Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. No
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:01 PM
Dec 2011

"" The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces"

Which explicitly says that the administration feels the AUMF is sufficient to grant them detention authority. "

...it doesn't say what your implying, which is, from your previous comment, that the "Obama Administrations have asserted the right to detain US citizens without trial under certain circumstances"

The administration did not do that. In fact, the rest of the statement clearly states their opposition to that.

As for the AUMF, yes it include a detention authority, but the reason this debate is ongoing is because some Senators (Graham and others) claim that the existing law grants that authority. Others disagree.

It's the ambiguity that prompted the call for definitive language.

Recommendations

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

Not enough Greenwald style hysteria. phleshdef Dec 2011 #1
You think Greenwald's continued mistaken conclusions are arrived at in good faith? great white snark Dec 2011 #7
Hehe, I'm not really sure if they are or not. phleshdef Dec 2011 #10
have proof he is mistaken and being dishonest intentionally? fascisthunter Dec 2011 #14
Oh good--I'm NOT the only person on the planet who's actually READ the language. TheWraith Dec 2011 #2
Before the revisions, it apparently would have *required* the President to detain U.S. citizens ... dawg Dec 2011 #3
US citizens were exempted. Problem was, it would have required ANYONE be detained by the military. TheWraith Dec 2011 #6
I dont' think it's accurate to say U.S. citizens are exempted. dawg Dec 2011 #9
The ONLY circumstances are if said individual is found to be working for Al-Qaeda or planning an FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #11
You mean "accused" of doing those things, planning those things. dawg Dec 2011 #15
No, ProSense Dec 2011 #12
The lengthy passage you cite doesn't say what you claim. dawg Dec 2011 #13
No ProSense Dec 2011 #18
Show me a simple quote where the President says ... dawg Dec 2011 #19
You know ProSense Dec 2011 #21
That link is to a 12 page document dealing with Gitmo. dawg Dec 2011 #22
What do you think of Lawfare? What do you know about them? bigtree Dec 2011 #4
What I'm reading here makes the bill look VILE, UTTERLY INAPPROPRIATE, and typical for Bush saras Dec 2011 #5
Problem is that by signing this law, Obama will be ratifying JDPriestly Dec 2011 #8
So whatever's in the USA PATRIOT Act goes? Octafish Dec 2011 #16
Wow, a sober analysis!!! JoePhilly Dec 2011 #17
Sorry, you can put lipstick on a pig all you want fascisthunter Dec 2011 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the...»Reply #18