General Discussion

bhikkhu

(10,789 posts)

286. 1031 defines "covered persons", who are to be held in the military detention system

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:09 PM

Dec 2011

1032 says "unless they are US citizens or legal residents"

In which case they are held under the civilian justice system.

It begins by defining "covered persons" specifically as those involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda in the war against the US. Section 1036 details the protections and recourse for those under military detention, in keeping with the Geneva Conventions and the norms of war. For any held under the civilian justice system, constitutional law holds, and is in no way altered by this bill.

I've done my own research on this for much of the way along...almost exclusively by reading the bill itself (in the copies available through the Library of Congress) and following the changes. I have to say, the media and blogs and so forth seem to have been miserably irresponsible and careless in how they have covered it, and are probably the main causes of all the misunderstanding and hyperbole.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

420 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus [View all] MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 OP

Well on the record, I am not one of those! n/t teddy51 Dec 2011 #1

Me, neither. n/t Zalatix Dec 2011 #64

Nor am I RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #153

I would only add that he failed to close the Pandora's boxES that Bush opened. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #344

One of my biggest objections with President Obama. Jake2413 Dec 2011 #205

I was blown away when Bush was president and sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #2

History always repeats. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #12

You don't have to give up your rights bhikkhu Dec 2011 #18

I've always been a firm adherent of Franklin's comment. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #27

History repeats Pharaoh Dec 2011 #240

It is Fascism. Go OWS! dotymed Dec 2011 #156

I'll be there with you. Something has to be done to stop this and it's clear now sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #345

many Americans were perfectly willing to throw away the freedoms AlbertCat Dec 2011 #239

we have become an echo chamber. nt awoke_in_2003 Dec 2011 #298

I'm fine with bigtree Dec 2011 #3

What about policy, tactics, and actions? PufPuf23 Dec 2011 #139

I used to really enjoy your posts Marrah_G Dec 2011 #409

What's ProSense Dec 2011 #4

In what way is that hyperbole? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #7

You ProSense Dec 2011 #11

And the fact that American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention without trial. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #15

It's really weird that you call yourself "Far Left Fist" when you spend most of the time Ken Burch Dec 2011 #63

There's really nothing more Left than the truth. Which is all I'm speaking. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #97

No, actually Ken Burch is correct. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #378

+1 nashville_brook Dec 2011 #191

That has always been SOP at DU for the 10 years I have been here. bvar22 Dec 2011 #206

especially if they choose the Che avatar AlbertCat Dec 2011 #245

but that Avatar makes sense, and isn't used to deceive people fascisthunter Dec 2011 #390

I think you've got it. Support Bradley Manning. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #341

I have noticed that too. But his name is "Far Left Fist", so how can you question his "leftness". nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #343

But not extrajudicial assasinations Riftaxe Dec 2011 #89

I have no problem with those DissedByBush Dec 2011 #96

In combat. Zero evidence presented anywhere at any time that Awlaki was a terrorist. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #126

Disagree - Awlaki was killed in a combat mission NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #163

In your example, you use an incident from a "Declared War" against another Nation bvar22 Dec 2011 #209

Like the "war" on drugs pscot Dec 2011 #233

I have ony two thoughts as to the entirely of your thesis indepat Dec 2011 #281

That's an excellent observatiion bvar, there is no end to it and just as Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #363

And we are still waiting for evendence that there was any combat involved in that killing. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #223

The GWOT is similar to the Barbary Wars. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #280

There was most definitely combat DissedByBush Dec 2011 #340

We are at war with Yemen? Since when?? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #352

If that sovereign country gives us permission, then no, it's not a crime. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #364

Were we at war with Tunisia? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #366

We are not at war, unless you are accepting the Bush/Cheney policies. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #369

We are at war DissedByBush Dec 2011 #373

Who are we at war with? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #377

You need to read the news more DissedByBush Dec 2011 #381

OBL is dead. You cannot be at war with an idea. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #383

Did you read the Authorization? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #384

Regarding your last sentence, I don't know what you have been reading, but sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #388

Wow, where to start DissedByBush Dec 2011 #407

I read that piece of garbage when it first was voted on, unfortunately by too many sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #408

This wasn't the authorization for use of force in Iraq DissedByBush Dec 2011 #413

I do not support Bush policies, the US Government has adapted Bush policies. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #414

You just completely bypassed all facts DissedByBush Dec 2011 #417

I have read it. The whole WOT is nothing more than an excuse sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #418

Are you sure this time? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #420

Yet we are not at war. Haven't been in a war since WWII. Congress has issued no declaration of war. mbperrin Dec 2011 #276

We are at war - Congress has authorized this war. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #284

Can't declare a war on a noun. mbperrin Dec 2011 #350

Of course you can declare war on a noun. A nation's name is a noun. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #358

Naturally no one is going to challenge it. It makes too much money for the right people. mbperrin Dec 2011 #360

Naturally, I should have specified a common noun. mbperrin Dec 2011 #361

You need to go the other way DissedByBush Dec 2011 #375

That was the Bush administration's claims. We elected Democrats to put an end to those sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #370

Congress authorized the war. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #379

What war? Who are we at war with? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #380

You refuse to accept the answer. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #386

I refuse to accept the Bush claim that we are at war with the world. Yes, absolutely sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #387

You have got to be kidding me DissedByBush Dec 2011 #338

Show me that mountain of evidence. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #342

You have got to be kidding DissedByBush Dec 2011 #382

Haha! Wikipedia, indeed. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #391

"Constitutional conditions" DissedByBush Dec 2011 #401

In regards to a U.S. citizen? Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #403

This isn't a criminal proceeding DissedByBush Dec 2011 #406

WWII was a war declared by congress via the powers in the US constitution. Javaman Dec 2011 #220

Congress authorized these military actions DissedByBush Dec 2011 #335

authorizing and declaring are two vastly different things. Javaman Dec 2011 #349

It's completely constitutional DissedByBush Dec 2011 #367

And the barbary wars also were illegal according to the constitution. Javaman Dec 2011 #371

Show me that determination DissedByBush Dec 2011 #372

and because they disregarded the war powers act that makes it okay? Javaman Dec 2011 #389

Post of the year! DissedByBush Dec 2011 #402

"Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war," Javaman Dec 2011 #404

Why do you support my argument? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #405

Perhaps we are just arguing about the same thing and don't Javaman Dec 2011 #412

Can you show me where in the Constitution these rights are limited to citizens? Bjorn Against Dec 2011 #182

not if you are overseas. Javaman Dec 2011 #218

Three myths about the detention bill Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #229

Actually, NO we are NOT. plantwomyn Dec 2011 #278

Two things: ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #304

One of us has a reading comprehension problem. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #16

It's ProSense Dec 2011 #23

Apprently the ACLU has a reading comprehension problem dflprincess Dec 2011 #42

Speaking ProSense Dec 2011 #52

83 traitors to the Constitution and the American People. Fuddnik Dec 2011 #100

Yeah, ProSense Dec 2011 #108

+1. nt MADem Dec 2011 #116

His statement is weasel worded Major Nikon Dec 2011 #132

yes, traitors for making it possible for another president to abuse fascisthunter Dec 2011 #192

+1000 n/t dotymed Dec 2011 #158

Here you go Major Nikon Dec 2011 #135

Once again, please read...it's professionally written, and makes a lot of sense... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #230

ProSense, Are you an attorney? Have you researched the precedent, the case law on this? JDPriestly Dec 2011 #266

You don't think there is a chilling effect noise Dec 2011 #20

Its not really vague. It actually says it very plainly and clearly. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #25

You are assuming they will abuse the power siligut Dec 2011 #196

The President can order arrest and assassination caseymoz Dec 2011 #140

Well, I took your word for it that the bill was amended SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #202

Yes, sure Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #238

ProSense, your comment expresses shock but does not JDPriestly Dec 2011 #263

Very well said, JDP. nt tpsbmam Dec 2011 #297

So tell me what your opinions are of these things without the WWII monikers icymist Dec 2011 #303

The collapse of the US is due to the fact that during the 1970s, JDPriestly Dec 2011 #326

Well said, JD MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #317

This message was self-deleted by its author icymist Dec 2011 #301

Does that mean you think we still honor habeas corpus? Or does that mean you are ok with not rhett o rick Dec 2011 #351

So, what is your position on this? Codifying Bush's sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #109

Not a person who supports that at all. Burgman Dec 2011 #5

Where does it say U.S citizens don't have a right to trial? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #6

In the cherished NDAA MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #14

None of those are the NDAA. But here it is: FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #19

The *requirement* does not extend, but the *option* sure does MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #28

The option? We are protected under the Constitution. It even says that in the NDAA, along with FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #33

We'll have to agree to disagree MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #53

OK, and I'll side with the Bill itself. If the language changes to be used against us in the future FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #57

If you're for depriving habeus to anyone caseymoz Dec 2011 #142

I'm siding with Mother Jones. Robb Dec 2011 #180

US citizens aren't entitled to a trial if detained under the provisions of 1031 a-e Major Nikon Dec 2011 #133

US citizens can't be held under section 1031, as section 1032 exempts them bhikkhu Dec 2011 #244

You might want to read 1032 again Major Nikon Dec 2011 #261

If they are "covered persons", involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda in the war against the US bhikkhu Dec 2011 #265

There is no exemption for US citizens Major Nikon Dec 2011 #277

1031 defines "covered persons", who are to be held in the military detention system bhikkhu Dec 2011 #286

That's not what 1032 says and you are passing very bad information off as fact Major Nikon Dec 2011 #337

That is exactly what it states. N/T zeljko Dec 2011 #353

You should go and read the debate. plantwomyn Dec 2011 #282

How can you be for the end of Habeus Corpus in regards to any human being? Marrah_G Dec 2011 #410

You can't tell the difference between a blog at a URL, and a vetted media story? boppers Dec 2011 #107

"REQUIREMENT to detain" Martin Eden Dec 2011 #178

The "requirement" refers back to section 1031 bhikkhu Dec 2011 #251

So then, a US citizen by definition can't be al Qaeda? Martin Eden Dec 2011 #274

The logic is pretty straightforward bhikkhu Dec 2011 #279

Man you are passing misinformation all over the place. zeljko Dec 2011 #354

I think what is missing from this discussion is the Patriot Act bhikkhu Dec 2011 #355

Of course it gives it new explicit power. zeljko Dec 2011 #356

Brush up on the patriot act - its all in there bhikkhu Dec 2011 #365

Some laws do require a lawyer to explain them to you. caseymoz Dec 2011 #193

And "associated force that acts in coordination ..." THAT COULD BE ANYONE! AllyCat Dec 2011 #247

But not in the bill itself, apparently bhikkhu Dec 2011 #24

And who decides who qualifies as an al Qaeda member? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #32

If you are a U.S. citizen then a judge does. And you have to be proven to be planning an attack. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #36

I think that you're mistaken MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #41

Al-Awlaki was already convicted by a Yemenite court to be captured dead or alive. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #44

Did the Yemenis kill him? That's news to me. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #46

Rushdie did not aid a terrorist organization against us. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #48

Wait - did we execute US citizen al-Alwlaki because Yemen wanted him dead, MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #60

I'm sure the reason was because he was aiding Al-Qaeda, like the NDAA says is allowed. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #73

Then a US court could have tried, convicted, and sentenced him MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #78

Rushdie? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #85

Manny, This bill is shit and goes against our freedom dotymed Dec 2011 #160

so if they say i am aiding al quida they can strip my citizenship? SwampG8r Dec 2011 #59

No, not if THEY say, if YOU say. He was videotaped waging "jihad" on the U.S. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #76

Sorry, FarLeftFist, there is no definition for terrorism that is clear and understandable. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #264

A terraist is anyone TPTB say is a terraist, even if the supposed connection is indepat Dec 2011 #295

Yes. It is overkill. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #300

Well put. Rethugs have been able to set most of the national agenda since WWII imo indepat Dec 2011 #314

Thanks for your input. True, true, true. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #347

Ridiculous, the President of the US caseymoz Dec 2011 #143

YEMMEN ?? !!!! bvar22 Dec 2011 #213

The National Security Council approved that, and it wasn't done lightly bhikkhu Dec 2011 #50

You mean like Al Awlaki and his teenage son who were given the death penalty without sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #114

"proven" ... how? Martin Eden Dec 2011 #179

But who determines who's a member of Al-Qaeda? caseymoz Dec 2011 #144

The President doesn't even have to "determine". bvar22 Dec 2011 #216

Where does the Constitution say non-citizens don't have the right to trial. Bjorn Against Dec 2011 #184

As far as military detention, section 1036 details the rights to trial and recourse bhikkhu Dec 2011 #254

IOKIODI KG Dec 2011 #8

IMO it's putting us on a very dangerous path for abuse by someone, eventually. Imagine the RKP5637 Dec 2011 #9

Habeus corpus is a foundational right. PDJane Dec 2011 #10

When you refuse to exercise your rights, you lose them. boppers Dec 2011 #110

Uh, come again? Where the fuck did you get THAT idea? Zhade Dec 2011 #127

When you refuse to show up for your trial, you don't get to moan about your defense. boppers Dec 2011 #129

Accused criminals, self admitted or not, are read miranda rights. Ed Suspicious Dec 2011 #171

None of which is really true, but none of which has anything to do with my point. PDJane Dec 2011 #328

I'm not old enough to personally remember, but by the 80's it turned out to be all theater anyways. boppers Dec 2011 #357

That was my point. PDJane Dec 2011 #362

I'm astonished that so many buy into that crap bhikkhu Dec 2011 #13

Not a police state because we do not yet have check points at state border crossings? RC Dec 2011 #61

I go though a border check point coming into Calif. from Oregon. WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2011 #105

I went through one of those coming from Nevada. The bastards wanted me to MADem Dec 2011 #119

I went through one just a few weeks ago... KansDem Dec 2011 #159

This Bill makes the US a Police State fascisthunter Dec 2011 #392

According to the bill itself: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #395

Orwell is rolling in his grave. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #16

no actually he isnt SwampG8r Dec 2011 #62

LOL! nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #72

Orwell? I'm surprised we're not getting reports of an earthquake in Philadelphia dflprincess Dec 2011 #88

Go USA! Land of the Free and Home of the Brave! neverforget Dec 2011 #21

land of the free to keep your mouth shut and home of the airport molesters leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #267

Aside from the broad assumption about DUers, how are we ending Habeas Corpus specifically? pinto Dec 2011 #22

What do you think habeus corpus is? Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #201

It does specifically exempt US citizens from military detention bhikkhu Dec 2011 #256

No it doesn't. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #285

This is a very good write-up on the major difficulties with that: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #289

"Not intended to state a policy which changes anything" except, you see, it does. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #296

What about human beings who are not US citizens? Marrah_G Dec 2011 #411

I agree with you, Manny. I think the complacency here is due to confusion about what JDPriestly Dec 2011 #26

Obama has the right to veto it if it's sloppy MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #38

But its not sloppy. Obama is a lawyer. I'm sure its plain to see for him. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #51

+1, I'm surprised how many seem to treat it as a joke. while others demand evidence but then ignore limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #29

This message was self-deleted by its author limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #111

Japanese internment camps nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #30

They had them for Germans and Italians living in this country too. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #55

Absolutely nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #66

Not to the same extent. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #226

Obama = Third Reich? NYC_SKP Dec 2011 #31

The protections were diminished before Hitler came to power MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #35

Let me list a few others more palatable examples nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #49

+1 n/t area51 Dec 2011 #136

Obama is going to be President for about 5 more years Autumn Dec 2011 #141

The best solution is to end the war soon bhikkhu Dec 2011 #257

The war on terror will never end. Autumn Dec 2011 #260

I agree and will add that I think that most likely a President Obama will not abuse this power - But Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #34

Which is exactly what happened in Germany. nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #37

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause ii: struggle4progress Dec 2011 #39

The NDAA is congressional approval to suspend Habeas Corpus MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #43

Where in the bill is habeas suspended? The writ is guaranteed by plain language of struggle4progress Dec 2011 #56

Congress can and does pass laws nullifying the Constitution RC Dec 2011 #71

No one will subscribe to the legal theory that Congress has the power to override the Constitution; struggle4progress Dec 2011 #83

Habeas corpus was suspended for foreigners in 2006. Having lived Overseas, I have been waiting for Overseas Dec 2011 #195

OH NOES! Godwins LAW! FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #40

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #45

But our protections AREN'T diminished. We are still protected by the Constitution. It even says that FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #47

First they came for the trade unionist... nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #54

You expect the bill to say it violates the Constitution? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #58

No, the bill actually says it upholds the Constitution for U.S. citizens. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #80

but we all watched as Dimsun 'misunderstood' his way to robust presidential power... StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #70

But it IS written clearly. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #81

Not when the Fascists own 5 SCOTUS justices. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #74

This is getting very fringe. Lets talk about jobs, the environment, economics. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #84

You Sir, need to change those rose colored glasses 2banon Dec 2011 #253

The Constitution is only as strong as the current courts inforcement. The courts ruled rhett o rick Dec 2011 #346

we're doomed to repeat it anyway. enjoy the ride leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #268

Actually they are not so much for it Jakes Progress Dec 2011 #65

I think this is the best post in the thread. smokey nj Dec 2011 #219

We should all be concerned for the potential Administrative abuse of power ... AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #67

Amen, Om shanti shanti shanti, and All Hail His Noodly Appendage! SaintPete Dec 2011 #68

Too many uppity serfs made the powers-that-be take off the velvet gloves to show us their steel fist phasma ex machina Dec 2011 #69

K&R midnight Dec 2011 #75

I second that. I remember how people went crazy when this type of law was brought up during the Justice wanted Dec 2011 #77

Thats because Habaeus Corpus actually WAS dropped under Bush. This bill doesn't do that. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #86

It doesn't restore it either. It basically drop what few part of Habaeus Corpus we had left. Justice wanted Dec 2011 #92

It doesn't drop anything, it actually just keeps the status quo, being: FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #94

the bill codifies the power of the president to designate who gets detained indefinitely Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #122

I read the bill, 6x already. It EXEMPTS U.S. citizens. UNLESS they are proven to work for Al-Qaeda. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #138

Truly none so blind as those who will not see. COLGATE4 Dec 2011 #165

Tell me about it. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #174

well, I guess you can count me among the "blind" Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #186

Not aware of the level of concern during Bush Regime.. got to be inside a the DC bubble 2banon Dec 2011 #255

I Do Think the DC bubble exists on DU fascisthunter Dec 2011 #393

Election year cheerleading is just getting warmed-up... JCMach1 Dec 2011 #79

Or election-year implosion bhikkhu Dec 2011 #101

Haha, this has been going on for about 2.5 years now. joshcryer Dec 2011 #121

I forgot the election year 'trolling' as well! JCMach1 Dec 2011 #164

I can only imagine what those on this board who support this bill would be saying dflprincess Dec 2011 #82

bush and obama are two different people leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #271

But when it comes to ignoring the Consitution dflprincess Dec 2011 #321

I've yet to see a cogent explanation of why the ominous legal gibberish in this bill is necessary. Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #87

Aww, Manny, what'cha complainin' about? Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, the Geneva Conventions - all kath Dec 2011 #90

not cool with it at all <eom> catrose Dec 2011 #91

Nothing surprises me here anymore, Manny. n/t Blue_In_AK Dec 2011 #93

ACLU: President Obama: Veto Indefinite Detention steve2470 Dec 2011 #95

I'm not even cool with indefinite detention used against non-citizens. JoeyT Dec 2011 #98

me too. What is wrong with putting people on trial? dana_b Dec 2011 #415

Putting people on trial requires evidence. JoeyT Dec 2011 #419

War, Constitution shredding, universal surveillance are OK if Democrats do them kenny blankenship Dec 2011 #99

Ah, I bet they do a comeback tour Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #102

Joe's dead, mate. boppers Dec 2011 #113

I know. I was making a joke, like if "Habeas Corpus" were a band. I used a picture of The Clash Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #120

Heh.... boppers Dec 2011 #124

From Oxnard, no less. Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #128

Obama has to work with Congress LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #103

There is no fight this guy will have. bowens43 Dec 2011 #154

+1 andlor Dec 2011 #157

If you are going to make absurd assertions... LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #293

well said! fascisthunter Dec 2011 #394

"...this is not a fight Obama wants to have..." HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA panzerfaust Dec 2011 #177

Feel free to vote for Obama's opposition LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #294

repeat ad nauseum U4ikLefty Dec 2011 #309

I am serious LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #310

It's fine when the right party does it... Modern_Matthew Dec 2011 #104

But fascism is trending now! It's so tomorrow! Zorra Dec 2011 #106

So this is what my father gave his life for in world war two. WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2011 #112

Senator Merkley Explains How YOU Could Be Indefinitely Imprisoned With No Trial thanks to NDAA 2012 limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #115

On the contrary, it's hard to keep up. emcguffie Dec 2011 #117

You are mistaken about how the bill is applied to US Citizens. The Feinstein amendment specifically BzaDem Dec 2011 #118

Guantanamo? AllyCat Dec 2011 #169

Yes -- that Supreme Court decision specifically applies to detainees in Guantanamo. BzaDem Dec 2011 #176

And are they getting that? AllyCat Dec 2011 #242

the Feinstein amendment didn't make it to the final bill Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #189

Nothing Shocks Me Anymore. nt bananas Dec 2011 #123

SO AM I, MANNY... MrMickeysMom Dec 2011 #125

eh.. certainly not me but DU3 probaby PatrynXX Dec 2011 #130

Nope, I am not cool with it. Please tell me what we should do about, Manny? juajen Dec 2011 #131

I challenge you to link one post where a DUer, who believes Habeas Corpus is ending... joshcryer Dec 2011 #134

Yeah I second that. Rex Dec 2011 #145

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. joshcryer Dec 2011 #146

Well I won't hold my breath... Rex Dec 2011 #147

I have not seen a denial that Obama will eat all newborn babies. boppers Dec 2011 #148

Is that like something that is unseen? Rex Dec 2011 #149

Supporting this bill is supporting Habeas Corpus AllyCat Dec 2011 #168

Yes, I would like that too. emulatorloo Dec 2011 #188

I second that. AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #210

anyone supporting this Bill is doing just that fascisthunter Dec 2011 #396

No, they don't believe the bill does that. joshcryer Dec 2011 #399

Weren't you saying this very same thing ever since Obama came into office? Whisp Dec 2011 #137

No - but feel free to present refuting evidence. nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #172

I think folks would need to be mental to support the ending of Habeas Corpus MichaelMcGuire Dec 2011 #150

I was astonished so many were fine nineteen50 Dec 2011 #151

I'm certainly not ok with it. bowens43 Dec 2011 #152

Obama = Hitler comparisons. jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #155

Manny, from reading the responses to your O.P. dotymed Dec 2011 #161

For those thinking some of us are interpreting NDAA wrong, please look at justiceischeap Dec 2011 #162

+1 n/t Laelth Dec 2011 #166

All the posts from people saying "If he just had his magic wand" and "You whiners! Just because you AllyCat Dec 2011 #167

It all depends on whose inking the dotted line. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2011 #170

Republiscams and Birchers won't be able to vote from their detention facility L. Coyote Dec 2011 #173

I wouldn't think a single DUer is "cool" with that, Manny. I'm guessing everybody gateley Dec 2011 #175

There are some, who will defended the president, and their party, no matter what they do. got root Dec 2011 #181

I'm not astonished at all. Something pernicious is going on here (at DU).... truth2power Dec 2011 #183

The definition JEB Dec 2011 #185

Just another item on a growing list. 99Forever Dec 2011 #187

I'm Not.... Too Many Here live and breath "the end justifies the means" fascisthunter Dec 2011 #190

Unsupportable & inexcusable. DirkGently Dec 2011 #194

A fair number of "DUers" don't seem to care for the Constitution at all... saras Dec 2011 #197

Yeah sendero Dec 2011 #198

That's what it amounts do. Vinca Dec 2011 #199

It is like living in a surreal nightmare inhabited by brain dead pod people. Dragonfli Dec 2011 #200

How did that Habeus Corpus work for the American Citizens MineralMan Dec 2011 #203

Under Hamdi, a plurality of SCOTUS Justices said that Habeas Corpus can be suspended if MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #207

Plurality, not majority. Bucky Dec 2011 #215

OK, then the answer has to be to elect a Congress that won't OK it. MineralMan Dec 2011 #231

Aw c'mon. Using the Bill of Rights for toilet paper is OK if the person has a "D" after their name.. abq e streeter Dec 2011 #204

This is a good thing! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #208

win Bucky Dec 2011 #214

K&R (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #211

The 3rd Reich analogy is incorrect (and hysterical) but I recommend anyway. Bucky Dec 2011 #212

Amazing, isn't it? Javaman Dec 2011 #217

I'm disheartened but not surprised. I've been reading DU for a long time. /nt yardwork Dec 2011 #221

We are the NEW Democratic Party! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #222

I fear both parties in Congress love to have the power to keep the "little people" under control... spin Dec 2011 #236

I call it Phlem Dec 2011 #241

Not in favor of Habeas Corpus, but you have to have a CONGRESS who believes in DEMOCRACY CarmanK Dec 2011 #224

If the Leader of the Political Party currently in Power... bvar22 Dec 2011 #225

Well Phlem Dec 2011 #227

I've been astonished that DUer's have accepted the constant shift to the right ever since Obama took slay Dec 2011 #228

Let The Arrest Begin! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #232

Only the usual Obama-fellators RetroLounge Dec 2011 #234

Habeas Corpus papa3times Dec 2011 #235

MannyGoldstein Diclotican Dec 2011 #237

This whole issue was put to rest in Ex Part Milligan soryang Dec 2011 #243

Did you mean to link to your other post? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #246

Thanks Manny! soryang Dec 2011 #270

Links soryang Dec 2011 #273

Nicely Put colsohlibgal Dec 2011 #252

There is no emergency that justifies this kind of action Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #248

you really should post when habeas corpus ended and how many du'ers are cool with it spanone Dec 2011 #249

Yes, I would like to see that too. emulatorloo Dec 2011 #258

That's how the author rolls. great white snark Dec 2011 #262

Oh, hell . . . there's no unrec button any more. mistertrickster Dec 2011 #250

Count me out on this one too. Giving up our liberty for security is unacceptable. ScottLand Dec 2011 #259

I've seen many troubling things during this presidency - TBF Dec 2011 #269

We have won...now lets ROLL! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #272

oh Lord Broderick Dec 2011 #374

I'm astonished so many DUers think they know precisely what so many other DUers think. patrice Dec 2011 #275

I would be if that was happening Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #283

And who decides who is a member of, or is aiding, al Qaeda? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #315

Isn't mischaracterization of others THE tactic of propaganda? patrice Dec 2011 #287

Which Duers do you mean? What "so many"? Link or hyperbole? uppityperson Dec 2011 #288

IOKIYAD Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #290

Not just DU members...Americans in general.... Pachamama Dec 2011 #291

some will kiss obama's butt even as they are loaded on the trucks. consider roguevalley Dec 2011 #292

Not cool with it... AT ALL!! Lifelong Protester Dec 2011 #299

Obama has done the right thing for the nation donttazemebro Dec 2011 #302

During a Repub Admin will the law still be on our side? nt Taverner Dec 2011 #306

Welcome to DU Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #307

Me too - but I can understand defeatism at this point Taverner Dec 2011 #305

Do you really believe they see it as ending Habeas Corpus? ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #308

Rose colored glasses...get your rose colored glasses right here.... ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #311

I'm astonished anyone in this country is cool with it. nt Deep13 Dec 2011 #312

Unfortunately Manny.... DeSwiss Dec 2011 #313

Yet you couldn't name any if your reputation depended on it. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #316

I could, but that would be "calling out" which is against DU rules. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #319

Bullshit. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #322

If Obama doesn't want it, he can veto it. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #323

My PM box is open. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #325

Yes, if you apologize and delete your posts, I'd be happy to answer your questions. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #329

Oh goodness. I could never, ever erase my shame so readily. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #333

Yep, that's what I thought. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #359

k&r Liberal_in_LA Dec 2011 #318

This was so disappointing after the great speech of the previous week that I'm left speechless diane in sf Dec 2011 #320

Where's the link that shows many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus? Sounds fishy to me. nt valerief Dec 2011 #324

Ain't gonna see one. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #330

Anyone Supporting this Bill fascisthunter Dec 2011 #397

I was never a fan of miranda rights and all that crap so im ok with it...n/t IamK Dec 2011 #327

Uh-huh. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #331

But... But... We Have An Election To Win !!! WillyT Dec 2011 #332

I am astonished that someone would make such a claim without any evidence. yellowcanine Dec 2011 #334

Excellent explanation: zeljko Dec 2011 #336

Have you ever seen the president with his shirt off? n/t QC Dec 2011 #339

Agree 100%. REC. nt bertman Dec 2011 #348

see: patriot act shanti Dec 2011 #368

I support the ACLU on this Broderick Dec 2011 #376

I asked the students in my class about this Charlemagne Dec 2011 #385

Wanna know why the US is becoming a Police State fascisthunter Dec 2011 #398

You know the more I think about it nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #400

What's Habeas Corpus? Zorra Dec 2011 #416