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

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
20. I beg to disagree. And so does the ACLU.
Wed Dec 28, 2011, 02:50 PM
Dec 2011

To whit:

US citizens, may be now detained indefinitely, as long as they' re called "terrorists" first.

You can read the actual bill itself:
National Defense Authoriization Act
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf


Then once you finish reading the bill itself, make sure you realize the bill allows the Authorization for Use of Military Force
to remain intact, and be considered by the President and Congress, and in certain circumstances, the president and Congress can rely more heavily on the legal code more expounded upon inside Authorization of Military Force.

So basically when it comes into effect, the public will have to have a squabble over which "legislation" is more basic to our way of life - the Constitution and the inalienable rights that it claims we individuals possess, or the various new pieces of legislation, like the Authorization of Military Force, which have become part of the nation's legal code since Nine Eleven.

And a bit of the:
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

Recommendations

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

Once again, you CANNOT recall federal elected officials. TheWraith Dec 2011 #1
cool, what's the federal law that says you cannot recall them? limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #2
the US constitution says senators are elected for a 6 year term. no recall provision and vacancies msongs Dec 2011 #5
In that case, the Senators should be friggin' impeached! truedelphi Dec 2011 #9
There's NO indefinite detention by the military of American citizens living in The USA in that bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #13
I beg to disagree. And so does the ACLU. truedelphi Dec 2011 #20
btw i just checked the constitution and it is silent on the question of recalls. limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #10
Here are a couple of things that come to mind regarding 'other reasons' in The Senate Tx4obama Dec 2011 #12
if the recall vote passes, the Senators will resign if they have any integrity. limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #14
What do you mean 'if the recall vote passes' ? Tx4obama Dec 2011 #16
Not sure Montana cares much about Federal law Ter Dec 2011 #3
Thank you... FarPoint Dec 2011 #19
I hope they succeed. We need people who take your oaths seriously. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #4
Even IF they could be recalled (but they can NOT be) looking at the text posted in the OP Tx4obama Dec 2011 #6
Five simple words you might have overlooked - truedelphi Dec 2011 #8
Section 1021 states that NOTHING in that section changes 'current law' Tx4obama Dec 2011 #11
My problem, and that of all those opposing this bill, is that the bill itself truedelphi Dec 2011 #23
And btw, Max Baucus isn't up for reelection until 2014. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #7
would you ever vote for max baucus? limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #15
If the choice was between Baucus (a democrat) and a republican challenger, then .... Tx4obama Dec 2011 #17
didn't he side with the republicans to kill public option health care? not trying to be snarky limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #18
No he did not karynnj Dec 2011 #22
Fascism is fascism - truedelphi Dec 2011 #21
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»People in Montana will re...»Reply #20