Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Interesting, Obama Justice Department cribbing legal theories from Clarence Thomas? [View all]Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)29. So, now, due process equals some appointees deciding guilt and punishment? Lynch law?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Interesting, Obama Justice Department cribbing legal theories from Clarence Thomas? [View all]
MadHound
Sep 2012
OP
I think Obama should release the memo to those with standing to challenge SGDT status.
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#30
So you've figured me out. Yes, those who have standing to challenge do tend to be
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#44
The reason I'm doing this is because I'm curious how in our system of justice,
MadHound
Sep 2012
#20
Oh, don't worry, many of those same DUer's found the assault on civil liberties important
MadHound
Sep 2012
#23
I hope he is doing it to promote transparency. You dont seem to argue the issue
rhett o rick
Sep 2012
#43
So are we all ok with a President Romney having the power to kill US citizens abroad?
limpyhobbler
Sep 2012
#11
That's just one person's opinion. And it doesn't matter. It sounds like a "tortured" argument,
Honeycombe8
Sep 2012
#18
No, actually if you read the article, it is the opinion of a group of respected people,
MadHound
Sep 2012
#19
So, now, due process equals some appointees deciding guilt and punishment? Lynch law?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Sep 2012
#29
Your Mr. Aftergood is conflating two different things--detained combatants and non-detained
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#31
111 talks of detainees and 112 talks of non-detained combatants. CRS is clear on this.
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#40
Well is he suggesting? "Are you seriously suggesting that a member of AQAP or AQ must be
rhett o rick
Sep 2012
#35
Well, he seems to be, but I'd love for a clarification before I ascribe that
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#38