General Discussion

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)

127. Wrong, and you know it.

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 01:00 AM

Jul 2013

No, US citizens are not clearly exempted, and for you to suggest that they are willfully ignores all of recent reality.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens..."

That language does not say that US citizens are exempt. It states only that the Act cannot contradict US law "or authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens. As has been discussed widely in the media and in debates in the Senate, US law is not clear on this, and "authorities" is vague, which is the reason many legal scholars have concluded that NDAA *does* allow indefinite detention of Americans.

That is why an amendment was written to clarify that US citizens are exempt. What happened next was very telling.

The Obama administration demanded that the exempting language be removed.

And the Senate rejected the language exempting American citizens.

What a trainwreck of spin this thread is. I have to go take a shower now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

188 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why do people keep bringing up the treatment of Manning in a military prison re: Snowden? [View all] Recursion Jul 2013 OP

I agree, Manning's treatment was awful and IMO constituted torture Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #1

I guess you will consider examples below as perfectly alright? See below: idwiyo Jul 2013 #25

Don't forget that Sibel Edmonds is still gagged. reusrename Jul 2013 #123

+1000 Katashi_itto Jul 2013 #178

Manning was treated cruelly and inhumanely to set an example MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #2

You think the president was personally involved? hack89 Jul 2013 #4

At the least, he could have stopped it MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #7

I wonder if Manny has links to some documentation which backs up his accusation. Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #8

Link to the military reporting to the President? MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #13

No Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #20

The President couldn't call to say "cut the shit"? MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #22

Where's your evidence of complicity? Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #26

Perhaps you should look up the word "complicit" nm MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #38

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #187

Umm. except for the obvious fact that SNOWDEN IS NOT IN THE MILITARY Recursion Jul 2013 #6

Can Snowden be put into solitary confinement? MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #11

The conditions of his confinement are subject to Federal prison regulations Recursion Jul 2013 #15

So the answer is "yes, he can be put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life" MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #19

yes G_j Jul 2013 #31

If he were convicted and sentenced to life in prison, and the prison regulations allowed that Recursion Jul 2013 #43

Yes, despite the fact that the MILITARY'S OWN PSYCHIATRIST said he wasn't a suicide risk! n/t markpkessinger Jul 2013 #40

Actually, there were several psychiatrists involved, including one who not long before struggle4progress Jul 2013 #49

he'll get what he deserves. MjolnirTime Jul 2013 #27

Bullshit. He was treated that way by military personnel because they viewed him JaneyVee Jul 2013 #28

Who, exactly, is the commander in chief, the top dog, the head honcho, of the military? ret5hd Jul 2013 #77

So will there be any courts-martial for that gross violation of human rights HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #183

They need to excuse the assholes treason. Obama is guilty of following the law uponit7771 Jul 2013 #3

Oh, please, your sophistry is quite unbecoming. The U.N.'s HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #184

NDAA RobertEarl Jul 2013 #5

The proposed 2014 NDAA is not law Recursion Jul 2013 #9

Snowden will never go to jail RobertEarl Jul 2013 #18

" pardon Snowden and establish an American holiday in his name" dionysus Jul 2013 #41

if obama is "smart" arely staircase Jul 2013 #96

NDAA/indefinite detention is in effect now. woo me with science Jul 2013 #33

Well, the 2012 version only applies to persons identified as members of Al Qaeda Recursion Jul 2013 #94

Shame on you for these dishonest posts. woo me with science Jul 2013 #105

I pasted the law's text in this thread Recursion Jul 2013 #106

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 (December 31, 2011) struggle4progress Jul 2013 #126

Why don't you find in the NDAA the exact section that you think could be used struggle4progress Jul 2013 #50

You asking me to educate you? Struggler RobertEarl Jul 2013 #55

I'd like to see that section too Recursion Jul 2013 #56

You are ignorant about the law? RobertEarl Jul 2013 #59

No, I'm not; I'm calling "bullshit" on you Recursion Jul 2013 #60

Yes, you are. RobertEarl Jul 2013 #63

So, you can't find the section? Recursion Jul 2013 #66

Section 1022, I think RobertEarl Jul 2013 #69

Section 1022 of? Recursion Jul 2013 #70

The bill was hundreds of pages long. I suspect the poster never bothered to read struggle4progress Jul 2013 #86

You suspect? RobertEarl Jul 2013 #91

Here's section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA Recursion Jul 2013 #89

Stop spreading disinformation. Section 1021 outlines indefinite detention, not 1022. woo me with science Jul 2013 #113

Robert Earl said 1022; take it up with him Recursion Jul 2013 #114

Why do you keep posting text that isn't in section 1021 or 1022? Recursion Jul 2013 #120

Stop trying to spread disinformation. woo me with science Jul 2013 #130

You know "belligerent act" has an actual legal meaning, right? Recursion Jul 2013 #132

You have repeatedly thrown out disinformation in this thread, woo me with science Jul 2013 #139

You're the one claiming there's some law allowing the indefinite detention of US Citizens Recursion Jul 2013 #153

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.�The requirement to detain a person in military custody Demit Jul 2013 #177

Don't be coy: Supporting your claim is your task, not mine. struggle4progress Jul 2013 #76

I do not support your ignorance, correct, but RobertEarl Jul 2013 #83

It's easy to look up, and you're completely full of it Recursion Jul 2013 #88

Can you back that up? RobertEarl Jul 2013 #98

I pasted the text upthread Recursion Jul 2013 #100

President decides RobertEarl Jul 2013 #104

Stop spreading disinformation. No. 1021 is for indefinite detention, woo me with science Jul 2013 #111

That's exactly what I posted, only I didn't make stuff up about it like you did Recursion Jul 2013 #112

No, you are posting 1022. woo me with science Jul 2013 #115

And then I posted 1021 which is an even worse law for you Recursion Jul 2013 #117

Try again; 1021 is even worse for your argument than 1022 Recursion Jul 2013 #116

No, it does not clearly exempt Americans. woo me with science Jul 2013 #121

I have pasted the text 3 times. IT SPECFICIALLY EXEMPTS US CITIZENS Recursion Jul 2013 #124

Wrong, and you know it. woo me with science Jul 2013 #127

So what law allows the indefinite detention of US citizens, then? Recursion Jul 2013 #128

Apparently you forgot about Jose Padilla davidn3600 Jul 2013 #129

My understanding is the law was violated in Padilla's case Recursion Jul 2013 #131

Did you actually just write that? woo me with science Jul 2013 #140

Yes. You're claiming there is some law that allows the indefinite detention of US citizens Recursion Jul 2013 #141

It's like arguing in Wonderland. woo me with science Jul 2013 #170

So, we're agreed no law allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens? Great. Recursion Jul 2013 #171

No, the point is that Americans are not clearly exempted from indefinite detention, woo me with science Jul 2013 #173

So, Section 1021 turned up empty for you, and now you're just saying there's a generic "danger"? Recursion Jul 2013 #174

You're repeating yourself now, woo me with science Jul 2013 #175

Hmmm shenmue Jul 2013 #10

Well, Snowden can always end in Gitmo. Not sure if I would consider THAT an improvement over idwiyo Jul 2013 #12

No, he can't Recursion Jul 2013 #16

Yes. What he is most likely will end up in is a solitary confinement, not much better than Gitmo. idwiyo Jul 2013 #34

It's highly doubtful Snowden would be sent Gitmo. Scurrilous Jul 2013 #30

I know. It will be a solitary more likely and not better than what Manning had to go though. idwiyo Jul 2013 #35

Yeah and spying/records were for foreigners too... The Straight Story Jul 2013 #46

How do you know he won't end up in a military prison? Cleita Jul 2013 #14

Because that would be illegal? Recursion Jul 2013 #17

Since when is doing things that are illegal an obstacle these days? Cleita Jul 2013 #21

Where in the UCMJ is it legal magellan Jul 2013 #39

RCM 304 and 305 Recursion Jul 2013 #44

Solitary confinement? magellan Jul 2013 #45

He was in solitary while he was on suicide watch. This is a problem with military prisons in general Recursion Jul 2013 #48

He wasn't suicidal when they put him on "suicide watch" magellan Jul 2013 #51

There were multiple suggestions of suicidal intent: struggle4progress Jul 2013 #101

Let me ask you something magellan Jul 2013 #107

Did you actually ever read what Juan Mendez wrote? In the end, struggle4progress Jul 2013 #122

I too am troubled that his request for a private unmonitored interview was denied Recursion Jul 2013 #125

Yes I did. magellan Jul 2013 #182

hmmm struggle4progress Jul 2013 #186

You cannot be serious Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #23

Because in today's political climate nothing seems to be impossible. Cleita Jul 2013 #24

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #188

I also think that Manning is getting a raw deal. It was he who brought the attention southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #29

Sigh. He released a video that confirmed the military's finding that the attack was within the R.O.E Recursion Jul 2013 #54

I don't know, how many? sigh southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #181

Snowden ProSense Jul 2013 #32

... idwiyo Jul 2013 #37

Hee hee. Funny!!! dkf Jul 2013 #57

Can't help but laugh at "Snowden would likely have been charged and released on bail". idwiyo Jul 2013 #64

Why? It's how the law stands Recursion Jul 2013 #65

Hahahahaha!!!!!! dkf Jul 2013 #71

Seriously, what makes you think the law wouldn't apply to Snowden? Recursion Jul 2013 #72

Because when you go to the effort of keeping secret decisions based on secret laws made by secret dkf Jul 2013 #79

Well, that's a theory, but you're completely making stuff up Recursion Jul 2013 #87

There is no protective self interest involved in those cases. dkf Jul 2013 #95

... idwiyo Jul 2013 #73

Ummm... that's false Recursion Jul 2013 #74

Ummm... you are wrong but don't let it destroy your illusionary world. idwiyo Jul 2013 #80

Why are the same posters howling for Snowden-skin souveniers Scootaloo Jul 2013 #176

That's why I can't help but laugh at complete absurdity and hypocrisy of their posts. idwiyo Jul 2013 #180

If one agency of the government (i.e., the military) markpkessinger Jul 2013 #36

+1. n/t winter is coming Jul 2013 #42

Which part of the UCMJ was violated with Manning? Recursion Jul 2013 #75

I'll have to look up the specific citation . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #78

That's covered in R.C.M. 304 and 305, if that helps (nt) Recursion Jul 2013 #84

Actually, I was referring to . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #90

Are you saying Manning was subject to punishment other than confinement? Recursion Jul 2013 #92

Being held in solitary confinement for months on end . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #97

Those are allowed by the rules of military prisons. Those rules should probaby be changed Recursion Jul 2013 #99

Manning received the treatment he received . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #108

No Recursion Jul 2013 #109

Nor does denying it . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #110

They were drugging him too Hydra Jul 2013 #118

What drugs did they give him? Recursion Jul 2013 #119

We don't know Hydra Jul 2013 #133

Well hell, we don't know that they didn't download his brain into a giant computer Recursion Jul 2013 #134

Well, like I said, I'm probably wasting my time here Hydra Jul 2013 #136

*I've* called them out for what they were doing Recursion Jul 2013 #142

Civilian prisons can be terrible places too. BlueCheese Jul 2013 #47

What makes you think the US military would not claim him? Bonobo Jul 2013 #52

Wow Recursion Jul 2013 #53

Really? The SOS calling him a traitor means nothing? Bonobo Jul 2013 #143

It doesn't make him an enemy combatant Recursion Jul 2013 #144

True. So let's make another term up. Bonobo Jul 2013 #145

That would be against the law Recursion Jul 2013 #147

Did Jose Padilla ever engage in combat? nt Bonobo Jul 2013 #149

As I've said several times, his treatment was found to be illegal by a court Recursion Jul 2013 #151

You said that Snowden could not be declared an enemy combatant. Bonobo Jul 2013 #155

No, the attempt to charge Padilla as an enemy combatant failed Recursion Jul 2013 #156

He was grabbed and tortured as an "enemy combatant". Bonobo Jul 2013 #159

And that was ruled illegal by a court Recursion Jul 2013 #160

I'm not. Bonobo Jul 2013 #163

They attempted a stretchy interpretation on a topic with no case law Recursion Jul 2013 #165

Agree to disagree Bonobo Jul 2013 #167

Jose Padilla also never engaged in combat. Bonobo Jul 2013 #148

And a judge held the law was broken, and came very close to setting him free Recursion Jul 2013 #150

"Very close". Bonobo Jul 2013 #152

He's not in a military prison. What are you talking about? Recursion Jul 2013 #154

You;re right. He was only tortured in military prison for 3 years. nt Bonobo Jul 2013 #157

Yes, and he sought and obtained relief from the courts Recursion Jul 2013 #158

So the threat is real. Bonobo Jul 2013 #161

No, that's established case law now. There wasn't case law on this before Padilla Recursion Jul 2013 #162

Your argument is persuasive unless it would be your ass on the rack. nt Bonobo Jul 2013 #164

*shrug* Like I said, I can think of a million ways the government could screw us if it ignored law Recursion Jul 2013 #166

The point is that if it was your ass and it had been done in the past... Bonobo Jul 2013 #168

Dramatic effect jberryhill Jul 2013 #58

They don't know or understand the difference treestar Jul 2013 #61

Because the US is a coutnry that does avebury Jul 2013 #62

Because Obama is a power-mad dictator who likes to murder his enemies bare-handed. baldguy Jul 2013 #67

Not because Snowden could end up in a military prison. Igel Jul 2013 #68

Does that mean you do not believe if caught, they might not consider tossing him in a Drew Richards Jul 2013 #81

Correct, I think that kind of talk is batshit insane craziness (nt) Recursion Jul 2013 #85

Well I will have to go look it up but if he is possibly charged with treason I believe his Drew Richards Jul 2013 #102

He's not charged with treason Recursion Jul 2013 #103

Not to sound like a complete conspiracy nut but given our recent use of things like rendition Arcanetrance Jul 2013 #82

He will have all the rights and protections any accused federal felon has. arely staircase Jul 2013 #93

It doesn't even matter RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #135

Yeah, after all there's no chance of a civilian ending up in a military prison without trial... NuclearDem Jul 2013 #137

Yup. Bonobo Jul 2013 #146

As a person who has family and friends in prison. Bradley Manning was not tortured any more bravenak Jul 2013 #138

You are 100% correct. Instead he can be charged under a whole suite of SECRET laws, we, he AND... TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #169

And your basis for this fantasy is... ? (nt) Recursion Jul 2013 #172

A little Carribean vacation resort known as Gitmo. Numerous reports on prisoner treatment... TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #179

Because torture is as American as cherry pie (with apologies to HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #185