General Discussion

SaintPete

(533 posts)

86. I don't think you read past my subjec line

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:36 AM

Dec 2011

because I used that SAME piece of text to explain why there was no explicit exclusion. I'll repeat from post #74...

the language says:

"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. "

That language does not show any explicit exclusion. As an example. the police are not "required" to give you a ticket for speeding...you can be let off with a warning...it is up to the discretion of the officer.

But the lack of any "requirement" to ticket in every scenario in no way "explicitly excludes" anyone from getting a ticket. Don't you agree?

Likewise, the lack of any "requirement" to detain a citizen of the United States in military custody in no way "explicitly excludes" a citizen from being detained.

Show me where I'm wrong--NOTE: repeating the same text againdoesn't hep, it only makes it look as if you are not actually reading the responses.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama will not veto National Defense Authorization Act [View all] Javaman Dec 2011 OP

Why don't you trust secret panels noise Dec 2011 #1

:rofl: limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #6

Well, it will be our freedom loving military doing the deciding who is to be kidnapped. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #21

How did you know that the secret panels are secret? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #67

I didn't see the not, this is bad news. sarcasmo Dec 2011 #2

There is NO reason to veto it, please see comment #11 :) n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #12

Tex 4 Obama, please explain. Mimosa Dec 2011 #16

Here is Section 1032 - American citizens in The USA are exempt Tx4obama Dec 2011 #36

This message was self-deleted by its author Tx4obama Dec 2011 #37

It's not clear cut Aerows Dec 2011 #40

Here is Section 1031 - which includes the Feinstein amendment language (e) 'bolded' Tx4obama Dec 2011 #41

Read that analysis Aerows Dec 2011 #44

it says throwing Americans in jail forever is OPTIONAL. provis99 Dec 2011 #50

Your link timed out. The problems are with section 1031, not 1032, as I understand it. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #66

Obama just totally lost my vote peacebird Dec 2011 #3

again? jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #5

Hubby says he will not vote for him period. I fluctuate between no and he's better than repukes peacebird Dec 2011 #91

Why? n/t bhikkhu Dec 2011 #8

Another reason to Primary Obama RC Dec 2011 #4

Epic Obama FAIL. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #7

Why? bhikkhu Dec 2011 #9

They are ignoring sections 1031 and 1032 which explicitly excludes AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #20

Yes you are correct. See comments #36 and #41 for the text of those two sections. n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #42

There is NOTHING which "explicitly excludes" detaining US Citizens SaintPete Dec 2011 #74

Here -- AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #82

I don't think you read past my subjec line SaintPete Dec 2011 #86

I was being ironic. AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #88

That's Not Correct! SaintPete Dec 2011 #89

No response to post #89? SaintPete Dec 2011 #90

it's easier to whiz on Obama than read an article. spanone Dec 2011 #45

There is NO reason to veto it, please see comment #11 :) n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #14

there is NO reason to vote for it..nt xiamiam Dec 2011 #51

So, you're against 'the whole DoDA bill'? or just sections 1031 and 1032 Tx4obama Dec 2011 #53

Really? green917 Dec 2011 #76

"Don't buy into the hysteria" savalez Dec 2011 #10

He's the only one I've heard that people are discussing Aerows Dec 2011 #72

He spent another hour on it today. savalez Dec 2011 #79

There is NO reason to veto it. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #11

You like the idea of the military being able to pick of "suspects" anywhere in the world? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #19

Oh... so it's ok as long as they aren't US citizens... SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #24

That appears to be the defense noise Dec 2011 #27

heh, it's very clever wording but still bad spooked911 Dec 2011 #28

Glad they added (e) sarcasmo Dec 2011 #39

Bernie Sanders thinks there is Aerows Dec 2011 #73

At least that was fixed. AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #83

AP article from today Aerows Dec 2011 #13

Yes, apparently the AP is misreporting it. Perhaps they did not read the Feinstein amendment. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #29

Are you saying it isn't done without this legislation? bhikkhu Dec 2011 #30

And Section 1032 exempts/excludes U.S. citizens that live in The USA. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #35

This is horribly written legislation Aerows Dec 2011 #47

ding! FirstLight Dec 2011 #48

Probably........ AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #84

ACLU was recommending against it on Dec. 9th TBF Dec 2011 #15

The ACLU just released this tonight. ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2011 #22

Thank you - TBF Dec 2011 #25

Unless congress declares war on the OWS movement, I think we're ok bhikkhu Dec 2011 #31

Congress didn't declare war on Japanese-Americans during WWII. OnyxCollie Dec 2011 #54

they sure didn't, and they have been preparing for unrest TBF Dec 2011 #60

This bill wouldn't have allowed it. bhikkhu Dec 2011 #78

Uh, you do know that second-generation Japanese Americans, OnyxCollie Dec 2011 #81

Ah, but you need to think Berlin Expat Dec 2011 #70

What I see as more likely is that the fear of indefinite detention modifies people's behaviors bhikkhu Dec 2011 #80

bingo..nt xiamiam Dec 2011 #52

Here's ProSense Dec 2011 #17

Is that a flip-flop? Flop-flip? Or, just a SOP politician's lie? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #18

This is pissing a lot of people off. nt DocMac Dec 2011 #23

yeah, because it's outrageous and terrible and un-American spooked911 Dec 2011 #33

I think the only reason people are pissed is because they have NOT read the bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #43

There are several people who have copied and pasted parts of the bill Aerows Dec 2011 #46

I think you're wrong-- I think people are pissed because they see a system way out of control spooked911 Dec 2011 #57

We are pissed off because we HAVE read the bill, and we know about KBR's contract to build detention TBF Dec 2011 #61

Actually, I'm pissed because I HAVE read the bill SaintPete Dec 2011 #75

I agree. DocMac Dec 2011 #49

Well, to hell with him and every traitor that voted "aye". There should be consequences for TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #26

we're into deep deep corruption levels spooked911 Dec 2011 #34

lindsey graham 'shut up' video limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #32

An analysis Aerows Dec 2011 #38

thanks-- that was my impression too spooked911 Dec 2011 #58

Thanks for the link. AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #85

He should veto it based on spending alone... nt Modern_Matthew Dec 2011 #55

Not what it seems: caseymoz Dec 2011 #56

I feel like it's 2006 and deja vu all over again. Vinca Dec 2011 #59

Thank you. TBF Dec 2011 #62

This is really, really, really, really... thescreaminghead Dec 2011 #63

The assholes have the votes to override a veto. era veteran Dec 2011 #64

DC "Democrats" stand for NOTHING: blkmusclmachine Dec 2011 #65

Shocked! Not.... blackspade Dec 2011 #68

Huge surprise there NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #69

Is this America anymore? roamer65 Dec 2011 #71

It's As If Obama Is Going Out Of His Way To Lose My Vote. Paladin Dec 2011 #77

With 87 votes in place, it would have been a waste of time to even consider it tjwash Dec 2011 #87