General Discussion

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)

62. I found this post at wariscrime.org explains the issues with NDAA very well

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 10:58 AM

Dec 2011

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

114 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senator Al Franken: Why I Voted Against the National Defense Authorization Act [View all] kpete Dec 2011 OP

k&r... spanone Dec 2011 #1

Maybe he needs to read the bill. No reason for him to get hysterical Autumn Dec 2011 #2

Here you go... wakemewhenitsover Dec 2011 #33

OMG I didn't know we now had donheld Dec 2011 #35

Handier... fadedrose Dec 2011 #39

LOL Puglover Dec 2011 #58

Autumn, what is your legal training? Are you an expert on this? JDPriestly Dec 2011 #46

I found what I read to be completely, ridiculously vague. Autumn Dec 2011 #55

"Vague" is trouble CanonRay Dec 2011 #61

I am concerned about the arrest of protest leaders on terrorism grounds. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #70

I found this post at wariscrime.org explains the issues with NDAA very well justiceischeap Dec 2011 #62

Mother Jones disagrees stevenleser Dec 2011 #68

Their argument was extremely weak. They didnt talk about the rhett o rick Dec 2011 #69

you realize that Franken initially voted for it, right? stevenleser Dec 2011 #73

And your point is ....... nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #74

It's not that simple Major Nikon Dec 2011 #77

Actually, no. Congress doesn't get to decide that. Lord Magus Dec 2011 #92

They do and already have Major Nikon Dec 2011 #105

The whole point of the article I posted justiceischeap Dec 2011 #110

in cetain circumstances it is not wrong stevenleser Dec 2011 #114

You know what govt lawyers do with a loophole when alone can't be printed on the internetz kenny blankenship Dec 2011 #109

k&r jannyk Dec 2011 #3

You know ProSense Dec 2011 #4

Franken LIES on PURPOSE! nt boston bean Dec 2011 #6

It's ridiculous for him to pull this out of his ass Autumn Dec 2011 #7

Franken has an Obama voodoo doll Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #19

Obama ProSense Dec 2011 #24

Oh please ProSense Dec 2011 #8

"people have different interpretations of things" JDPriestly Dec 2011 #49

This is the point that people with no foresight ignore. Jakes Progress Dec 2011 #65

We can take great comfort that not only will the incumbent president indepat Dec 2011 #91

well put JD stockholmer Dec 2011 #93

You're missing a sarcasm tag! green917 Dec 2011 #112

Uh, actually it can be proven that this bill will authorize the detention of truedelphi Dec 2011 #21

OK: ProSense Dec 2011 #29

Read it more closely Major Nikon Dec 2011 #48

Very good information to have. truedelphi Dec 2011 #89

Thanks for clarifying. Cameron27 Dec 2011 #101

Wait ProSense Dec 2011 #103

Believe whatever you want Major Nikon Dec 2011 #106

Al Franken meet the DNC bus. nt Bonobo Dec 2011 #26

You knew he was to liberal for the party. Jakes Progress Dec 2011 #66

Bull SaintPete Dec 2011 #28

Ah ProSense Dec 2011 #30

Did you support Bush's policies on the president having the power to name anyone an 'enemy combatant sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #41

I would be SHOCKED Aerows Dec 2011 #60

The personality cult pscot Dec 2011 #71

It's dangerous to Democracy Aerows Dec 2011 #98

Actually, many bills have ben passed under Obama that would have dotymed Dec 2011 #75

Exactly. bvar22 Dec 2011 #78

The problem is, when I ask these questions, and I really do want to know the sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #90

A great big bravo and for lagniappe, indepat Dec 2011 #94

Bravo for using the word lagniappe, cher :) Aerows Dec 2011 #99

This Times-Picayune subscriber from indepat Dec 2011 #108

so you must have been fine with the Patriot Act, because it only mentions terrorists StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #43

Is the outrage over what the bill says, or what it doesn't say? SaintPete Dec 2011 #82

I am capable of reading the bill and read two provisions which JDPriestly Dec 2011 #47

The executive branch gets to answer those questions Major Nikon Dec 2011 #51

Irrational fear is the button pscot Dec 2011 #72

Here's the really funny part Major Nikon Dec 2011 #80

Gasp! The Yellow Peril! pscot Dec 2011 #113

Its WORSE than that. bvar22 Dec 2011 #79

More indepat Dec 2011 #95

The bill was authored behind closed doors Major Nikon Dec 2011 #50

Yes indeedy. Puglover Dec 2011 #59

The point is, that there is no reason to have any clauses related to indefinite detention... blackspade Dec 2011 #88

God bless him. n/t Betty Karlson Dec 2011 #5

Franken for 2016 DonCoquixote Dec 2011 #9

So what? I'm still disappointed in him. Under Dog Dec 2011 #15

He voted for the Feinstein amendment, I was confused because he voted for S. 1867 on Dec 1 jakeXT Dec 2011 #10

Whoa! Did I miss something? Under Dog Dec 2011 #11

yes jakeXT Dec 2011 #12

I guess it was better before, but now it's worse. redqueen Dec 2011 #13

That was on the Senate bill earlier this month. He voted "no" on the conference bill today karynnj Dec 2011 #14

And the difference between the two versions is that the conference bill moves the patrice Dec 2011 #17

No significant difference betwen the bills bhikkhu Dec 2011 #37

very good for Sen. Franken Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #16

I listened to him on Air America for a couple of years. Someone tell me just how Liberal he is, patrice Dec 2011 #18

When I heard him a few years back on Air truedelphi Dec 2011 #22

I remember that. He also had to be talked into being against War on Iraq. patrice Dec 2011 #25

I did not know that. I enjoy his comedy more than his notion of truedelphi Dec 2011 #87

Not very. I'd call him a moderate but for a US Senator, he is pretty far left. TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #84

Which color is Franken on this graph? How many millionaires directly create our laws? patrice Dec 2011 #20

Has Al made a statement about OWS? an article? Jim_Shorts Dec 2011 #44

I should look into that question . . . tomorrow. patrice Dec 2011 #45

Franken is white and Jewish Aerows Dec 2011 #102

That is a great graph. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #111

Now that's a progressive's answer!! Wellstone ruled Dec 2011 #23

Love me some Al Sky Masterson Dec 2011 #27

So glad he's a Senator. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #31

good by to the right to a fair and speedy trial libodem Dec 2011 #32

Well now we know the truth. JoeyT Dec 2011 #34

Maybe I'm missing something - but he voted for it the other day bhikkhu Dec 2011 #36

Who else didn't vote for this bill? Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #38

Found it -- the 13 Senators voting against it were: Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #40

In other words, only reliable Democrats and the looneyest of the looneytarian Senators Major Nikon Dec 2011 #53

Since my 2 Senators both voted against this bill, I can guarantee you that nothing is wrong with it. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #56

You DO realize that the person you are quoting from that Comedy Fiction... bvar22 Dec 2011 #81

Of course I do, muleskinner. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #107

These are brave Senators for sure 4dsc Dec 2011 #57

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #42

Excuse me??? Pachamama Dec 2011 #64

k&r n/t RainDog Dec 2011 #52

K&R. Others were paid to vote for it, but Al didn't. Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #54

It must be so frustrating for Franken to have made it to DC, gateley Dec 2011 #63

K & R !!! WillyT Dec 2011 #67

TYhe posters bashing Al in this thread should be ASHAMED of themselves. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #76

Paul Wellstone Under Dog Dec 2011 #100

Note To Obama Apologists: This Is How A REAL Democrat Thinks And Votes. Paladin Dec 2011 #83

Like this? bhikkhu Dec 2011 #97

I can understan why this is confusing SaintPete Dec 2011 #104

Under any interpretation sulphurdunn Dec 2011 #85

That would happen only in a totalitarian indepat Dec 2011 #96

Way to go Al Franken! blackspade Dec 2011 #86