General Discussion

Bolo Boffin

(23,872 posts)

86. Actually, you're wrong about that.

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:21 AM

Dec 2011

The authority is granted under AUMF according to the bill.

No more AUMF, no more power to indefinitely detain.

1022 may grant power to still hold people who were designated covered persons under AUMF, but the repeal of AUMF would be the end of hostilities, and under the rules of war, indefinite detention would no longer be available as a disposition. The other three would have to apply.

But "Repeal AUMF" is a positive action, something that people can get behind and fight and actually do something about. That doesn't fit Greenwald's agenda to sit frowningly upon all things that inspire his displeasure. Actually standing up and doing something never fits the agenda of the professionally malcontent - they'd have to come up with something else to be disappointed about.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Obama Prepares to Authorize Indefinite Detention of US Citizens for First Time Since McCarthy Era" [View all] Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 OP

Talk about tarnishing his legacy. MotherPetrie Dec 2011 #1

Greenwald? Yes, I agree. great white snark Dec 2011 #4

Trash the messenger. Rush has taught you well my son. Dutchmaster Dec 2011 #110

Yes I agree, take a deep breath and accept fascism. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #140

This will be his legacy! green917 Dec 2011 #113

I Prefer to look at the actual bill: SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #2

or this: The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #6

Not a whole lot bhikkhu Dec 2011 #83

Unless you can't read. glinda Dec 2011 #124

The current law might be argued to permit it. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #145

Read This piece Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #7

Like I said, I prefer to look at the actual bill :) SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #11

Yes..... Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #13

Where does it specifically say they can be detained? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #15

Still waiting... SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #23

Sorry. didn't see your reply Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #25

Actually it doesn't answer that, Where specifically again, does it state that.. SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #28

Read the authorization for detention... Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #29

What is the section number? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #37

Section 1022 Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #38

Modification of Conditions On Status Of Retired Aircraft Carrier Ex-John F. Kenney? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #40

Here Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #41

ahhh Sec 1032 not 1022..but it still doesn't say what you support it does SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #48

Yes...I thought I wrote 1032...but I actually wrote 1022 Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #50

It doesn't matter what other posters are saying about it... SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #52

"It doesn't matter what other posters are saying about it" Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #53

If you could show me proof it would "sink in", SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #55

I'm glad other posters are challenging your manifestly incorrect statements. BzaDem Dec 2011 #78

Where does it say that US citizens CAN NOT be detained indefinitely? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #85

Because they will need that kind Rex Dec 2011 #93

BINGO! dgibby Dec 2011 #128

And all of this on the heels of killing bin Laden with no new perceived threat. ScottLand Dec 2011 #94

Wake up people!!! Dustlawyer Dec 2011 #106

The threat has always been the American people. Patriot act was ready to go long before they . . Dutchmaster Dec 2011 #121

For starters, you might look at Amendments V, VI and VII in the Bill of Rights struggle4progress Dec 2011 #119

really...this is your argument? Sheepshank Dec 2011 #126

He's explained it to you several times green917 Dec 2011 #115

Insisting that a law must be written to exclude actions in this instance Sheepshank Dec 2011 #127

Padilla v. Rumsfeld is your answer SunsetDreams. justiceischeap Dec 2011 #27

Yup Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #43

Padilla v. Rumsfeld was an appeal from the second circuit. BzaDem Dec 2011 #81

Can you point me to a link where the 4th circuit opinion was vacated in its entirety? justiceischeap Dec 2011 #95

It looks like you are correct. BzaDem Dec 2011 #154

If the president has the authority to sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #139

There is a difference between overseas vs. US, among other things. BzaDem Dec 2011 #148

Why would he have surrendered? He wasn't wanted for anything, there were no sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #149

That says the current law needs to be fixed (something I agree with), not that the defense bill made karynnj Dec 2011 #100

The fact that anyone is not totally outraged tblue Dec 2011 #16

The fact that you think I should be . . . Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #65

six one and half a dozen the other. It says the same thing doesn't it. Thanks, Obama. You made Ann roguevalley Dec 2011 #73

That is false. Section 1021e specifically exempts US citizens, and section 1022b only applies to a BzaDem Dec 2011 #75

The very real possibility is there dotymed Dec 2011 #105

It's much more complicated than this zipplewrath Dec 2011 #8

and the overall statement of intentions of the section, which would guide a court challenge: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #74

Not change, but codify court decisions zipplewrath Dec 2011 #97

Those were codified in the "torture" bill that passed in 2006 karynnj Dec 2011 #101

The strange part is that this was in there at all zipplewrath Dec 2011 #104

Would you like to have to adjudicate that defense? green917 Dec 2011 #117

Its not because Obama is in the White House bhikkhu Dec 2011 #118

I would too but... green917 Dec 2011 #134

screw that.... dennis4868 Dec 2011 #36

Well, it says the "requirement" does not apply dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #46

Yes, the actual bill says U.S. citizens can be detained by the military. DirkGently Dec 2011 #67

Oh, just get over it gratuitous Dec 2011 #3

+1... Principles schminciples! tblue Dec 2011 #14

AP: There is an exemption for U.S. citizens. rfranklin Dec 2011 #5

That doesn't matter! nt babylonsister Dec 2011 #10

I can't find any legal expert that agrees with that. nt EFerrari Dec 2011 #30

There's an exemption for citizens to the requirement gratuitous Dec 2011 #19

Regardless of citizenship Remember Me Dec 2011 #31

Precisely what I said upthread! green917 Dec 2011 #125

Like so much about this bill, misleading weasel words. EFerrari Dec 2011 #34

Gag. You obsessive people with your facts... SidDithers Dec 2011 #44

The Kos piece. FedUp_Queer Dec 2011 #77

Well, they're clearly right about SOME people Remember Me Dec 2011 #151

It has already been in effect since Bush, so what's the beef? rfranklin Dec 2011 #9

The beef is -- Remember Me Dec 2011 #32

No it does NOT. The Feinstein amendment language added a line (clause 'e') to Section 1031 Tx4obama Dec 2011 #88

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #12

Obama the candidate was for warrantless wiretaps. Signing the bill is entirely consistent with that. McCamy Taylor Dec 2011 #22

You are acting like a child. great white snark Dec 2011 #26

There's certainly no universal agreement on that among Remember Me Dec 2011 #33

Nor do the authors TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #54

Yep Remember Me Dec 2011 #58

only Americans count!!!!!! Skittles Dec 2011 #91

habeas corpus reggie the dog Dec 2011 #17

Graham cracker wants us to forgo this right.... He prefer we just "shut up"... midnight Dec 2011 #103

check post #143 below L. Coyote Dec 2011 #147

K&R (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #18

So, Jose Padilla was detained by Eisenhower? Silly me. I thought it was Bush. McCamy Taylor Dec 2011 #20

The article mentions that Bush and Obama had already claimed this power Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #21

Precisely. And that was illegal. Not any more when this bill is signed into law. EFerrari Dec 2011 #35

Not to mention Susan Lindauer. n/t dgibby Dec 2011 #129

It's not difficult to understand ... GeorgeGist Dec 2011 #24

Well all I can say is... smile....xenu luvs u Dec 2011 #39

Oh, it's Greenwald... SidDithers Dec 2011 #42

What? No unrec? Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #45

Glad you can be amused by such a meaningless thing...nt SidDithers Dec 2011 #49

highly dicussed....more recs... Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #51

Totally agree about more eyeballs reading ALL the posts SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #56

I'm glad you agree Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #57

This is how it will go down: Taverner Dec 2011 #47

What political currency does this gain. It makes him look horrible to the left. It also makes.. JVS Dec 2011 #66

This is about power, not left v right Taverner Dec 2011 #123

Senator Finestein said she is going to write another bill that will clarify her 2 amendments further Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #69

That is fine and dandy but largely immaterial at this point TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #136

k and r nashville_brook Dec 2011 #59

They are doing this to shut down protests like occupy wall street. And the right wingers on this scentopine Dec 2011 #60

Your subject line is FALSE Tx4obama Dec 2011 #89

No, US citizens in The USA are exempt from indefinite detention requirement. blackspade Dec 2011 #111

Because only US Citizens count were the Constitution is concerned? green917 Dec 2011 #131

Do we enjoy too much freedom? What other civil liberties to you support destroying? scentopine Dec 2011 #152

And it is all predicated on the AUMF. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #61

Exactly. Or leave the AUMF, and the problem remains. bhikkhu Dec 2011 #70

So there is an underlying wrong, & a complementary wrong. Does that make one of them okay? DirkGently Dec 2011 #72

It means the solution is to end the war. bhikkhu Dec 2011 #76

Which war? The War on Terror? The War on Al Quaeda? The War on The Taliban? DirkGently Dec 2011 #82

The war(s) the bill directs its attention to - bhikkhu Dec 2011 #84

Exactly. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #87

Actually, he's debunked that angle pretty thoroughly. DirkGently Dec 2011 #79

Actually, you're wrong about that. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #86

Greenwald correctly points out the bill endorses & codifies Bush's illegal interpretation. So, no. DirkGently Dec 2011 #99

And as I have said, it is all predicated on the AUMF, something Greenwald glosses over. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #102

And what, pray tell, is the chance that the AUMF will be repealed? green917 Dec 2011 #132

It is a potential solution Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #146

Your argument is somewhat specious though green917 Dec 2011 #157

They didn't "want" the power, they had the power. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #158

Sorry but the article on that link is rubbish. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #90

quotes aren't by definition out of context TiberiusB Dec 2011 #96

The section numbers are different because they are taken from the reconciliation Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #120

k&r Starry Messenger Dec 2011 #62

K & R dreamnightwind Dec 2011 #63

another hitpiece from Greenwald. What's new? MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #64

Greenwald and his typical self-fellating bullshit. phleshdef Dec 2011 #68

Please link your own articles for us. L. Coyote Dec 2011 #144

You Say that Because he Challenges the Status Quo fascisthunter Dec 2011 #150

The "war on terror" IS the new McCarthyism. Same lie that it's to protect us. Same authoritarianism. DirkGently Dec 2011 #71

And Obama will sign it. FedUp_Queer Dec 2011 #80

ad hominem cowards ... TiberiusB Dec 2011 #92

yup.... any new reader will look at those posts fascisthunter Dec 2011 #112

Well said! green917 Dec 2011 #133

This is a VERY large problem for me and almost every one I know. 99Forever Dec 2011 #98

If Indefinite detention is a priority for Greenwald agentS Dec 2011 #107

Which is precisely why the President of the United States has the power of the veto green917 Dec 2011 #135

Two reasons agentS Dec 2011 #155

The indefinite detention provisions have no business... blackspade Dec 2011 #108

ITT: Sycophants saying this is okay because "OUR" guy is doing. Dutchmaster Dec 2011 #109

i thought this had been settled. why are we still reading made up fairy tales. n/t. okieinpain Dec 2011 #114

Some older kids made him do it. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #116

America doesn't torture! We just make people disappear. Kablooie Dec 2011 #122

Jonathan Turley ... "American citizens can be killed" Jim_Shorts Dec 2011 #130

+1... ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #138

Kr...the last straw...the last coffin nail... ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #137

K&R (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #141

The bill does not require indefinite detention of American citizens, BUT DOES ALLOW IT. Zhade Dec 2011 #142

Exactly - military can and will lock you up, this is a war against dissent and free speech -nt scentopine Dec 2011 #153

US: A Dangerous Woman - Indefinite Detention at Carswell L. Coyote Dec 2011 #143

i am horrified but not shocked reggie the dog Dec 2011 #156