.

I did not support them when Bush implemented them and I still do not. As for Congress, why do you think there is an OWS movement?

We know that government is not functioning on behalf of the American people.

'Improvements' to Bush's Doctrine is an even worse indictment of this Government and not the change we all worked so hard to at least see the beginnings of.

[DissedByBush]

417. You just completely bypassed all facts

You've been arguing against the AUMF for Iraq, were told that had no bearing here, and simply talked around it.

READ the correct document before you post again. Otherwise you continue to make yourself look purposely ignorant.

READ the vote, everyone but one voting for it. It wasn't Bush Doctrine, it was the will of Congress, except for one representative. And even then she didn't necessarily oppose military action against Al Qaeda, but had problems with the broad wording in the face of then-incomplete information only a week after the attack.

I'm done, no use trying to teach a pig how to sing.

[sabrina 1]

418. I have read it. The whole WOT is nothing more than an excuse

to establish bases in the ME and now in Africa and it is a continuation of the policies of the PNAC. of forever war with the entire World. Of course they all voted for it, no one has the guts to oppose anything that uses the great WOT to justify everything we are doing, fully in line with the Bush/Cheney Foreign Policies.

So, I'm a pig now?? Nice, maybe if I were a guy, I'd simply be a bastard or something.

But not to worry I love pigs, very intelligent and attractive creatures, imho.

Learn how to debate without resorting to personal attacks, that is generally a sign that someone cannot support their side of the argument.

[DissedByBush]

420. Are you sure this time?

You said you read it and stated the Iraq resolution. Now you say you read the right one. Are you sure you have it right this time?

"So, I'm a pig now?? Nice, maybe if I were a guy, I'd simply be a bastard or something."

And not well-read, I see.

Metaphor *whoosh* right over your head.

[mbperrin]

276. Yet we are not at war. Haven't been in a war since WWII. Congress has issued no declaration of war.

I know, it's in that old relic, the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. They haven't. So no argument based on wartime actions is applicable.

[NutmegYankee]

284. We are at war - Congress has authorized this war.

The Constitution says congress has the power to declare war, but never required that declaration be formal (like in WWI or WWII). Congress can authorize military action and that is treated the same as a war. Research the Barbary Wars and you'll see even the founding fathers took this approach at times.

[mbperrin]

350. Can't declare a war on a noun.

Please cite the Supreme Court decision which says that a declaration of war doesn't have to be formal.

That's the very meaning of declare.

In reality, all these wars are just to make the right people wealthy.

Nothing else.

The Patriot Act was this country's surrender document to the military-industrial complex.

[NutmegYankee]

358. Of course you can declare war on a noun. A nation's name is a noun.

It has never been brought to the Supreme Court. A Formal declaration just means a bill was passed saying we Declare war on "some nation/empire". Congress has authorized military action in twice as many wars without formal declarations, without challenge. Congress still holds the purse strings to pursue war.

[mbperrin]

360. Naturally no one is going to challenge it. It makes too much money for the right people.

When we really declare war, people think we're serious, jump in and defeat two major industrial powers in less than 4 years.

Since then, can't defeat anybody, but spend trillions.

It's okay for the MIC to sell shower drain water as drinking water for the troops, to wire up showers which electrocute those same troops, provide unarmored vehicles for fantastic prices and on and on.

Thank you for admitting that the Supreme Court has never found that a war can be fought without a declaration.

Obviously they have been, and will be, until the country finally collapses, and those who gutted it find another.

[mbperrin]

361. Naturally, I should have specified a common noun.

Thank you for the clarification.

[DissedByBush]

375. You need to go the other way

Given the history of approved military actions, and apparent lack of them being overturned by the Supreme Court, you need to show where the Supreme Court has said a military action is invalid where a declaration of war has not been given. The only constitutional crisis over this has been Nixon wanting to continue military action in Vietnam after Congress withdrew its authorization.

But let's look at the Constitution again:

"The Congress shall have power ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Do you see "declaration or war" anywhere in that. No, it just says "declare War" and gives no specifics as to what instrument Congress will use to accomplish this task. It doesn't say Congress has to pass a "Declaration of War" (which it has only done five times in our history). It doesn't require the three magic words "Declaration of War." Established jurisprudence says that any authorization of force fulfills this requirement to declare war.

The constitutional issue here is separation of powers: Congress must approve a war, the President cannot do it under his own power as Commander in Chief. That is why "declare War" is in this paragraph, not an issue of magic words.

Note also Letters of Marque and Reprisal as another power. That is a military action that Congress can authorize apart from a declaration of war. It would have been absolutely constitutional for Congress to award a Letter of Reprisal against any Al Qaeda members, and have a private contractor take out the likes of al-Awlaki.

Congress can authorize that, but can't authorize our own military without using three magic words?

[sabrina 1]

370. That was the Bush administration's claims. We elected Democrats to put an end to those

lies. We are not at war. We never were, we were lied into 'war'. I thought at least the 'left' understood that. When did we decide that Bush was right after all? I never got that memo.

[NutmegYankee]

379. Congress authorized the war.

Fact- deal with it.

[sabrina 1]

380. What war? Who are we at war with?

Congress was wrong, btw, if you are talking about Iraq, a war which is now over.

So what war are you talking about? What country are we now at war with?

[NutmegYankee]

386. You refuse to accept the answer.

As I face Invincible Ignorance, I yield the discussion.

[sabrina 1]

387. I refuse to accept the Bush claim that we are at war with the world. Yes, absolutely

[DissedByBush]

338. You have got to be kidding me

The dude was a top Al Qaeda operative. He was an active member of the enemy. Zero evidence? Serious? Except for the mountain right in front of you.

Constitutional rights do not apply to those we are trying to kill in a war.

We try to kill them just as they are trying to kill us.

Reading an enemy soldier his rights instead of shooting him is absurd. We have never done it.

Citizenship has no bearing. He is fighting with the enemy, he is fair game. We don't ask for a passport out on the battlefield.

Obama did well.

[Luminous Animal]

342. Show me that mountain of evidence.

[DissedByBush]

382. You have got to be kidding

Even the Wikipedia page has a huge amount of evidence showing he was involved. There's a starting point for you. People arrested for terrorist plots even admitted he was their recruiter!

And that's just what's public. Obama's rules for strikes such as this require he be presented with solid evidence the person is working with our enemy, so he probably heard a lot more than that.

[Luminous Animal]

391. Haha! Wikipedia, indeed.

As both you and I know, zero evidence has ever been presented under Constitutional conditions. Zero.

And you know what? I don't give a flying fuck about Obama's "secret" evidence. Bush had "secret" evidence, too. I don't trust any "secret" evidence.

[DissedByBush]

401. "Constitutional conditions"

In the context of determining whether someone is a member of the enemy, what are the "constitutional conditions"?

Please show me where in the Constitution that is.

[Luminous Animal]

403. In regards to a U.S. citizen?

At the minimum. Due process.

[DissedByBush]

406. This isn't a criminal proceeding

It's a war.

Enemy soldiers are NOT considered criminals as long as they don't violate the rules of war. Therefore, criminal rules do not apply.

Treating a soldier as a criminal, that is seriously repulsive.

You don't want a captured soldier put up on criminal charges leading to the death penalty for shooting the other side's soldiers. He's not a criminal, he's a captured soldier.

[Javaman]

220. WWII was a war declared by congress via the powers in the US constitution.

Tell me exactly when any of our current wars have been declared by congress?

these are vanity wars, period.

[DissedByBush]

335. Congress authorized these military actions

The word "war" does not have to be in it.

[Javaman]

349. authorizing and declaring are two vastly different things.

I don't give a fuck if they "authorize it" it's completely against the constitution.

[DissedByBush]

367. It's completely constitutional

The word "war" is just one formal way of authorizing military action. Nothing requires its declaration to conduct military actions.

See the Barbary wars.

[Javaman]

371. And the barbary wars also were illegal according to the constitution.

I think you need to reread the second on war powers.

[DissedByBush]

372. Show me that determination

The Founders who conducted the war don't seem to agree with you.

[Javaman]

389. and because they disregarded the war powers act that makes it okay?

try reading it instead of spewing.

[DissedByBush]

402. Post of the year!

First Barbary war: 1801

War Powers Act: 1973

Yes, the Founders jumped in their time machine and disregarded a law that would be passed 172 years in the future.

Thanks for the laugh!

In any case, the War Powers Act is Congress placing a limitation on the ability of the President to conduct a war absent Congressional authorization. You know, something like congressional authorization for the use of military force that Obama is operating under.

[Javaman]

404. "Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war,"

In response, "Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'" He told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."[14] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

Doesn't sound like a declaration of war to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War#Declaration_of_war_and_naval_blockade

[DissedByBush]

405. Why do you support my argument?

"by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense"

Congress has given its authorization.

"Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "

Siezing a vessel, especially in those days, is an act of war. Without a "formal declaration of war" Congress authorized wartime actions, and nobody had a problem with the constitutionality. If you doubt:

"and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify"

Whatever label they put on it, the important part is that Congress must authorize wars. That was done. Case closed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to log off. I may be violating the Internet Posting Act of 2315 and don't want to get in trouble.

[Javaman]

412. Perhaps we are just arguing about the same thing and don't

realize it.

Cheers.

[Bjorn Against]

182. Can you show me where in the Constitution these rights are limited to citizens?

[Javaman]

218. not if you are overseas.

read the bill. it clearly states that if you are overseas and American and captured, you can be detained indefinitely.

[Richard Charnin]

229. Three myths about the detention bill

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/


Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

more...

[plantwomyn]

278. Actually, NO we are NOT.

The wording that is important in the bill is "requirement" and "waiver".
"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

The REQUIREMENT!
Notice that it does NOT say that citizens of the United States are EXEMPT. Sen. Feinstein TRIED to EXEMPT citizens and her Amendment failed.

Now if the President decides to give you a "waiver" then theoretically the military has to turn you back over to whoever arrested you in the first place or release you. And of course anything that has happened to you while you were in military custody, well the Military Commisions Act gives the perpetrators IMUNITY. Ask Padilla and Manning about what a joy it is to be a citizen in the custody of our military.

Are we having fun yet?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

304. Two things:

1. That's not true. The government is required to hold suspects without trial, but citizens are exempted from that requirement. It is still within the power of the government, if it so chooses, to hold them without trial.

2. Even if that was true, why is that okay? Why should the government have the power to make somebody disappear forever, so long as they are not US citizens? Even under your reading of the law, it is deeply wrong for the government to hold an individual without any chance to prove his or her innocence and regain their liberty.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. One of us has a reading comprehension problem.

Have a good night.

[ProSense]

23. It's

"One of us has a reading comprehension problem."

...not me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100227687
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=29316

[dflprincess]

42. Apprently the ACLU has a reading comprehension problem

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-veto-indefinite-detention

[div class = "excerpt"]
"As I write this, the Defense Authorization bill is on its way to President Obama's desk. The bill contains dangerous, sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provisions.

Leading members of Congress have already indicated that they believe that these provisions could be used by this and any future president to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial — even American citizens and others picked up within the borders of the United States.

According to reports, the President's advisors are recommending that he not veto this legislation despite earlier promises to do so. We need to tell the President to listen to the American people.

There are moments in America when our freedoms depend on the willingness of a President to act firmly and decisively to sustain our fundamental values; moments that decide the course our nation takes for years to come."

[ProSense]

52. Speaking

"Leading members of Congress have already indicated that they believe that these provisions could be used by this and any future president to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial — even American citizens and others picked up within the borders of the United States."

...of vague: Who are these leading member of Congress making this claim, especially since 83 Senators voted for the bill?

Maybe instead of pressing for a symbolic veto because of a provision no one can seem to point to in the text, the ACLU and others should shift focus to ensuring that Congress removes the uncertainty "they believe" was created by this legislation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100225975

[Fuddnik]

100. 83 traitors to the Constitution and the American People.

There's no other way to put it.

[ProSense]

108. Yeah,

"83 traitors to the Constitution and the American People."

...and here is the biggest one:

Sen. Levin Statement on Passage of Defense Authorization Bill

Thursday, December 15, 2011

WASHINGTON – Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., today hailed Senate passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year. The Senate approved the bill by a vote 86-13, and the president has announced that he will sign the bill into law.

“The enactment of this conference report will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform,” Levin said. “It will give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and deeply appreciate their service.

Levin continued: “Probably the most discussed provision in the conference report is the provision relative to military detention for foreign al Qaeda terrorists. This provision has been written to be doubly sure that there is no interference with civilian interrogations and other law enforcement activities and to ensure that the President has the flexibility he needs to use the most appropriate tools in each case. Those who say that we have written into law a new authority to detain American citizens until the end of hostilities are wrong. Neither the Senate bill nor the conference report establishes new authority to detain American citizens – or anybody else.

“The bill includes important new sanctions against the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, that will increase pressure on Iran to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It includes provisions addressing the problem of counterfeit parts that can undermine the performance of military weapon systems and endanger our men and women in uniform. And it extends the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program for an additional six years, continuing a program vital to our small businesses and to national security.”

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/sen-levin-statement-on-passage-of-defense-authorization-bill

Hero for voting against the IWR, now one of the "traitors to the Constitution."

[MADem]

116. +1. nt

[Major Nikon]

132. His statement is weasel worded

"Neither the Senate bill nor the conference report establishes new authority to detain American citizens – or anybody else. "

So what he's saying is factually correct, but very misleading. Prior to the NDAA, the President already had the authority which had been given shortly after 9/11 and in fact we saw it used by Bush. What this NDAA does, instead of rolling back that authority like it should, it greatly expands it.

Bush was the test case that proved why it's not a great idea to give the President this type of authority. So now instead of taking the way the loaded gun away from the child, you've handed him a grenade and a rocket launcher.

[fascisthunter]

192. yes, traitors for making it possible for another president to abuse

really dumb law if you actually care about the constitution of civil liberties. WHen you turn your back on the truth like this, it makes you look like an absolute political party fanatic. But I wouldn't expect you to be this way if we have an actual populist for a president and not some corporate sellout.

[dotymed]

158. +1000 n/t

[Major Nikon]

135. Here you go

When questioned by Sen. Paul as to whether an American citizen “could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely,” Senator John McCain responded: “I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”

...

In a statement released yesterday, Congressman Alcee Hastings charged that the final version of the legislation does not in fact protect American citizens from indefinite detention.

“This legislation establishes an authority for open-ended war anywhere in the world, and against anyone,” he wrote.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-terrorists-raises-concerns-among-cons

Rand Paul was one of the senators who voted against the bill.

[Richard Charnin]

230. Once again, please read...it's professionally written, and makes a lot of sense...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100234569#post229

[JDPriestly]

266. ProSense, Are you an attorney? Have you researched the precedent, the case law on this?

[noise]

20. You don't think there is a chilling effect

with the vague language and the fact that the President already claims the power to detain and assassinate based on the original AUMF resolution?

Any government that seeks indefinite detention powers is not acting in good faith. Especially considering that this power has already been abused (as one would expect) by the US government during the war on terror.

[FarLeftFist]

25. Its not really vague. It actually says it very plainly and clearly.

[siligut]

196. You are assuming they will abuse the power

Politicians abuse power? When has that happened? Do I need a sarcasm emoticon here?

[caseymoz]

140. The President can order arrest and assassination

of American citizens. Citizens arrested can and have been held indefinitely. These have happened. There are examples, and there has been no effective challenge to it, or no effective move to roll this back.

So, how is the claim nonsense?

BTW, just because Godwin's Law notes how frequently Nazism and Hitler are brought into Internet conversations, doesn't mean it's nonsense every time.

And fascism being the greatest example of evil in the last century, one which came to power via a democratic process, it's understandable why people are vigilant about it, and should be.

[SomethingFishy]

202. Well, I took your word for it that the bill was amended

and it turns out you were "misinformed" about that.

According to Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, and Diane Fienstein who actually wrote the amendment, it didn't pass.She is working on a free standing bill to remove the language, because it is unconstitutional. So all your blustering about the hyperbole is bullshit, the language is still in that bill..

Oh and this is the bill that every one of you who screams "hysterics" and "hyperbole" REFUSES TO READ.

When you get off your high horse and read the bill let me know, I'd be more than ecstatic to debate the merits of this legislation with you.

[Cherchez la Femme]

238. Yes, sure

Hyperbole is now 'those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat them'!



I just can't help but wonder what your decibel level and claims of hyperbole will be when a Republican pres starts using all these nifty doo-dads this Democratic President has created

[JDPriestly]

263. ProSense, your comment expresses shock but does not

explain why you are shocked. Please explain.

I have not been able to figure out your reading of the language of the bill.

Do you represent the point of view that everything and anything Obama does is OK?

If so, you are already living in the Third Reich.

I have met and talked to a lot of people who lived in the Third Reich -- a lot of them. The ordinary folks, the farmers, the shopkeepers, the teachers, etc. were quite content with the government in the Third Reich, especially in the early years because they were convinced by the propaganda that surrounded them that everything was OK.

Those identified as "socialists" went first. Those who watched and thought and realized what was coming were next to go to the internment camps. People who had silently disagreed but then quietly gone along with things disappeared later along with Jews, deeply troubled Christians and people of conscience as well as those with enemies.

Eventually, the system was attacked from outside and then of course, crumbled.

But ordinary people just lived their lives thinking that while food and commodities were scarce, they had to make the sacrifices for their country, and many of them were willing to sacrifice economically and in terms of their rights out of loyalty to Der Fuhrer.

It is so important to encourage people to question and to think about what is really going on. You are ridiculing legitimate concerns.

I am not accusing you of being a Fascist. I don't think you are. But I would like to tell you that the kind of ridicule you are expressing is the sort of reaction that supports Fascism.

It is easy to ridicule. It is difficult to argue. For those not capable of arguing, of backing up their criticisms of others' ideas, ridicule is an easy response.

[tpsbmam]

297. Very well said, JDP. nt

[icymist]

303. So tell me what your opinions are of these things without the WWII monikers

What about today? What about the colaspce of the US financially and what the rest of the world will do?

[JDPriestly]

326. The collapse of the US is due to the fact that during the 1970s,

as oil prices began to rise, legislation was passed that eventually encouraged many Americans to invest their life savings, their retirement savings month by month in pension funds and 401(K)s that were placed in the stock market.

During the 1980s, our Congress contemplated "free trade" and opening our markets to foreign manufactured products.

In that "free trade" environment (which increased in scope over the past 30 years), instead of investing the pension funds of Americans in American-based businesses and industries, Wall Street, seeking higher short-term profits by using cheap labor, rushed to fund the building of industry and prosperity in countries like India, Singapore, China, etc.

So, now, Americans import most of their consumer goods. The excess of imports and the comparative lack of exports has lead to a chronic balance of payments problem.

We hardly make any consumer goods at all. Not only does that mean that we are left with an economy of jobs that are either extremely poorly paid or extremely well paid with few jobs in between, but we have to borrow money in order to sustain the infrastructure and lifestyle to which we have been accustomed for decades.

It is politically nearly impossible to tell the American people the truth about our perilous economic situation. None of our politicians have dared to deal with this honestly. And if they did, they probably could not be elected.

On top of our trade and deficit problems, on top of the fact that our standard of living is declining, our currency is the currency in which oil and a lot of other commodities are traded. So what happens to commodity prices affects us even more than it does people in other countries. Right now, commodities are expensive (although not more expensive than they have been at times in the recent past) so we still feel that we are not doing too badly. But this will not last.

Wall Street has made a lot of bad choices. They blame the problems they almost single-handedly caused on ordinary, middle-class Americans. They lie. Ordinary, middle-class Americans did not make the important choices. Wall Street did. Wall Street and wealthy investors. And they have increased their profits in recent years as the rest of the country's belts have been pulled ever tighter.

How the world will respond? It may be that each country will try to look out for itself. We will have trade war, hopefully not worse, and everyone will suffer. Countries will compete to impose austerity in order to prevent their citizens from having the money to purchase foreign-made products.

We need just one politician who can speak the harsh truth to Americans: Wall Street squandered our future.

As for Wall Street: if a bunch of Wall Street traders want to go into a back room and gamble, say play poker, with their own personal fortunes that they earned from honest work, then that's nobody's business.

But they took the pension funds and savings of Americans, and they use money from the Fed, money that is printed in the name of the American people, so they should conduct their business in the open, with transparency. Above all, they should follow the rules that are established by Congress and those rules should protect ordinary people, our American infrastructure and our American industry.

Don't worry, every other country will do the same thing. Free trade has not worked. I am for capitalism, but I do not support the kind of socially irresponsible capitalism that is now destroying our economy and the future of our children. Anything too big to fail should be made small enough to fail or succeed on its own merits.

[MannyGoldstein]

317. Well said, JD

Thank you.

[rhett o rick]

351. Does that mean you think we still honor habeas corpus? Or does that mean you are ok with not

honoring habeas corpus? To simply say a claim is nonsense, isnt compelling. You seem to need to believe that our great freedoms in this country are solid and you can sleep peacefully at night. You seem to be terrified of learning that things are not as rosey as you wish.

Bush arrested Jose Padilla and tortured him without due process for years. Most likely to the point of insanity. Bush got away with it. Pres Obama hasnt condemned it. In fact, it appears to many, that he is embracing it. How is that hyperbole? What part isnt fact.

[sabrina 1]

109. So, what is your position on this? Codifying Bush's

destruction of the right to Habeas Corpus?

[Burgman]

5. Not a person who supports that at all.

[FarLeftFist]

6. Where does it say U.S citizens don't have a right to trial?

I read it that you most certainly DO get a trial.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. In the cherished NDAA

http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/more-rubble-from-the-military-detention-cave-in/
http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/al-franken-voted-against-ndaa-denigrates-bill-of-rights
http://muslimmatters.org/2011/12/16/jonathan-turley-obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/

etc.

[FarLeftFist]

19. None of those are the NDAA. But here it is:

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

and


(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.


Who the fuck is Johnathan Turley? And you gave me someones blog to read? And THE EXAMINER?!

[MannyGoldstein]

28. The *requirement* does not extend, but the *option* sure does

And the NY Times is a blog?

[FarLeftFist]

33. The option? We are protected under the Constitution. It even says that in the NDAA, along with

The fact that U.S. citizens DO get a trial. It EVEN limits Presidential powers further down in the same section.

EDIT: And you linked to a blog member of the NY times.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. We'll have to agree to disagree

I'm siding with the Sen Franken, the ACLU, Jonathan Turley, the NY Times, and so forth.

[FarLeftFist]

57. OK, and I'll side with the Bill itself. If the language changes to be used against us in the future

Then I'll switch sides. As of now its a bunch of over-reacting.

[caseymoz]

142. If you're for depriving habeus to anyone

you should be ashamed. We are not in a real war. We are not picking up enemy soldiers in a defined theater of war on a battlefield, where fair trials by a jury "of your peers" are downright impossible. The definition of war and enemy being any "terrorist" was expanded through fear. I could understand this attitude immediately after the 9/11 trauma, I cannot understand it now.

[Robb]

180. I'm siding with Mother Jones.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

Plus, the only way your argument stands is if Hamdi v. Rumsfeld never happened.

USSC > District Court.

[Major Nikon]

133. US citizens aren't entitled to a trial if detained under the provisions of 1031 a-e

If you think this bill allows for one, you're simply mistaken.

[bhikkhu]

244. US citizens can't be held under section 1031, as section 1032 exempts them

and for anyone held under section 1031 (which gives authority only for those involved in the war with the Taliban and Al-qaeda), section 1036 details their recourse, which is in keeping with the norms of war-time practices, and in keeping with the Geneva Conventions.

What we need is to end the war, or a plan to end the war. That should be a much bigger election-year issue than it has been!

[Major Nikon]

261. You might want to read 1032 again

What 1032 says it that non-citizens are REQUIRED to be held by the military. Citizens are exempt from the REQUIREMENT to be held by the military, but may still be held indefinitely either by the military or civilian authorities.

There is no exemption for US citizens from indefinite detention.

[bhikkhu]

265. If they are "covered persons", involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda in the war against the US

then the bill requires military detention, unless they are exempted by section 1032.

In which case, if they are US citizens or legal residents (and still covered persons involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda) then they are under civilian law, which this bill doesn't change. There are many prisoners of wear held by the military, and there have been a few that were citizens - this just states the policy for what justice system they fall under. In the civilian justice system the protections and provisions for trial are pretty well spelled out by the constitution. This bill doesn't change them.

If they aren't US citizens or legal residents, then you go down to section 1036 to see the protections and recourse...which are in keeping with the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war, and pretty standard for any war in the past century.

[Major Nikon]

277. There is no exemption for US citizens

They can be held. Indefinitely. Without trial. That's what 1031 says.

The only recourse a US citizen has is to file a writ of habeas corpus and challenge the rationale behind the detention. If a judge (not a jury) decides the government has a basis to hold you, you stay in Guantanamo or you can even be transferred to a country that will pull out your fingernails, cut off your body parts, or simply kill you outright.

You do not have a right to a trial if you are held under 1031.

I have no interest in simply repeating myself. I suggest you do you own research. The wiki article is a good place to start, as is the ACLU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

http://www.aclu.org/indefinite-detention-endless-worldwide-war-and-2012-national-defense-authorization-act

[bhikkhu]

286. 1031 defines "covered persons", who are to be held in the military detention system

1032 says "unless they are US citizens or legal residents"

In which case they are held under the civilian justice system.

It begins by defining "covered persons" specifically as those involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda in the war against the US. Section 1036 details the protections and recourse for those under military detention, in keeping with the Geneva Conventions and the norms of war. For any held under the civilian justice system, constitutional law holds, and is in no way altered by this bill.

I've done my own research on this for much of the way along...almost exclusively by reading the bill itself (in the copies available through the Library of Congress) and following the changes. I have to say, the media and blogs and so forth seem to have been miserably irresponsible and careless in how they have covered it, and are probably the main causes of all the misunderstanding and hyperbole.

[Major Nikon]

337. That's not what 1032 says and you are passing very bad information off as fact

You really should educate yourself better on this subject. You are making the same mistake many others here are making by trying to read the bill yourself and not understanding what it means.

What 1032 says is that if you are detained under the provisions of 1031 and you are neither a US citizen or a legal resident, you are REQUIRED to be held by the US military. 1032 exempts this REQUIREMENT for a US citizen or a legal resident. You most certainly CAN be held by the military if you are a citizen, they just don't require it. If you are detained under 1031 you do NOT have a right to a trial. If you think you do, you are reading something into the legislation that just isn't there.

Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.

But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won".

"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

But there are also many misconceptions about it that have been circulating that should be clarified, including a possible White House veto. Here are the bill’s three most important provisions:

(1) mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; it also unquestionably permits (but does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the civilian court system (Sec. 1032);

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/

[zeljko]

353. That is exactly what it states. N/T

[plantwomyn]

282. You should go and read the debate.

The fact is that the Senate admits that the bill now codifies the indefinite detention of citizens. The Statement made by the Administration about the bill says as much too.
Read Diane Feinstein's floor speech about why she offered her Amendment. The Senate KNOWS that this is unconstutional and so does the President.
Maybe now that it's written into law we can force a SCOTUS decision to repeal the worst parts of the Patriot Act and the MCA.

[Marrah_G]

410. How can you be for the end of Habeus Corpus in regards to any human being?

[boppers]

107. You can't tell the difference between a blog at a URL, and a vetted media story?

Wow, I guess that kind of thing really does happen.

Here's a piece of useful advice: Just because an article is somewhere at a domain does not mean that it speaks with the same authority as other articles at that domain.

Having "blog" in the URL itself is a *really* big hint that it is not a vetted, sourced, fact checked piece of journalism... it could just be some random nobody spewing made up crap.

[Martin Eden]

178. "REQUIREMENT to detain"

Words have meaning, and were no doubt very carefully chosen in the NDAA. There is a world of difference between requirement to detain and authority to detain. A requirement is something the military is compelled to do, and doesn't have to be construed as prohibiting detention or denying authority to detain.

Also troubling is the phrase who is determined ... to be al Qaeda. Who makes that determination? It seems pretty clear it is done without due process of law, effectively sentencing a person to potential lifetime incarceration on the basis of accusation or circumstance.

I am not at all reassured by the text of the NDAA you posted to support the argument that Constitutional protections can't be bypassed or that this doesn't potentially give the military authority to detain and indefinitely hold American citizens and/or people who may be innocent.

[bhikkhu]

251. The "requirement" refers back to section 1031

where it reads "the Armed Forces of the United States <i>shall</i> hold a person described in paragraph..." where the "person described" is someone directly involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda, currently at war against the US.

The qualification is that this requirement to detain doesn't apply if the person is a US citizen, or a legal resident - to whom military detention doesn't apply. In those cases, civilian law would still apply, of course, where there are different sets of rights and protections that the bill has no bearing on.

If you go a little farther into the bill, if a "covered person" is detained, and isn't exempted by section 1032, then section 1036 details the rights and recourse of that person, in keeping with the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war.

[Martin Eden]

274. So then, a US citizen by definition can't be al Qaeda?

The qualification you described is that the "person described" must be someone directly involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda. It's unclear how that qualification would automatically exempt a US citizen (since it is possible for a citizen to be involved with al Qaeda); hence, the illogical conclusion in the subject title of my reply here.

Your 2nd paragraph states the requirement to detain doesn't apply to a US citizen or legal resident, but that paragraph appears to be an interpretation rather than a quote of actual text in the bill.

Please point me to the language in the bill specifically stating there shall be no authority to detain a US citizen without habeas corpus.

[bhikkhu]

279. The logic is pretty straightforward

First, section 1031 describes the conditions for the authorization of military force and detention in the current war against the Taliban and Al-qaeda. "Covered persons" are defined as those involved with the Taliban and Al-qaeda in war against the US, and are required to be held in military detention under military law (as opposed to the civilian justice system).

Exemptions are then listed in section 1032 - if a "covered person" is a US citizen or legal resident, then that person is detained under the civilian criminal justice system, and not the military.

Habeas corpus isn't referred to, because it doesn't come into play at all. Military detention for non-citizen combatants comes under the usual "law of war", which hold to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war, and has a variety of protections and provisions for recourse. Some of that is detailed in section 1036. As far as the civilian courts, habeas corpus is inherent, and I don't think it has been under any threat or question since the bush era.

[zeljko]

354. Man you are passing misinformation all over the place.

First, "covered persons" A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Much more broad than the taliban or Al-Qaeda.

Secondly, exemptions as had been stated in a previous post to you by Major Nikon is in regard to the the Requirement for Military dentention Citizens are not required to be detained by the Military they might be detained by the the civiilian criminal system, therefore if a covered person is a us citizen military detention is not mandatory, but basically an option dependent on the King's..I mean President's choice.

[bhikkhu]

355. I think what is missing from this discussion is the Patriot Act

Its only vague where it doesn't really apply - this part of the bill is supposed to describe policy for military detention of those involved in the war fighting against the US. It doesn't really deal with civilians because the patriot act does; and it doesn't give any new power or authorities because it doesn't have to.

[zeljko]

356. Of course it gives it new explicit power.

That's what all the uproar is about. Its about US citizens being arrested under JUST the SUSPICION of being a"covered persons" within US soil and elsewhere and then military indefinitely detained with a swipe of the president's pen. That's exactly what it is about and that is some crazy surreal sht.

[bhikkhu]

365. Brush up on the patriot act - its all in there

...and that's why this bill can skirt around and say nothing really about US citizens; because it is directed toward the Taliban and Al-qaeda.

And you might ask if this bill were intended to grant new powers, via a potential interpretation that would likely go to the courts to decide on - why it would state:

"Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

and:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

If someone were challenging a new application of power based on this bill, a court would look directly at those two statements, and agree that there are no new powers granted, and that clearly no new powers were intended to be granted.

[caseymoz]

193. Some laws do require a lawyer to explain them to you.

This is a law whose language has been deliberately garbled and requires some knowledge of precedent.

Besides, depriving Habeus Corpus to anyone should be dangerous enough to you.

[AllyCat]

247. And "associated force that acts in coordination ..." THAT COULD BE ANYONE!

And you'd never get your day in court to prove it wasn't you. Or your kid, or anyone else!

[bhikkhu]

24. But not in the bill itself, apparently

I stopped relying on the media for the truth after the run-up to the Iraq war. You'd be better served by looking at the bill - the section on detention policy is under Title X, Subtitle D, sections 1031 and 1032. If you read it closely, it clearly deals only with the Taliban and Al-qaeda in the current "war on terror".

[MannyGoldstein]

32. And who decides who qualifies as an al Qaeda member?

Checks and balances were enshrined into the Constitution for a very good reason.

[FarLeftFist]

36. If you are a U.S. citizen then a judge does. And you have to be proven to be planning an attack.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. I think that you're mistaken

For example, al-Awlaki was a US citizen, executed without any judicial oversight. The NDAA solidifies the ability for the Executive to ignore Habeas Corpus and any due process if the Executive wants to.

[FarLeftFist]

44. Al-Awlaki was already convicted by a Yemenite court to be captured dead or alive.

He should have turned himself in peacefully and stood trial.

EDIT: Also, he was aiding Al-Qaeda, therefore your citizenship in invoked.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Did the Yemenis kill him? That's news to me.

The government of Iran had a death warrant against Salman Rushdie. Were we remiss by not executing him?

[FarLeftFist]

48. Rushdie did not aid a terrorist organization against us.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. Wait - did we execute US citizen al-Alwlaki because Yemen wanted him dead,

or because Obama decided he was aiding al Qaeda?

You're confusing me.

What was the exact reason?

[FarLeftFist]

73. I'm sure the reason was because he was aiding Al-Qaeda, like the NDAA says is allowed.

I'm guessing you are unaware of how much intel and shit the U.S. had on him, including videotapes of him waging "jihad" on the U.S. among a whole lot of other shit.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Then a US court could have tried, convicted, and sentenced him

as the Constitution calls for.

[FarLeftFist]

85. Rushdie?

[dotymed]

160. Manny, This bill is shit and goes against our freedom

and is a threat to the entire world. Having said that, I suspect that whatever "national security," alphabet named branch, decides who is assassinated or detained indefinitely. That is delegation, no time for the big boys to get their hands directly dirty. It is a trgic farce.

[SwampG8r]

59. so if they say i am aiding al quida they can strip my citizenship?

and then those provisions dont apply anymore do they?
hmmm

[FarLeftFist]

76. No, not if THEY say, if YOU say. He was videotaped waging "jihad" on the U.S.

[JDPriestly]

264. Sorry, FarLeftFist, there is no definition for terrorism that is clear and understandable.

There is no test for determining who belongs to Al Qaeda, who is a jihadist. Deciding who is an who isn't subject to attack or internment under this bill is left to the president.

That is precisely the problem. Anyone the president doesn't like could be identified as somehow linked to Al Qaeda, and poof, disappeared.

That is why we say this bill is Fascist. It is vague and unclear as to the most essential points.

[indepat]

295. A terraist is anyone TPTB say is a terraist, even if the supposed connection is

fifth- or sixth-degree removed. Ask yourself: what percentage of those on the no-fly list have any actual/real connection to terrorism, much less is an actual/prospective terrorist? An enemies' list, such as Nixon's, is just that: an enemies' list. Junior's you're either with us or you're a'gin' us pronouncement squarely puts any one not on board with his PNAC agenda and other actions, as a'gin' us, to wit: the enemy, and hence a terraist to the neocons' twisted way of thinking. This is almost wholly about instilling fear and exercising control: just consider the over-the-top police/para-military-type responses to the protestors in the OWS movement. Was over-kill applied? Is this legislation not over-kill?

[JDPriestly]

300. Yes. It is overkill.

Politically, Obama is damned if he signs it, but also damned if he doesn't.

If he signs it, traditional Democrats who support human rights will not trust him again, and Ron Paul will criticize him loudly.

If he doesn't sign it, Karl Rove will say he is weak on terrorism.

Morally, Obama has only one choice.

In a situation in which no matter what you do, you will be wrong in someone's eyes, you must, more than ever, do what is morally and legally right -- and that, in this case, is to refuse to sign the bill and side with traditional Democrats.

I say this because the interests of the nation are what really matters -- and this bill with its vague provisions on habeas corpus is extremely dangerous. It will become the excuse for future presidents to deprive many people of their rights.

The courts will have the power to make the decision as to the legality of the provision in the end -- but even if the courts decide that the Constitution does not permit this, some people could be lost in years of unnecessary incarceration.

The Germans under Hitler got themselves into the position of having so many prisoners that they could not handle them -- and ended up just exterminating millions. This kind of bill is how that kind of brutality becomes reality.

[indepat]

314. Well put. Rethugs have been able to set most of the national agenda since WWII imo

'cause Democrats have largely been afraid they'd shit their pants if labeled soft on communism, soft on crime, soft on drugs, later soft on terra, or weak on national defense. What is is what is. We had the McCarthy hysteria in the early '50s, jails have long over-flowed with non-violent minor drug offenders, the Constitution has been shredded in a climate of fear, need for control, and the unattainable goal of perfect security due to the terra threat, and the United States, with 5% of the world's population, spends nearly as much as the entire rest of the world on MIC spending. Meanwhile, our economy and standard of living have nose-dived in an era of burgeoning income inequality and inadequacy and unfairness in the Federal income tax code, tens of millions are jobless, under-employed, living in poverty, all too many are homeless, and tens of millions do not have access to adequare health-care. As a consequence, the US has fallen to the bottom/near the bottom in almost all meaningful measures of quality of life among industrialized nations, including longevity and infant and maternal mortality. Welcome to the neocons' wet dream by having achieved much of the RW PNAC agenda for the 21st century: we can all see its enevitable consequences. Alas, if only Democrats had not so often been afraid of shitting their pants if labeled weak or soft by the Rethugs, maybe some of this onslaught on we the people and our Constitution could have been thwarted.

[JDPriestly]

347. Thanks for your input. True, true, true.

[caseymoz]

143. Ridiculous, the President of the US

. . . is not bound to follow warrants issued by Yemeni courts- - that's presuming they even issued a warrant and Obama didn't just read about it in the newspaper and tried to "help out." I believe the correct procedure to expedite him if he's found on American soil, so Yemen could carry out its own "Dead or Alive" orders.

Otherwise, think of the precedent it sets! And if any foreign court could do this, how about just any foreign leader. If Assad issues a warrant to Obama to capture or kill an especially aggravating blogger, should Obama obey it?

Moreover, when Obama issued his order, he didn't cite the Yemeni conviction as the reason for the hit.

[bvar22]

213. YEMMEN ?? !!!!

...a Court in YEMMEN!!???

We don't even have a Extradition Treaty with Yemmen,
and you are cheering for the US to use OUR Military to enforce the decisions of a Court in YEMMEN anywhere in The WORLD?

Would you also support using the US Military to enforce the decisions of a Court in Iran?
or Uzbekistan?


Jebus H Christ on a Tricycle!
Such INSANITY!




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[bhikkhu]

50. The National Security Council approved that, and it wasn't done lightly

This article gives a good account of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

[sabrina 1]

114. You mean like Al Awlaki and his teenage son who were given the death penalty without

ever having been charged with any crime on the order of the President? Does this bill remove that power from the president? NOT, according to one of Congress' best Liberal Democrats and experts on the Constitution, Rep. Jerry Nadler. A man who takes his oath to defend and protect the Constitution very, very seriously.

I'll take Rep. Nadler's opinion over all of those mentioned so far. He has rarely been wrong when it comes to the Constitution.

But why are we not getting rid of these Bush era policies, restoring the rule of law and that balance of powers, along with Habeas Corpus. This was certainly one of the main reasons for electing Democrats in 2008 and not only has nothing been done to rid us of these vile anti-Constitutional 'laws', this president has strengthened them by USING them.

Nadler disagrees with you. Turley is Constitutional Lawyer who slammed the Bush administration for these very same laws, and apparently had has not changed his mind simply because now we have Democrats in charge.

[Martin Eden]

179. "proven" ... how?

Is there a provision that at a minimum a bench trial must take place with a defense attorney and rules of evidence? If not, then nothing has been "proven" here besides the rule of people in positions of authority -- as opposed to the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution.

[caseymoz]

144. But who determines who's a member of Al-Qaeda?

It doesn't say the courts declare this. It doesn't give a procedure to determine this. The person isn't given any means to dispute it.

In other words, the President determines it.

[bvar22]

216. The President doesn't even have to "determine".

He only has to "suspect",
and is under no obligation to offer evidence to support his "suspicions" to ANYONE.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Bjorn Against]

184. Where does the Constitution say non-citizens don't have the right to trial.

If you are OK with chipping away at the Constitutional rights of non-citizens then you are really not on the left at all.

[bhikkhu]

254. As far as military detention, section 1036 details the rights to trial and recourse

...and it is in keeping with the "norms of war", and with the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war.

What I'd like to see all the upset at the realization that we are still involved in this crap 10 years down the road is a solid determination to end the war, and a plan and pledge from all those running for election to end the war.

[KG]

8. IOKIODI

[RKP5637]

9. IMO it's putting us on a very dangerous path for abuse by someone, eventually. Imagine the

rise of a dictator, we say it can't happen here, but that's faulty thinking. Eventually the question becomes who is protecting who from whom. I've been very uneasy with all of this, always have been.

[PDJane]

10. Habeus corpus is a foundational right.

Giving that up is insanity.

I will also point out that a country that builds an extra-judicial legal system eventually will use it against its own people.

[boppers]

110. When you refuse to exercise your rights, you lose them.

[Zhade]

127. Uh, come again? Where the fuck did you get THAT idea?

NT!

[boppers]

129. When you refuse to show up for your trial, you don't get to moan about your defense.

Or, for that matter, the resulting judgement.

Habeus Corpus doesn't mean you can avoid justice by avoiding trial. Right to remain silent only works if you're not blogging and posting videos confessing to crimes.

[Ed Suspicious]

171. Accused criminals, self admitted or not, are read miranda rights.

"Right to remain silent only works if you're not blogging and posting videos confessing to crimes."

I guess that only applies once the accused is in custody, in the cross hairs of a sniper's scope.

[PDJane]

328. None of which is really true, but none of which has anything to do with my point.

One more time. Any country which builds an extra-judicial system of imprisonment will eventually use it on its own people.

Damn it, does no-one remember the Cointelpro and the Church Committee? "The American people need to be assured that never again will an agency of the government be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers to be a threat to the established order."

That extra-judicial system is currently being used on Bradley Manning and José Padilla, both of whom have been subjected to torture. Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed. Do I think that Awlaki and Khan were sterling citizens? No. I do think that all of them deserve better treatment than they are getting from the U.S.A..

And what happens to the ones who try to defend the disposessed? Lynne Stewart, Anthony Taguba? Their careers are damaged and/or they end up in jail.

The heavy-handedness of the police in dealing with the occupy movement is another warning; right back to Cointelpro, 40 years ago.

[boppers]

357. I'm not old enough to personally remember, but by the 80's it turned out to be all theater anyways.

Sure, the CIA, FBI, DoD, NSA, (etc.) couldn't legally do lots of things anymore. So they farmed the work out in legal ways. Need phone records, but can't get it through a court? Ask a private business (say, a cell phone company) to "help out" and disclose their "business records". Need somebody vanished in a strange country? Pay unsavory locals a "consulting fee". Want to inspect every phone call, email, and web page leaving the United States? Tap them as soon as they hit international waters. It goes on and on. Why do you think the "contractor" component became so big?

It's all common tradecraft now, to officially do everything "legally", while rendering the Church Committee completely moot, with the occasional rubber stamp from FISA/FISC (if you want to go to court). That's the way it's been for at least the last 30 years, and nobody seems to have noticed... nothing ever really changed, other than a bunch of peacock hearings, and intelligence people having to exert a bare minimum of creativity.

[PDJane]

362. That was my point.

The vaunted democracy isn't, if the government can continue to turn the appartus against its own citizens. Now, the overreach is codified, and I'd be worried about that.

[bhikkhu]

13. I'm astonished that so many buy into that crap

...where a little reading, background and context, if you really cared about the issue, would lead you to put your energy more usefully elsewhere. The war needs to be brought to an end, but making up crap about how we're a police state now doesn't get us anywhere that we need to go.

[RC]

61. Not a police state because we do not yet have check points at state border crossings?

Give them another couple of years.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

105. I go though a border check point coming into Calif. from Oregon.

[MADem]

119. I went through one of those coming from Nevada. The bastards wanted me to

toss out my CALIFORNIA oranges before I crossed into the state. I ate 'em, instead.

This was back in the eighties. Saint Ronnie of Reagan was the President at the time....!

[KansDem]

159. I went through one just a few weeks ago...

Thanksgiving trip to Idaho and California. I too was coming in from Nevada when I was asked to open my trunk and then my ice chest I had on the back seat.

Of course, driving a car with Missouri plates might have added to their suspicion...

[fascisthunter]

392. This Bill makes the US a Police State

I'm amazed you can't see the danger as well as the many signs of a fascist police state.

[bhikkhu]

395. According to the bill itself:

Under Title X, Detainee Matters: "Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

and:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

At this point, the whole thing has been argued into the ground, and few people are likely to change their minds, but you could see how one could conclude that this bill doesn't change anything.

The war is the problem - the original AUMF in 2001, the Patriot Act, and the ongoing war. I'd like to see a plan for ending this long war from every person running for office next year, the president included.

[Odin2005]

16. Orwell is rolling in his grave.

[SwampG8r]

62. no actually he isnt

they use him as a ceiling fan over st peter at the gates he is spinning so fast

[MannyGoldstein]

72. LOL! nt

[dflprincess]

88. Orwell? I'm surprised we're not getting reports of an earthquake in Philadelphia

caused by the rate Ben Franklin is spinning.

[neverforget]

21. Go USA! Land of the Free and Home of the Brave!

[leftyohiolib]

267. land of the free to keep your mouth shut and home of the airport molesters

[pinto]

22. Aside from the broad assumption about DUers, how are we ending Habeas Corpus specifically?

For US citizens specifically?

[Pamela Troy]

201. What do you think habeus corpus is?

We are ending habeus corpus by our president very likely signing a bill that would enable the government to hold people indefinitely and without trial. And yes, that could include Americans. The bill does not REQUIRE that it be applied to U.S. citizens, but nor does it specifically exempt U.S. citizens.

[bhikkhu]

256. It does specifically exempt US citizens from military detention

...even if they would otherwise be considered "covered persons" involved at war against the US with the Taliban and Al-qaeda.

If someone is considered a "covered person" but exempted from military detention by section 1032, then they are still subject to regular civilian criminal law, and would be in the US justice system rather than the military justice system.

The bill is clearly worded, logically laid out and internally consistent, but its hard to get the sense of it from snippets.

[Pamela Troy]

285. No it doesn't.

It simply states that Americans don't HAVE to be detained in this manner. The option to do so is still open:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS -- THE REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

[bhikkhu]

289. This is a very good write-up on the major difficulties with that:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf

"Detention of American Citizens
as Enemy Combatants"

...which is a very interesting read, and something to calm one's concerns somewhat. There's a great deal of settled law on the matter, but still enough lack of resolution that any attempts would likely be tied up in miserable debate and endless court cases...

One important part of the current bill is where it states, under the relevant Detainee Matters heading - "Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force", or in other words, its not intended to state a policy which changes anything.

[Pamela Troy]

296. "Not intended to state a policy which changes anything" except, you see, it does.

The original AUMF stated:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Section 2 of the new version expands this to anyone who, it's decided “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.”

[Marrah_G]

411. What about human beings who are not US citizens?

[JDPriestly]

26. I agree with you, Manny. I think the complacency here is due to confusion about what

the bill says. People don't understand what the vague, uncertain language means. They are accepting interpretations of it that may or may not be accurate.

The bill was sloppily written, and the language will cause grief in the future.

But what can you do when members of Congress are rushing to be able to go home for the holidays?

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Obama has the right to veto it if it's sloppy

That's his job.

[FarLeftFist]

51. But its not sloppy. Obama is a lawyer. I'm sure its plain to see for him.

[limpyhobbler]

29. +1, I'm surprised how many seem to treat it as a joke. while others demand evidence but then ignore

that evidence when it's presented.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Japanese internment camps

People should talk to a few Nissei.

[hobbit709]

55. They had them for Germans and Italians living in this country too.

They didn't release the Germans until 1947.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Absolutely

But most posters will be familiar with former, not latter.

Fun fact...Mexico also had camps for Germans, after Germany sunk a ship drawing the country into the war. They used the American example.

[Pamela Troy]

226. Not to the same extent.

If so, then some of my relatives would have ended up in American internment camps. They didn't.

[NYC_SKP]

31. Obama = Third Reich?

Okie Dokie...

[MannyGoldstein]

35. The protections were diminished before Hitler came to power

We know the consequences once the Nazis were able to take advantage of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Let me list a few others more palatable examples

Italy, Spain, Argentina, chile, nicaragua, el Salvador, Cambodia, Russia.

I could go on, closing societies follow a predictable arc as well... Wolf wrote an easy to comprehend essay a few years ago, letter to a young patriot, iirc...and you might want to pick up Democracy Inc.

Alarms should be going off and this is quite party independent. Given this I am not hopeful it can be stopped and that scares me.

[area51]

136. +1 n/t

[Autumn]

141. Obama is going to be President for about 5 more years

I hope. Then a puke is going to have this, and if you think this crop of lunatics will be gone I have a bridge to sell you. I think that is frightening.

[bhikkhu]

257. The best solution is to end the war soon

I sure wouldn't want to see it handed on again to the next guy...

[Autumn]

260. The war on terror will never end.

It's such a useful little thing. And bet the farm, the next puke President will ratchet it up.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. I agree and will add that I think that most likely a President Obama will not abuse this power - But

it is almost certain that someday in the future we will have a right-wing Republican President something like the candidates we have been watching perform at those right-wing hate fest called the Republican debates. Do we want to give that power to someone who thinks like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich? It is very likely that someday in the future someone who does think like one of them will have this power - now that this law has been passed.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Which is exactly what happened in Germany. nt

[struggle4progress]

39. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause ii:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it

The exact meaning of that clause depends, of course, on the composition of the Supreme Court -- in particular regarding the question whether the right extends to non-citizens. It has sometimes been said the rebellion or invasion must be severe enough to disrupt the normal functioning of the courts. Such suspensions have occurred several times in the past

... Congress’ power to suspend was assumed in early commentary and stated in dictum by the Court. President Lincoln suspended the privilege on his own motion in the early Civil War period, but this met with such opposition that he sought and received congressional authorization. Three other suspensions were subsequently ordered on the basis of more or less express authorizations from Congress ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag8_user.html#art1_sec9cl2

Even the conservative court of the Bush era declined, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, to allow the executive to strip a US citizen of the right to the writ

The bottom line is that Justices, like Scalia, are not our close friends in this respect -- and that a better court will provide better safeguards. Since the court's vacancies are filled by presidential nominee's confirmed by the Senate, presidential and senatorial elections matter

[MannyGoldstein]

43. The NDAA is congressional approval to suspend Habeas Corpus

That's the big problem here, as I see it.

[struggle4progress]

56. Where in the bill is habeas suspended? The writ is guaranteed by plain language of

the constitution. Standard legal practice would require a very plain statement of intent by Congress to overcome the plain language of the Constitution

[RC]

71. Congress can and does pass laws nullifying the Constitution

How secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, are we right now. Not very. The 4th amendment does not often even apply any more. No-knock busts on someone's say so anyone? The warrant, if any, gets added to the file after the fact

[struggle4progress]

83. No one will subscribe to the legal theory that Congress has the power to override the Constitution;

and when the Court finds, in a case before them, that Congress is overriding the Constitution, the Court will accordingly nullify the action of Congress. But, as I already said: the exact meaning of this depends on a Supreme Court, that is composed of persons nominated by the Executive and confirmed by the Senate.

[Overseas]

195. Habeas corpus was suspended for foreigners in 2006. Having lived Overseas, I have been waiting for

its restoration for all people in the USA. The USA was respected around the world for our civil liberties. We gave people the right to face their accusers. We wouldn't just throw people in detention without any right to find out why they were there. What if we were overseas, visited some gathering we didn't know was blacklisted, and were thrown into prison without the right to even know why we had been detained?

I have been waiting for the restoration of habeas corpus for all people. I have been surprised that we are just concerned that US citizens should have that right. It doesn't mean we release everyone. It just means they get to know why they have been imprisoned.

What happened to habeas corpus?
In its waning days, the last Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Among many ill-considered and dangerous provisions, the MCA revoked the right to habeas corpus for anyone detained at Guantánamo Bay as well as for any foreigner the government detains anywhere and labels an “enemy combatant.” This provision applies to legal residents of the U.S. as well, meaning someone who has lived in the U.S. for years could potentially be labeled an “enemy combatant” and then thrown into prison with no legal recourse to challenge their detention.

How does it relate to Guantanamo?
The government has little or no evidence against most of the men detained at Guantánamo. We now know that almost none of the Guantánamo prisoners were taken into custody by U.S. forces or captured on any battlefield. The overwhelming majority were sold into captivity by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords for substantial bounties—$5,000 and more for each person they turned in; enough money, as leaflets the U.S. military distributed throughout Afghanistan said, “to take care of your family . . . for the rest of your life.” In fact, of the nearly 800 men that have been held at Guantánamo, only 10 have ever been charged with any crime.

snip

What does it mean for everyone else?
Habeas corpus was originally meant to act as a bulwark precisely against this type of executive power. The founders of our nation considered habeas corpus the most fundamental of rights because it insured that the executive branch could not hold people without cause. Since the founding of the U.S., the writ has been suspended on only four occasions, each for a brief period of time and each in territory that was an active combat zone.
By compromising this core legal value and necessary protection against the executive branch, the MCA has eroded the very foundation of our legal and constitutional framework. If we do not defend the right to habeas corpus, we all lose. [/div class]

please visit www.ccrjustice.org for more information

[FarLeftFist]

40. OH NOES! Godwins LAW!

[MannyGoldstein]

45. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100234569#post35

[FarLeftFist]

47. But our protections AREN'T diminished. We are still protected by the Constitution. It even says that

In the Bill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. First they came for the trade unionist...

Santayanna again comes to mind. Oh and in my mind it matters little who is in power when it comes to civil liberties...both have proven less than pleasant starting on 9-12-

[MannyGoldstein]

58. You expect the bill to say it violates the Constitution?

Really?

[FarLeftFist]

80. No, the bill actually says it upholds the Constitution for U.S. citizens.

[StarsInHerHair]

70. but we all watched as Dimsun 'misunderstood' his way to robust presidential power...

I can see too easily how a malevolent person COULD twist the words/meanings of the words-THAT is why it should be rewritten to PROVE CLEARLY that it does not apply to Americans

[FarLeftFist]

81. But it IS written clearly.

[Odin2005]

74. Not when the Fascists own 5 SCOTUS justices.

[FarLeftFist]

84. This is getting very fringe. Lets talk about jobs, the environment, economics.

If people choose to be overly paranoid then so be it. We weren't even this paranoid under Bush.

[2banon]

253. You Sir, need to change those rose colored glasses

for a clear, translucent pair.

Our Constitional protections have been eroding exponentially for decades, making the Bill of Rights as thread bare as cheese cloth. And now the few remaining threads are unravelling completely before our eyes, yet you refuse to see it, seemingly arguing that everyone else is blinded despite the historical events and present facts which are laid out in the light of day before us.

Over reaction?

The only group of people who benefit from these fascistic measures are the so called 1%, as it always has been, and looks like always will be unless somehow, the "OWS" movements (or evolved movements) miraculously effect real, actual, radical change.

[rhett o rick]

346. The Constitution is only as strong as the current courts inforcement. The courts ruled

that the president has the right to arrest and detain indefinitely.

[leftyohiolib]

268. we're doomed to repeat it anyway. enjoy the ride

[Jakes Progress]

65. Actually they are not so much for it

as much as they don't know what it is. All that matters is that the current administration if for it. So they are too.

Life is simple for them.

[smokey nj]

219. I think this is the best post in the thread.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. We should all be concerned for the potential Administrative abuse of power ...

when HE-WHO-IS-NOT-GINGRICH won't even speak up in a vigurous way to to protect the right to peaceably assemble and protest.

These are Constitutional rights as guaranteed in the First Amendment.

He is "strongly opposed" to curtailing of the right to Habeas Corpus but will sign the bill? To believe this, we have to believe that our military is so fragile that it cannot go for days, weeks, months, or longer, unless a re-authoriization act is signed. There are others who are "strongly opposed" to curtailing the Habeas Corpus protection but will favor it a little bit because otherwise Gingrich will be the next President.

Nonsense.

[SaintPete]

68. Amen, Om shanti shanti shanti, and All Hail His Noodly Appendage!

Truly, and verily.... or whatever other words expressing agreement one may prefer!

[phasma ex machina]

69. Too many uppity serfs made the powers-that-be take off the velvet gloves to show us their steel fist

[midnight]

75. K&R

[Justice wanted]

77. I second that. I remember how people went crazy when this type of law was brought up during the

Bush Administration and yet it is us who are getting paranoid.

[FarLeftFist]

86. Thats because Habaeus Corpus actually WAS dropped under Bush. This bill doesn't do that.

[Justice wanted]

92. It doesn't restore it either. It basically drop what few part of Habaeus Corpus we had left.

[FarLeftFist]

94. It doesn't drop anything, it actually just keeps the status quo, being:

The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge. Enemy combatant status is as follows:

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

and


(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

[Fiendish Thingy]

122. the bill codifies the power of the president to designate who gets detained indefinitely

that's the status quo; it offers no new protections to US citizens.

Glenn Greenwald writing on Salon.com:

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

(snip)

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

(snip)

Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”

Entire article at:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

FarLeftFist, you really should read this scholarly article by a noted Constitutional litigator; it might expand your point of view beyond repeatedly quoting sec. 1032.

If you could be convinced that US citizens are not protected from indefinite detention without trial, and that the president /executive branch reserves the right to detain anyone they deem to offer "significant" support to terrorists, would you be against the bill? Or do you feel the presidents (ANY president) should have the power to detain anyone without trial?

What people get confused about, is the Constitution doesn't just gaurantee rights to US citizens; it's supposed to dictate the conduct of the government towards all people (i.e. the rule of law, not men). That's how you prevent tyranny, not by giving up your rights in an "emergency", even in a "war".

Brave citizens must prioritize freedom over safety, despite the fact that in this Global War On Terror, although there are risks to our safety, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE the US will be overthrown by Al Qaeda or the Taliban or any other terrorist organization, and therefore NO CHANCE we will live under occupation by Muslim extremists (unless one is a teabagger and believe to already be true).

[FarLeftFist]

138. I read the bill, 6x already. It EXEMPTS U.S. citizens. UNLESS they are proven to work for Al-Qaeda.

Its really that simple. Thats ALL the bill says. And again, for U.S. citizens it MUST be proven to a judge. Don't fall for the false hype.

[COLGATE4]

165. Truly none so blind as those who will not see.

[FarLeftFist]

174. Tell me about it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

186. well, I guess you can count me among the "blind"

along with the lawyers of the ACLU and the Constitutional litigator Glenn Greenwald.

When was the last time you argued a constitutional case before a judge, FarLeftFist?

[2banon]

255. Not aware of the level of concern during Bush Regime.. got to be inside a the DC bubble

the standard meme from Washington DC is that Most Americans supported the War on Iraq (huge Lie), All of Americans were Changed by events of 9/11 (another HUGE lie), and on and on. arrgghh.

[fascisthunter]

393. I Do Think the DC bubble exists on DU

it's as if some were following the corporate media's script whether true or untrue.

[JCMach1]

79. Election year cheerleading is just getting warmed-up...

[bhikkhu]

101. Or election-year implosion

...as the case may be. Just when you think the GOP hasn't got a chance, the misinformation games, self-destruction and infighting begins.

[joshcryer]

121. Haha, this has been going on for about 2.5 years now.

And the new mod system has rendered this behavior moot.

[JCMach1]

164. I forgot the election year 'trolling' as well!

sigh...

[dflprincess]

82. I can only imagine what those on this board who support this bill would be saying

if Bush had done this.

Just because Obama wants it, doesn't make it right.

[leftyohiolib]

271. bush and obama are two different people

[dflprincess]

321. But when it comes to ignoring the Consitution

they seem so much alike.

Had Bush been the one to sign this bill the same people making excuses for Obama would have been frothing at the mouth.

As I said, just because Obama is the one to do it, doesn't make it right.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. I've yet to see a cogent explanation of why the ominous legal gibberish in this bill is necessary.

If it "doesn't change the situation pertaining to US citizens on US soil", why does it need to be dublicitious and obfuscatory? What is the rationale behind the fucking thing in the first place? Is there some real danger that a terrorist is going to be caught in the US and -gulp- get an actual trial?

Tim McVeigh had a trial, and the system worked. I don't get what the fucking problem is. Like too many things this administration has done lately (going against the FDA on Plan B Contraception, encouraging SWAT teams to kick down doors and drag cancer grannies off to prison for smoking pot, etc. etc.) this is indefensible, and if it's NOT indefensible, then fucking DEFEND it already. Explain it. In English. With no bullshit.



We're waiting.

[kath]

90. Aww, Manny, what'cha complainin' about? Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, the Geneva Conventions - all

those things are just SOOOO obsolete.
Oh, yeah, and the Fourth Amendment too.

[catrose]

91. not cool with it at all <eom>

[Blue_In_AK]

93. Nothing surprises me here anymore, Manny. n/t

[steve2470]

95. ACLU: President Obama: Veto Indefinite Detention

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100228928

[JoeyT]

98. I'm not even cool with indefinite detention used against non-citizens.

What a strange world. We went from against ID when it was used by Bush against random people, but now not only is it ok, but it's ok to make sure we have the option to do it to citizens.

I oppose indefinite detention period. I don't care who's doing it or who it's being done to.
We're supposed to be the good guys, or at least we claim it nonstop. Apparently we're only the good guys when it isn't any trouble whatsoever.

[dana_b]

415. me too. What is wrong with putting people on trial?

Of bringing actual charges against people and presenting evidence at a trial? I have never understood the government's thinking on this. Non citizens don't deserve any justice because they weren't born here? That is just twisted to me. The years of being a "beacon of light" and standing for democracy and justice are over.

[JoeyT]

419. Putting people on trial requires evidence.

Instead of just killing a random dude and insisting he was Al Qaeda's second in command fifty or sixty times.

It may not even be corruption, or just corruption, eroding our civil liberties. It could just be mostly laziness.

[kenny blankenship]

99. War, Constitution shredding, universal surveillance are OK if Democrats do them

You see, it would be so much worse if the other party was doing it, that we have to do it ourselves to make it's all done competently.

[Warren DeMontague]

102. Ah, I bet they do a comeback tour

If the money's roit, mate!

[boppers]

113. Joe's dead, mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Strummer

[Warren DeMontague]

120. I know. I was making a joke, like if "Habeas Corpus" were a band. I used a picture of The Clash

because, well, why the fuck not.


Shit, Habeas Corpus probably IS a band. I should check.

[boppers]

124. Heh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_%28band%29

[Warren DeMontague]

128. From Oxnard, no less.

Whaddaya know.

[LuckyTheDog]

103. Obama has to work with Congress

I don't think he would have passed this bill on his own. But it makes little sense to dig in his heels over something that can be "reinterpreted" with a signing statement and which will probably be struck down by the courts anyway. The economy is what matters to people now. And, unless we want MORE of that kind of legislation, the 2012 election needs to end with a Democratic victory.

So, this is not a fight Obama wants to have, or should have, right now. Politics is not bean bag. You pick your fights and keep your eye on the long term. Standing on principle over everything is not only impossible, it's counterproductive to try. Does that sound cynical? It is. But the exercise of power isn't for the naive. It just isn't.

[bowens43]

154. There is no fight this guy will have.

Your president is a man with no values , no fight and no balls.

Obama has not fought for ANY issue. He caves very single time.,

but you go ahead and keep defending him , no matter how vile and disgusting his actions, I find it amusing.

[andlor]

157. +1

[LuckyTheDog]

293. If you are going to make absurd assertions...

... I don't feel a need to respond. Feel free to vote for Newt next year. It is your right as an American.

[fascisthunter]

394. well said!

[panzerfaust]

177. "...this is not a fight Obama wants to have..." HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The only fight Obama has proven willing to have is with the progressives in the democratic party.


Now available in America!

[LuckyTheDog]

294. Feel free to vote for Obama's opposition

It is your right as an American.

[U4ikLefty]

309. repeat ad nauseum

typical

[LuckyTheDog]

310. I am serious

If you think there is a better candidate, then vote for that person.

[Modern_Matthew]

104. It's fine when the right party does it...

The worship of leaders, their families, and all that they do on here is so disgusting to me.

[Zorra]

106. But fascism is trending now! It's so tomorrow!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

112. So this is what my father gave his life for in world war two.

What little faith this country has in our justice system and our rights and freedoms.

How many here have arrested for something that they didn't do?
I have.

Push back people before it's too late, but it may be already.

[limpyhobbler]

115. Senator Merkley Explains How YOU Could Be Indefinitely Imprisoned With No Trial thanks to NDAA 2012

I saw this in the video forum and thought I'd cross-post it here. I think it gives a pretty good explanation of people's concerns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10171541

[emcguffie]

117. On the contrary, it's hard to keep up.

So many horrors perpetrated so quickly -- it's just too much to take in. Maybe this was how the Germans felt?

I've been saying fascism and just like Hitler since 2000 -- not too loudly, and not too often, for fear of being shut down altogether -- and I haven't in the last 11 years seen any reason to think I'm wrong. I remain afraid that I am right. Not that that gives me any pleasure.

But then I think, gee, so many other human beings on this planet have had to live through such a nightmare, why did we think we were above it? Why did we believe our form of government was so much superior that it could not happen here? And now it has happened right here, at home, in this "land of the free."

My heart just feels squeezed, crushed. My brain shuts down. I can't deal with this emotionally or intellectually. So, I guess maybe that's how this happens. Too many horrors, too much that is inconceivable, and voila, there it is.

Edited to add: I think I'll go watch Netflix now. Maybe the Forsyte Saga....

[BzaDem]

118. You are mistaken about how the bill is applied to US Citizens. The Feinstein amendment specifically

declared that the provisions did not provide any authority to detain US Citizens that didn't already exist.

In other words, the government will not be able to use in court the law that just passed to justify any unusual detention of an American Citizen.

And your claim that the law "ends Habeas Corpus" is wrong. The Supreme Court has already held that even non-citizen detainees who never set foot in the United States have a right to challenge their detention in a Habeas hearing. So not only did the law not "end Habeas Corpus" -- Congress can't even do it.

[AllyCat]

169. Guantanamo?

did those people get a right to challenge? SCOTUS is not working for you and I or anyone on this board. Just the corporations.

[BzaDem]

176. Yes -- that Supreme Court decision specifically applies to detainees in Guantanamo.

The decision was Boumediene v. Bush.

[AllyCat]

242. And are they getting that?

[Fiendish Thingy]

189. the Feinstein amendment didn't make it to the final bill

see Glenn Greenwald's analyisis here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

[bananas]

123. Nothing Shocks Me Anymore. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

125. SO AM I, MANNY...

The dwindling middle class has become a piece of meat for the 3 branches of government to tear apart.

History does repeat itself. I therefore am hoping spontaneous evolution will erupt across the entire globe.

[PatrynXX]

130. eh.. certainly not me but DU3 probaby

and I'm going to bed...., hopefully the smart brains will return to the new DU... and fix this zombie reaction to everything Obama does. Cause if you don't, well then you must agree with it. Bitch at him that is. already trampled him on the stupid pipeline that creates no real jobs. hey our bridges are in severely bad shape. pipelines aren't built to last. Bridges are supposed to.

[juajen]

131. Nope, I am not cool with it. Please tell me what we should do about, Manny?

[joshcryer]

134. I challenge you to link one post where a DUer, who believes Habeas Corpus is ending...

...is for it.

One post. That's all I ask.

[Rex]

145. Yeah I second that.

I'd like to see that post(er).

[joshcryer]

146. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Whole premise of the OP is false.

[Rex]

147. Well I won't hold my breath...

I've never seen that either...seen a lot of other stuff bywillikers!

[boppers]

148. I have not seen a denial that Obama will eat all newborn babies.

Something dark and nefarious is being hidden.

, for the logic impaired.

[Rex]

149. Is that like something that is unseen?

I have not seen a denial or affirmation that X will perform some kind of action on Y. Until I do, I will believe and then completely forget that they are intertwined due to the fact that both are letters in the alphabet and somewhat close together.

Hurry, I challenge me to a game of me.

[AllyCat]

168. Supporting this bill is supporting Habeas Corpus

Check out posts 2 and 5. And many others on this thread as well as Manny's OP. Why did we need this bill? We didn't need it and the language is slippery for allowing detention of Americans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100232317

[emulatorloo]

188. Yes, I would like that too.

[AtomicKitten]

210. I second that.

One post, just one post.

[fascisthunter]

396. anyone supporting this Bill is doing just that

you can pretend otherwise.

[joshcryer]

399. No, they don't believe the bill does that.

They think it's different and that whatever powers the President had before have not changed.

[Whisp]

137. Weren't you saying this very same thing ever since Obama came into office?

Yes, you were.

[MannyGoldstein]

172. No - but feel free to present refuting evidence. nt

[MichaelMcGuire]

150. I think folks would need to be mental to support the ending of Habeas Corpus

[nineteen50]

151. I was astonished so many were fine

with the supreme court appointment of bush. It has been a race to complete fascism ever since.

[bowens43]

152. I'm certainly not ok with it.

I am completely disgusted with our country and especially Obama.

This is the kasr straw for me. He will not get my vote.

[jefferson_dem]

155. Obama = Hitler comparisons.

Not just for freerepublic anymore, apparently.

[dotymed]

161. Manny, from reading the responses to your O.P.

it is obvious that you hit the nail on the head.

[justiceischeap]

162. For those thinking some of us are interpreting NDAA wrong, please look at

the Padilla v. Rumsfeld case and see why we are so concerned about the language of NDAA.

http://warisacrime.org/content/why-media-lying-about-new-ndaa-power-indefinite-military-detention-americans

As has been pointed out repeatedly by civil libertarians, the cunning language is technically correct, because "require" is different than "allow," but although the bill does not "require" the executive branch to place American citizens in military detention without charge or trial for life, it does indeed "allow" it.

Although Sections 1031 and 1032 were renumbered 1021 and 1022 in the Conference Committee (makes it harder to Google) the substance is still intact. The US military can bust down your door at any time, given the proper go ahead by the executive branch, take you away, never charge you with a crime, never give you a trial, and lock you up, torture you, or even kill you. There is a bit of new razzle-dazzle in the new Section 1021 language now stating:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

The problem is that "existing law," as the traitor occupying the senate seat for the Great State of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, reiterated, is the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which temporarily upheld Bush's authority to hold American citizen Jose Padilla without charge or trial, as an "enemy combatant," even though he was arrested on US soil with the full rights of an American-born citizen. Judge Michael Luttig in that decision fully expected the question to go before the Supreme Court, before Bush pulled a fast one and said suddenly that Padilla could have a civilian trial after being held in isolation and tortured for 3 1/2 years. That made Luttig go ballistic. Now he was the last guy to have overturned the Bill of Rights.

bold emphasis mine

I'm not so concerned that his will be an issue with the Obama administration but let's, for shits & giggles, pretend ANY of the Repubs running currently gets elected. Do you see within them a moral compass that would keep them from using this incorrectly? And frankly, how would we know if anyone did? An American citizen would most likely just disappear. Maybe my tinfoil cap is a little tight but I don't trust Republicans, especially batshit, extremely religious ones, to use this type of law responsibly.

Couple this with the fact that the DoD considers protesting "low-level terrorism" and it's a recipe for disaster.

“’They should have made it clearer there’s a clear difference between illegal violent demonstrations and peaceful, constitutionally protected protests,’ Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk said on Thursday.

“Asked when a protest becomes an ‘illegal, violent demonstration,’ Melnyk said, ‘I’m not a lawyer. I couldn’t get into the specifics of when you cross the line.’

“’If you’re doing physical damage to people or property, that could fall into that,’ he said.”

http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/22/dod_deletes_protest_terrorism_problems_remain

If you consider the language from the above Pentagon spokesman and then look at OWS Oakland where bottles of water and paint were thrown, where there was some damage to property, and, bam, indefinite detention if they want to use it that way. Don't pretend that isn't the case, it does a disservice to us all.

[Laelth]

166. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[AllyCat]

167. All the posts from people saying "If he just had his magic wand" and "You whiners! Just because you

didn't get everything you wanted". These are DEMOCRATS??? Really? I cannot believe where we have gone as a country under a Democratic President. He did NOT need a magic wand. He needed to veto that POS piece of legislation. And now we live in a police/militia state. Nice job Dems. Way to stand up for us.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

170. It all depends on whose inking the dotted line.

[L. Coyote]

173. Republiscams and Birchers won't be able to vote from their detention facility

let the round-ups begin

[gateley]

175. I wouldn't think a single DUer is "cool" with that, Manny. I'm guessing everybody

thinks it's wrong but some envision a different result than others.

[got root]

181. There are some, who will defended the president, and their party, no matter what they do.

but there are many more who are in open rebellion to the state of our union, and that my friends is what still gives me hope.

Not a single person, or party, but We The People, taking our grievances to OUR streets to demand real, and substantial CHANGE.

[b id="who" style="font-size:4em;color:red;"]Who's Streets?!

[truth2power]

183. I'm not astonished at all. Something pernicious is going on here (at DU)....

There's no point in saying any more about it than that.

[JEB]

185. The definition

of a terrorist keeps getting broader. First they came for al Qaeda....then they came for Muslims...then they came for immigrants (brown people with no papers)....then the environmentalists....the gays...the Women's rights activists, the labor unions.

[99Forever]

187. Just another item on a growing list.

Not to trivialize it, but to understand that it brings me no surprise.

[fascisthunter]

190. I'm Not.... Too Many Here live and breath "the end justifies the means"

and support the person in their party as long as they are of the corporate kind no matter what.

[DirkGently]

194. Unsupportable & inexcusable.

[saras]

197. A fair number of "DUers" don't seem to care for the Constitution at all...

...let alone the idea that it overrides "law'n'order", even during wartime.

[sendero]

198. Yeah

.... but a Democrat did it so it's ok.

[Vinca]

199. That's what it amounts do.

[Dragonfli]

200. It is like living in a surreal nightmare inhabited by brain dead pod people.

Like unto sheep that blindly follow unawares to the slaughter house.
Worse perhaps, the sheep do not actually cheer on and rationalize the need for their end.

The brain impaired here are simply unconcerned with the death of freedoms that protect them from tyranny.
They think it is cause for celebrations and rewards with further power and public office for the architects of the the killing of their civil liberties.

Good soldiers singing as they are marched off the cliff.

[MineralMan]

203. How did that Habeus Corpus work for the American Citizens

of Japanese ancestry back in WWII?

The answer, of course, is that it didn't. Is this a similar situation? I'm not sure. The military authorization bill that includes what everyone is talking about is fairly unclear. It could be used either way, I think. So, I'll just have to wait to see how it is used before I comment a lot. I know how Habeus Corpus was thrown out during WWII. And that was by a President most people feel was very progressive.

It's complicated, I guess. It all may end up in the Supreme Court.

[MannyGoldstein]

207. Under Hamdi, a plurality of SCOTUS Justices said that Habeas Corpus can be suspended if

Congress OKs it. NDAA is Congress OKing it.

[Bucky]

215. Plurality, not majority.

Do you think that might be grounds for this law being brought under review? Undoubtedly, it will for some grounds, but it'd be nice if the attack on the Bill of Rights is what makes they review it.

[MineralMan]

231. OK, then the answer has to be to elect a Congress that won't OK it.

We can begin that process in 2012, if we have the intestinal fortitude to do it. 2012 will end with Obama's re-election, I'm certain. What we do with legislative elections will make the difference. The US is what it is. We hold elections. That's the key to changing the country, one district and state at a time.

I see no alternative to that which has any chance of success. Do you? That's why I spend all of my campaign energy on state and federal legislators. The Presidency is a side show, frankly, and is not where power lies. But I guarantee that if we do the work needed to retake Congress, President Obama gets another term.

[abq e streeter]

204. Aw c'mon. Using the Bill of Rights for toilet paper is OK if the person has a "D" after their name..

[donttazemebro]

208. This is a good thing!

This is a good thing and you are all missing the point.

NOW after all of this time we have a way to make all of these birther and Bush lover nuts "go away"

These people have been the enemy of Obama and what we need done for years and now he has a way to make it all go away. Because they are Obama's enemy and therefore enemies of our government they can now be arrested by the military with one single phone call and never been seen again!

Also because it is a national security issue the press cannot report on it and no one can get any info to expose it so we are safe from any bad press. This is a great solution to the problem we have all faced for years from these birther and tea bagger nuts.

Now with this law and some quick and silent action by the Seal Teams we have this election in the bag!

Gooooo Obama!

I think it was GREAT solution and may be the final solution needed to now get the CHANGE we demand! No more big mouths in the way and when they find out the power we now have they will shut the heck up or else!

[Bucky]

214. win

Thank you.

I needed that.

[a2liberal]

211. K&R (n/t)

[Bucky]

212. The 3rd Reich analogy is incorrect (and hysterical) but I recommend anyway.

The suspension of Posse Comitatus, the handwaving of Habeas Corpus and the 4th Amendment, the ending of the presumption of innocence, and all related abuses within this NDAA are morally unconscionable. When I think about the enormity of this decision and the core disrespect for the Bill of Rights, it makes me question whether I can vote for this president next year. I've never said that before. I'll probably vote for him because the Republicans are gonna put up someone far worse, in all likelihood.

The worst part is, we don't have to go all the way to Nazi Germany to see abuses like this in history. The Alien and Sedition Acts, the near-fascism of Huey Long, the sweeping evils of Jim Crow segregation, and the homogenizing terror of two Red Scares all remind us that civil rights are jeopardized back home in America as badly as any extreme foreign examples. When people dare to say "civil liberties apply to me and not to thee" they have crossed the line that no American should ever cross.

[Javaman]

217. Amazing, isn't it?

so much stupid in exchange for idolatry.

[yardwork]

221. I'm disheartened but not surprised. I've been reading DU for a long time. /nt

[donttazemebro]

222. We are the NEW Democratic Party!

We voted for CHANGE and this is progressive CHANGE at it's best!

Rise brothers and sister and embrace the new dawn as we together now have the tools and the power to stop the voices of dissent that have risen to block the CHANGE we all have sought.

Our leader is the voice of change and all who oppose change are enemies of all and enemies of President Obama and therefore are enemies of the state!

Any who are are armed like the tea baggers and birther 2nd amendment nuts are a threat to the safety of us all and being armed and being in opposition to change they have taken up arms against our very government and must be stopped!

Do not fear this change brothers and sisters victory is now ours for the taking! Strange things may happen in the coming days but just listen and obey all comands given by our President and we shall rise a new nation washed clean of the filth and vermin of the republican party forever to move forward into the light of a new day.

[spin]

236. I fear both parties in Congress love to have the power to keep the "little people" under control...

Almost one half of the members of Congress are part of the 1% and many of the the remainder are bought and owned by the 1%.

[div class="excerpt"
47% of Congress Members Millionaires — a Status Shared by Only 1% of Americans
Nov 16, 2011 8:45am

It’s no secret that many members of the U.S. House and Senate are millionaires — 47 percent of them — their salaries paid in part by the American taxpayers.

The Center for Responsive Politics has crunched the numbers and released the results on its Open Secrets blog:

“About 47 percent of Congress, or 249 current members are millionaires. … In 2010, the estimated median net worth of a current U.S. senator stood at an average of $2.56 million,” according to the Center’s research.

“Despite the global economic meltdown in 2008 and the sluggish recovery that followed, that’s up about 7.6 percent from an estimated median net worth of $2.38 million in 2009 … and up 13 percent from a median net worth of $2.27 million in 2008. … Fully 36 Senate Democrats, and 30 Senate Republicans reported an average net worth in excess of $1 million in 2010. The same was true for 110 House Republicans and 73 House Democrats.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/

[Phlem]

241. I call it

the "False sense of choice" when voting. It's all just a show put on for the American people to watch and stay distracted while the 1% rip us off.

-p

[CarmanK]

224. Not in favor of Habeas Corpus, but you have to have a CONGRESS who believes in DEMOCRACY

and rt now the US House is contaminated with TPARTY RATS and GOP minions that want to destroy democracy in favor of One Party RULE. Habeas Corpus can be rectified, just like the death penalty, once the people can concentrate on the SHIT that has been thrown at our constitutional rights. But, right now people are hungry, tired, angry and stressed to a point they are unable to think and that is how the GOP wants to keep the country in chaos thru 2012 to defeat Obama. The DEMS have to pick their battles, and this time FINISH the fight for jobs and the american middle class.

[bvar22]

225. If the Leader of the Political Party currently in Power...

...assures me that this bill is A-OK,

who am I to question them?

You bunch of whiners should ALL just Shut UP
and Get In Line!!!!
...or you deserve Gingrich!!!




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Phlem]

227. Well

according to the "everything's just fine crowd" in DU, he's doing just what they expected. Haven't you seen one of the many lists of accomplishments floating around here?

So stop asking for your pony!!

-p

[slay]

228. I've been astonished that DUer's have accepted the constant shift to the right ever since Obama took

office and are cool with that. hell it's been happening since Reagan - but i never figured independent thinkers here on DU would just go along with it purely cause the guy in charge this time has a (D) next to his name.

[donttazemebro]

232. Let The Arrest Begin!

I say we cut to the chase and declare all of the Tea Baggers the Birthers and the gun nuts emenies of the state and get them off of the streets now!

Use the system! Obama did this for a reason and I expect to see these nut jobs arrested!

I mean come on people all everyone does is complain about these right wing nuts and what a danger they are so we finaly get the solution to all of this and everyone goes weak?

The word I got was to watch the DNC and what happens.

I cannot say much but remember the Obama is the comander and chief of the most powerful military in the world and he as we have seen is NOT afraid to use them.

If you are reading this and are a birther or tea bagger or gun nut know your days are numbered for we now have the law on OUR side nut jobs!

Just watch what is about to happen. We are the NEW Democratic party.

Oppose Obama? Ask Gaddafi how well that works. LOL!

We came...we saw....he died!

So who is next?

[RetroLounge]

234. Only the usual Obama-fellators

Pom Poms and Knee Pads

RL

[papa3times]

235. Habeas Corpus

Study Abraham Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus and the Civil War then study FDR and the Japanese American internment camps. Presidents have always claimed "inherent" powers. Not that I don't agree with you, I think anytime we lose our civil liberties it is bad. I have never seen anyone show how what Lincoln and FDR did, did anything to help us through those emergencies. Trading civil liberties for security is always a bad mistake. It's like playing Russian roullette-our democracy survived the above two examples but you never know when it won't.

[Diclotican]

237. MannyGoldstein

MannyGoldstein

When you never have experienced, by yourself, or by ancestory what Habeas Corpus really mean, then you wil take it for granted, regardness of what critics would say about the danger of potentially ending Habeas Corpus.. Who have been one of the most important principles of westeren justice system since roman times

Emergency laws tend to be for the long haul if not checked and balanced.. Just ask the russians, or the germans under the nazis.. The Emergency laws, are just an building to make a dictator happy about the power he have, and WIL be misused down the road. No country on the earth have not misused this type of laws, on one way or another.. It is to tempting to put pepole in a prison, for indefently time for leaders of the world, and even tho Obama would posible never use it, the mear posibility to put pepole, many pepole in prison, for as long as they se fit would be used, and misused.. It is just a matter of time, not if, but when.

Diclototican

[soryang]

243. This whole issue was put to rest in Ex Part Milligan

Ex Parte Milligan, one of the greatest legal decisions of the Supreme Court put the issue of martial law for US civilians to rest for all time. The entire common law tradition and the constitutional requirement for superiority of civilian jurisdiction over the the military is laid out in historical detail.

Then a panicky WWII era Supreme Court, simply discarded Milligan without explanation in In ex parte Quirin. This is the case that forms the basis for John Yoo's theory the President can do whatever he wants during wartime to anyone. This is the same thinking that brought about the Japanese American internment during WWII. The thesis behind the DAA is that the US is a battlefield. This is patent nonsense.

Here is my other (longer post) concerning John Yoo, the DAA, martial law and Ex parte Milligan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=30433

[MannyGoldstein]

246. Did you mean to link to your other post?

I'd like to read it.

Thanks.

[soryang]

270. Thanks Manny!

Thanks for raising the subject and noting my lapse!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=30433

Martial Law is No Law- Read Ex Parte Milligan

[soryang]

273. Links

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/case/us/71/2

this is the link to Ex Parte Milligan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=30433

this is the link to my discussion of the analytic backdrop to the DAA is John Yoo's bizarre and unconstitutional adoption of the wrong headed WWII Quirin decision which ignored Milligan without explanation.

[colsohlibgal]

252. Nicely Put

For the record I doubt too many on DU are on board with our current zeal to throw people in cells with no due process and for as long as someone wants.

Our treatment of Japanese-American families in WWII was horrid, paranoia can be so destructive.

[Jack Rabbit]

248. There is no emergency that justifies this kind of action

And there wasn't on September 12, 2001, either.

Al Qaida is in shambles and Osama bin Laden is dead, but the ability of American demagogues to frighten the people with his image continues.

If Bush did this, even in its watered down version, I would clamor for his hide. As congress passed it, I would decry them as spineless, especially the Democrats who caved and voted for it.

IOKIYAD is just as bad as IOKIYAR. If the president does it, it makes him an outlaw if it is illegal.

Oh, the cheering section says that there is now some ambiguous language in the bill that exempts American citizens from some of it harshest and most ridiculous provisions? Well, whoppedty doo!! It still provides for indefinite detention, which is still a violation of universal human rights, and it still mandates that Gitmo remain open to our shame.

This piece of crap should be vetoed.

[spanone]

249. you really should post when habeas corpus ended and how many du'ers are cool with it

[emulatorloo]

258. Yes, I would like to see that too.

[great white snark]

262. That's how the author rolls.

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Search DU2 for the death of Social Security.

[mistertrickster]

250. Oh, hell . . . there's no unrec button any more.

This is manifestly flame-bait along the lines of "who knew so many DUers are ________________ (fill in the blank with the insult d'jour such as, homophobic, misogynist, racist, fascist, anti-the-unemployed, anti-Democratic party, etc. etc.)

[ScottLand]

259. Count me out on this one too. Giving up our liberty for security is unacceptable.

[TBF]

269. I've seen many troubling things during this presidency -

but this has got to beat it all. And I don't buy the argument "oh the other side would do worse". Of course they would, they are assholes. Why in heaven's name would we copy their behavior? I fear folks are going to regret letting this one pass. But by then it will be way too late.

[donttazemebro]

272. We have won...now lets ROLL!

Nancy Pelosi said it herself..."The Tea Party are TERRORIST!"

So the sooner we get this over the better! Now as soon as we see the internet kill switch law go into effect we can get started.

This right wing propoganda spread on the internet and radio has to be shut down before Obama give the order to clean this mess up.

We all voted for CHANGE and now that the law is on OUR side this is no time to get weak!

For years we all called for action against these tea baggers these birthers these right wing gun nuts and now that Obama has the power to do so we cannot back down!

Until these people have been declared the true enemies of the state and declared the terrorist they are we are in danger!

We tried everything and it failed so this is the final solution and we cannot sway our support for Obama as he does what we have all cried for!

How many of you live in fear because of these right wing gun nut militia types?

How many times have the things we ask for been stopped by these tea party terrorist?

Enough is ENOUGH! We must size the moment!

[Broderick]

374. oh Lord

sigh.

[patrice]

275. I'm astonished so many DUers think they know precisely what so many other DUers think.

Q. Why do you think that is?

A. _________________________________________________ . . . .

[Capn Sunshine]

283. I would be if that was happening

But simply put, it's NOT. Does the situation need to be monitored? Absolutely.
If you're a citizen and join with or aid Al quaeda, you must expect consequences.

This rule is specific to Al Quaeda.

[MannyGoldstein]

315. And who decides who is a member of, or is aiding, al Qaeda?

We have a judicial branch of government for a reason.

[patrice]

287. Isn't mischaracterization of others THE tactic of propaganda?

If it's wrong for the opposition to do that, why is it right for you?

[uppityperson]

288. Which Duers do you mean? What "so many"? Link or hyperbole?

[Jack Rabbit]

290. IOKIYAD

Or, if Obama does it than it isn't illegal.

[Pachamama]

291. Not just DU members...Americans in general....

Astonishing, shocking, depressing, horrific, effed-up....

I can think of lots of adjectives but at the end of the day, I just feel a deep sense of sadness, sorrow, despair that my fellow citizens dont grasp the seriousness of this issue and that it becomes a common ground for us to all unite and protect.

If Habeas Corpus is no longer protected along with the very clear rights in the Bill of Rights, then this country and what its founders intended is no more.

[roguevalley]

292. some will kiss obama's butt even as they are loaded on the trucks. consider

How many here grew up with pug fascism as the rules. Some won't get it until they are arrested.

[Lifelong Protester]

299. Not cool with it... AT ALL!!

[donttazemebro]

302. Obama has done the right thing for the nation

This was what we needed. All we have done is complain about the birthers the tea baggers and the gun nuts and now the law is on our side. Hillary has said as has our leader Obama that democracy is messy at times and it is about to get real messy here in the United States.

Do not be weak and hang in there because we now have the power to have all of the right wing nuts tagged as the terrorist they are and the law to remove them from our streets.

This needed to be done and Obama was the man to do it after these right wing terrorist are rounded up we will ALL be safer!

We also have the internet kill switch vote coming this week I think (the 21st?) and then Obama will be able to silence all of the dissident right wing nuts who are spreading the lies about him and that will help much when this new work all starts.

That is ALL we need is the nut jobs on the radio and internet warning all of the other gun nuts that their days are done. That would be a mess. This just needs to happen quick and quiet and have them all go away in silence.

This may seem odd but this is the change we have all sought for so long and the only way to silence these right wing terrorist and the only way to cleanse our streets of these vermin.

Obama is briliant and knew exactly what he was doing when he signed this.

Some may not like it but hang in there brothers and sisters our new day is dawning and a new world awaits with Obama at his second term with all of the terrorist opposition cleansed from our nation allowing for the forward movement of our agenda after all of this time!

This is the solution that was needed and the right wing vermins days are now numbered.

[Taverner]

306. During a Repub Admin will the law still be on our side? nt

[Pamela Troy]

307. Welcome to DU

What right wing website do you typically haunt?

[Taverner]

305. Me too - but I can understand defeatism at this point

Might as well give up, we aren't going to win

[ZombieHorde]

308. Do you really believe they see it as ending Habeas Corpus?

I really doubt they do.

[ooglymoogly]

311. Rose colored glasses...get your rose colored glasses right here....

Bi focals on special...black velvet blinders are extra...free shipping for the skeptical.

Oooops all sold out... not to worry... more on order. Rain checks...rain checks...get your rain checks right here. Just $49.99 with free black velvet blinders...just pay for extra shipping and handling....

all major credit cards accepted.

Remember this offer is Government recommended and soon to be required.

Please see our specials on goody two shoes in all colors of black and all come with spinal support... all with the magic of Jane Russel strapless uplift support and steel toe for the bullys among us who think many of us are not following the party line close enough.

[Deep13]

312. I'm astonished anyone in this country is cool with it. nt

[DeSwiss]

313. Unfortunately Manny....

...I'm not surprised at all



K&R

"Americans like to talk about Democracy but, when put to the test, usually find it to be an 'inconvenience.' We have opted instead for an authoritarian system *disguised* as a Democracy. We pay through the nose for an enormous joke-of-a-government, let it push us around, and then wonder how all those assholes got in there."

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

~Frank Zappa~

[The Doctor.]

316. Yet you couldn't name any if your reputation depended on it.

So is this the new BS talking point?

[MannyGoldstein]

319. I could, but that would be "calling out" which is against DU rules.

Search DU2 under "al-Awlaki" and you'll find what you're looking for.

The NDAA cements this practice.

And by the way - I think that you're a better person than is indicated by the voice in your post.

[The Doctor.]

322. Bullshit.

I'm not susceptible to manipulation either, but it's fun watching someone try.

How many threads about "So many Sexists", "So many Homophobes", "So many racists" "on DU have we seen with virtually zero evidence that true blue DUers were anything of the sort?

Here's why it's BS: you don't have to name them in an open thread. You can PM them. You know how many times I've told people that? You know how many followed through?

One.

With One name.

Who was already tombstoned by the time I received the PM.

Meanwhile, this very OP tests the 'rules' you seem so averse to impinging upon.

I'm going to make this abundantly clear; I am against the suspension of Habeas Corpus for anyone in custody for any reason. I am not 'Okay' with this law, but I'm not so completely blinded by Obama-hate to assume that's what he wants as well. I expect nothing but derision about now, but my point stands.

If you can find five DUers that want to suspend habeas corpus out of the thousand some-odd active DUers here, I'll gladly apologize for calling your OP 'bullshit' and enjoin efforts to educate them about the basics of civilization.

Anytime.

Just PM the links where they state as much.

I'll try not to hold my breath.

[MannyGoldstein]

323. If Obama doesn't want it, he can veto it.

But he does want it, I think, as cover for execution al-Awlaki and his teenaged son.

If you were somewhat civil I'd be happy to extend to you the courtesy of PMing you with links to relevant posts. Since you don't seem to have learned good manners, you'll have to do it yourself. There is plenty of evasion and denial to be seen in this thread that demonstrates the claim, and in DU2 as I've mentioned - good luck. Or simply continue to believe that I'm full of crap: believe what you want.

[The Doctor.]

325. My PM box is open.

But any excuse you can create to duck the challenge only illustrates the weakness of your position.

I'm curious what excuse you'd have used if I had employed absolute decorum and the Queen's English.

Better yet, If I apologize for my 'incivility', would you then deign to entertain my request?

Again... I won't hold my breath because I know damn well you're full of it.

Save your breath and your keyboard. Thanks for being so very transparent.

Barring your PM, I'm done with you here. (Oh, but I'm definitely bookmarking this exchange as proof that you have jack-squat)

Buh-Bye.

[MannyGoldstein]

329. Yes, if you apologize and delete your posts, I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Regards,

Manny

[The Doctor.]

333. Oh goodness. I could never, ever erase my shame so readily.

Why ever would you want me to hide my affront to decency when it can only teach me humility to leave them on display for all to judge?

Oh, wait, I know...

Because you have no intention of following through and my posts would be documentation of the agreement construct.

Again... manipulation of that sort does not work on me. I'll admit that your offer was enough to elicit a response, but since your offer is obviously not genuine, I'll see if I can end this with something that actually is genuine;

"Manny,

I mean this most sincerely. I apologize for calling your post 'bullshit' and using a tone that you did not find conducive to civil discussion. I do truly and dearly wish to educate my Fellow Americans on the tenets of civilization and the reasons that Habeas Corpus must be sacrosanct for the sake of not only democracy, but for the promise of America and the future of a free and prosperous humanity. I leave my previous posts for others to judge my barbarity and lack of decorum so that your personal position might be vindicated by contrast. I would not sell yours so short by erasing my shame in such a personally selfish manner. I am certain that you can provide, without calling out a single DUer, links to any number or combination of threads that will lead indirectly to the discovery that there exist at least five DUers (as per my humble request) that have no compunction of any kind over the eradication of Habeas Corpus from the justice system of the United States of America. Upon such revelation, I pledge here and now to hold any and all Duers as well as fellow Americans and all citizens of the Earth accountable to any similar intimations against human rights that I am made aware of to the best of my ability and extent of my resources."

Now... would you happen to have such indirect links available?

[The Doctor.]

359. Yep, that's what I thought.

Ya' got nothin'.

[Liberal_in_LA]

318. k&r

[diane in sf]

320. This was so disappointing after the great speech of the previous week that I'm left speechless

temporarily.

[valerief]

324. Where's the link that shows many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus? Sounds fishy to me. nt

[The Doctor.]

330. Ain't gonna see one.

This is pretty typical of the dishonest critics.

Check this out; I asked Manny to PM links to the DUers who are very thrilled to be rid of Habeas Corpus.

He said he wouldn't because of my 'tone'.



I really like that. I think I'll use that whenever I want to propagate bullshit somewhere.

Oh, wait... I don't deal in bullshit.

No doubt this report of an easily observable exchange will be called a 'personal attack'. Kind of like the way KO 'personally attacks' purveyors of bullshit in the media.

[fascisthunter]

397. Anyone Supporting this Bill

you don't need a link

[IamK]

327. I was never a fan of miranda rights and all that crap so im ok with it...n/t

[The Doctor.]

331. Uh-huh.

Well, I guess manny was right after all.

Here we have a long time DUer of irreproachable esteem to prove his point.

Only four to go and I'll owe him an apology.

Hint: Avoid argyle.

[WillyT]

332. But... But... We Have An Election To Win !!!

Depressing, isn't it?

[yellowcanine]

334. I am astonished that someone would make such a claim without any evidence.

What evidence can you offer that many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus? If you have no evidence you owe DUers and apology.

[zeljko]

336. Excellent explanation:

An excerpt from Milton Mayer's "They Thought They Were Free", edited in parts to update it to the present day:

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it — please try to believe me — unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no (patriot) could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice — ‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

[snip]

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not? — Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty

[snip]

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying (‘terrorist!’) collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people — is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.

[QC]

339. Have you ever seen the president with his shirt off? n/t

[bertman]

348. Agree 100%. REC. nt

[shanti]

368. see: patriot act

any questions?

[Broderick]

376. I support the ACLU on this

[Charlemagne]

385. I asked the students in my class about this

They were roughly 10 years old on 9/11. They say that not only is the curbing of civil liberties ok, it is actually necessary and desirable. Maturing in the post-9/11 Bush culture has had an effect. These middle-america working class students are all to happy to hand over their rights if they think it will make them safer.

disturbing.

[fascisthunter]

398. Wanna know why the US is becoming a Police State

just look around at the folks defending the constant chipping away of our rights.... too many are fooled.

[nadinbrzezinski]

400. You know the more I think about it

I wonder how many people cool with it. or don't give a shit about it? Know what it is?

No seriously... I have been giving some serious thoughts to this... I wonder if the discussion needs to start at a far more basic level... and start with WHAT IT IS... and why it matters?

[Zorra]

416. What's Habeas Corpus?

Habeas corpus (Latin: "you may have the body&quot [1] is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. It is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus