General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

73. No, it has not said any such thing. It defers to the AUMF by NOT being specific, and under the AUMF

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 12:32 AM

Jul 2013

three US Citizens have already been detained, militarily. There is nothing in the NDAA that prevents the President from detaining US Citizens militarily.

These 'laws' put in place by a war criminals should be rescinded, they are an assault on Democracy, they have been argued throughout the Bush years with Democrats opposing them and even some smarter Republicans.

We did not elect Democrats to keep these War Criminal laws in place, we elected Democrats to get rid of them. That isn't happening, Obama is strengthening many of them.

We are ALL threatened by these dangerous laws and kudos to those, like Hedges, who are doing their duty as citizens unlike Congress, and trying to get rid of them. Which will eventually happen because people won't stop until it does happen.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Chris Hedges Responds to NDAA Defeat, "It is a black day for those who care about liberty" [View all] Catherina Jul 2013 OP

Our fight is definitely up hill... daleanime Jul 2013 #1

This is distressing news. nt Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #2

Isn't it all? Every hour of every day. What can we do? chimpymustgo Jul 2013 #4

Jesus, what a drama queen. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #3

The Court turning a blind eye to this bad law is not the same as annulling it. 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #30

Yes, drama queens. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #43

Thank you for your "expert advice" 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #46

I do know to read a legal opinion. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #50

Why is it that you object to EVERY criticism of the security state? Maedhros Jul 2013 #49

This opinion is not pro security state. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #52

Your claim RE: the NDAA has been disputed by a number of people. Maedhros Jul 2013 #77

Read the opinion yourself. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #85

I can't argue with the court's ruling Maedhros Jul 2013 #92

Thoughtful response. A few points in return: geek tragedy Jul 2013 #93

Good points. Maedhros Jul 2013 #96

Because in 2011 the Republicans were in "Obama is too weak on terrorists" geek tragedy Jul 2013 #97

The AUMF needs to be repealed Maedhros Jul 2013 #98

Politically, they absolutely don't need to worry about it. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #99

oh.it's you. boilerbabe Jul 2013 #39

Damn. randome Jul 2013 #41

tag team makes it a florin nt tiny elvis Jul 2013 #44

,, questionseverything Jul 2013 #63

That means section 1022, like section 1021, does not geek tragedy Jul 2013 #64

not required is what it says questionseverything Jul 2013 #65

1022 is a requirement, not an authorization. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #69

we can't know what interpretation pscot Jul 2013 #100

The loaded gun is the 2001 AUMF, which Congress should repeal or amend substantially nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #101

right this is what we were all debating on here when it was first written. limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #79

Lol, there you go again. The president claims to have the right to order the killing of an sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #71

The NDAA does not authorize the detention of American geek tragedy Jul 2013 #72

No, it has not said any such thing. It defers to the AUMF by NOT being specific, and under the AUMF sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #73

So, we agree that the NDAA is irrelevant to the geek tragedy Jul 2013 #74

No, we do not agree. The NDAA does not forbid the executive branch from detaining sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #75

It neither authorizes nor prohibits detention of geek tragedy Jul 2013 #76

NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit Thrown Out ProSense Jul 2013 #5

The court gave the plaintiffs EXACTLY THE RULING THEY WANT. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #6

Yeah, but that doesn't generate traffic to PoopDig. nt AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #9

People are so desperate to be oppressed that they geek tragedy Jul 2013 #12

k&r for exposure. This is very important. n/t Laelth Jul 2013 #7

Big brother will not tolerate the impertinence of anyone trying to halt the steady assault on our indepat Jul 2013 #8

Did you read the court opinion, or just assume it's a travesty geek tragedy Jul 2013 #11

Did not read this opinion, but just summed up my cynical take on what has been transpiring indepat Jul 2013 #21

The court ruled that the NDAA doesn't authorize the detention of American citizens. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #24

I had read that: sounds like big brother has been overstepping in its zeal not to be accused of indepat Jul 2013 #33

Yes. Never mind what Chris Hedges et. al. are saying 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #32

The ACLU disagrees with Hedges. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #70

You conveniently left out the next two sentences 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #78

The court resolved that question as well, and gave the right answer. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #83

terrible news...nt xiamiam Jul 2013 #10

So when are they going to arrest Grover Norquist? Warpy Jul 2013 #13

When are they going to arrest the Koch Bros.? meow2u3 Jul 2013 #14

When Norquist squeals like the little piggie he is Warpy Jul 2013 #16

Gosh. There goes the First Amendment. Octafish Jul 2013 #15

No, the court ruled the exact opposite of that. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #17

YEP. Rex Jul 2013 #19

District judge agreed, but the 2nd circuit overruled district judge. HOWEVER geek tragedy Jul 2013 #20

It is about the same hysteria (imo) as the folks that believe Obama Rex Jul 2013 #22

Short summary of the outcome of this case: geek tragedy Jul 2013 #23

Yeah that is it, thanks for the elaboration. Rex Jul 2013 #25

Really? That's not what the ruling says, but, if you think so, great! Octafish Jul 2013 #28

I read it. It flatly states that the NDAA can't be geek tragedy Jul 2013 #45

Wrong. It says Americans can be classified as enemy combatants and detained indefinitely now. Octafish Jul 2013 #53

You did not read the opinion. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #58

You got that right. That's why I went to the experts. Octafish Jul 2013 #66

The plain language of the opinion. The ACLU agrees with geek tragedy Jul 2013 #68

You cannot fix this shit goddammit! DeSwiss Jul 2013 #18

Yes but the usual apologist here say the apple is not rotten zeemike Jul 2013 #31

No, those of us not wetting our undies geek tragedy Jul 2013 #47

So Cris Hedges is functional illiterate or lying. zeemike Jul 2013 #57

Or, you could read the opinion yourself geek tragedy Jul 2013 #59

Well I am not a lawyer. zeemike Jul 2013 #61

The ACLU agrees with me and the court geek tragedy Jul 2013 #67

You keep using that quote out of context dreamnightwind Jul 2013 #103

The court explicitly adopted the ACLU's position. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #104

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but dreamnightwind Jul 2013 #105

Here's the language from the opinion. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #106

Thanks for your reply dreamnightwind Jul 2013 #107

Once you get away from the 'easy' set of facts, i.e. the person geek tragedy Jul 2013 #108

Citizens who are declared enemy combatants? dreamnightwind Jul 2013 #110

If they're captured on the field of battle, geek tragedy Jul 2013 #111

K&R. Bad news, but the ACLU will keep up the fight. Also, maybe another whistle-blower like Snowden quinnox Jul 2013 #26

Kick & rec. ~nt 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #27

And Yet, Many Reflexively Genuflect To Authority When The Exsanguination Of Democracy Is Exposed cantbeserious Jul 2013 #29

... all the while attacking the messenger(s) as 'drama queens' ~nt 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #36

Yes - All Too True! cantbeserious Jul 2013 #37

Please cite the error in the court's ruling. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #48

I tire of reading sulphurdunn Jul 2013 #34

So, as I read the decision, citizens cannot challenge the NDAA language regarding struggle4progress Jul 2013 #35

Jump on the bandwagon! Let your outrage flag fly! randome Jul 2013 #38

NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022: Scary Potential Octafish Jul 2013 #40

High courts are already saying the NDAA doesn't allow for any of that stuff. phleshdef Jul 2013 #56

Let's remember what Mr Obama said about NDAA 2012 on signing it: struggle4progress Jul 2013 #42

Bullshit PR words. Let's remember that when Pres. Obama woo me with science Jul 2013 #80

The Conference Report on the Bill was over 1000 pages long, reflecting the length of the bill and struggle4progress Jul 2013 #82

Bullshit. That was a lot of attempted distraction. woo me with science Jul 2013 #86

"Don't confuse me with tiresome facts!" struggle4progress Jul 2013 #94

Just ignore the video and Levin's own words on the Senate floor. woo me with science Jul 2013 #95

Wow, you cited a Daily Kos diary to refute the 2nd Court of Appeals. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #89

very important point questionseverything Jul 2013 #90

from woo's link questionseverything Jul 2013 #91

beyond disturbing... nradisic Jul 2013 #51

Man the barricades, everybody. Jack Rabbit Jul 2013 #54

Thanks. I wondered if this had been decided yet. ReRe Jul 2013 #55

Federal Appeals Court Restores US Govt�s Indefinite Detention Power Previously Blocked by Judge Catherina Jul 2013 #60

K&R'd. snot Jul 2013 #62

"a black day"? ucrdem Jul 2013 #81

Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #84

Shockingly, the RT article is one big fat lie. nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #88

Is this the same Circuit Court that the 'thugs have kept 4 judges short... blackspade Jul 2013 #87

America waited too long to start fighting back. woo me with science Jul 2013 #102

du rec. xchrom Jul 2013 #109