General Discussion

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)

17. I understand the OP says Bush did this bad thing and Obama promises not to do it.

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 07:06 PM

Jan 2012

I thought you were using Obama's promise to "be good" as a way to suggest that we shouldn't worry so much about section NDAA section 1021.

Is that not what you are doing?

Other than the fact that the SCOTUS would reject attempts by future Presidents to do this

How do you know what SCOTUS will do in the future?

I thought SCOTUS has already ruled in Hamdi that military tribunals are sufficient, courts are not needed, normal standards of evidence and proof do not apply, there need not be a presumption of innocence, and there may in fact be a presumption of guilt, even for an American citizen, as long as they are accused of being an enemy combatant first.

Did SCOTUS not already rule like that?

the bill introduced by Feinstein would erase the ambiguity in existing law.

What is the "ambiguity in existing law" that would be "erased" by Senator Feinstein's "Due Process Guarantee Act"?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bush arrested a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and held him without a trial [View all] ProSense Jan 2012 OP

Bush and his cronies should've been tried for war crimes, and any possibility of a repeat should've Lionessa Jan 2012 #1

and further, because they haven't been tried ixion Jan 2012 #2

And the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, ruled he could not do so frazzled Jan 2012 #3

So if Bush already claimed the authority, it's good that Congress passed a law now to back him up? limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #4

How ProSense Jan 2012 #5

I understand the OP says Bush did this bad thing and Obama promises not to do it. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #17

Feinstein's provision is not in effect and only a fool has any confidence in the fascist courts TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #22

Hmmm? ProSense Jan 2012 #30

Obama Said? RetroLounge Jan 2012 #6

. ProSense Jan 2012 #7

C'mon. He said he would veto the NDAA bill and he....didn't. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #11

Now ProSense Jan 2012 #12

"to do what Bush did" RetroLounge Jan 2012 #31

You ProSense Jan 2012 #32

You RetroLounge Jan 2012 #34

This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #8

We invade Iraq and the first thing we do is disband their military. RC Jan 2012 #9

And the next "Bush" may authorize indefinite military detention. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #10

That simple. And won't even have to tell the people about it either!! L. Coyote Jan 2012 #13

Like ProSense Jan 2012 #14

Why are you so certain of future SCOTUS rulings? former9thward Jan 2012 #16

Maybe ProSense Jan 2012 #19

and Obama codified this frontal assault on our bill of rights magical thyme Jan 2012 #15

And your point would be? The law as now signed says it is A-OK. WinkyDink Jan 2012 #18

Actually ProSense Jan 2012 #20

FDR arrested thousands and put them in internment camps, without trial, indefinitely bhikkhu Jan 2012 #21

Ending the war how? The war itself is a figment, a campaign against a tactic with no defined TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #23

There will never be an end to the war on terror, or the war on drugs, or the war on the middle class rhett o rick Jan 2012 #24

This utter apathy and mental paralysis at the idea of ending the war... bhikkhu Jan 2012 #26

I agree that we need to work to end the war in Afghanistan. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #27

Sadly in lieu of fixing the problem, he simply stated he would not use rhett o rick Jan 2012 #25

Well ProSense Jan 2012 #28

I agree with you. Dont be so shocked, it happens. nm rhett o rick Jan 2012 #29

And ... Obama Assassinates U.S. Citizen slipslidingaway Jan 2012 #33

Are presidential signing statements binding on future presidents? Bonobo Jan 2012 #35