Latest Breaking News

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)

163. Not when it's argued AUMF allows indefinite detention, and summary execution, of American citizens.

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:24 AM

Jan 2012

Remember when we blew up the American overseas with a drone? No trial, no arrest. Dead, along with his kid. The justification, shouted loudly in this forum, was that AUMF trumps the Constitution.

It would have been the simplest thing in the world for the President to say that AUMF does NOT trump the Constitutional rights of Americans, but he did not, and the drone killing shows why. He is willing, in at least some cases, to take the view that AUMF does trump the Constitution.

While it's good to hear that this administration *will not* detain Americans in contravention of the Constitution, he did not say that it's because that's not authorized.

These vague references to existing law quite deliberately leave the "AUMF means no Bill of Rights if the government calls you a terrorist" door wide open.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

174 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 [View all] xocet Dec 2011 OP

blah blah blah, on with the Police State. ixion Dec 2011 #1

You got it izquierdista Dec 2011 #22

*Change* we can believe in, right? Donnachaidh Dec 2011 #71

Correct. I won't bother emilyg Dec 2011 #73

A signing apology? Fuck you! Fuddnik Jan 2012 #144

blah blah blah, on with the tyranny of those who have no responsibility to protect millions of lives patrice Jan 2012 #146

If you're somehow positing that people with no power (i.e. 'responsibility') are capable of tyranny, ixion Jan 2012 #147

False dichotomy/zero-sum = with power:"with no power". Your self-characterization is somewhat in patrice Jan 2012 #154

power as motive? Hardly. I post to express my concern over the loss of civil liberties. ixion Jan 2012 #157

If nothing else LanternWaste Jan 2012 #169

thanks Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #2

Thanks for posting this. demosincebirth Dec 2011 #3

This part: jaxx Dec 2011 #4

Agree, but future presidents may not be so thoughtful. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #7

Doesn't this have to be renewed annually? Ruby the Liberal Dec 2011 #80

"we are only continuing to enforce laws already on the books" quakerboy Jan 2012 #131

Don't believe it does. Authorizations acts primarily couple with Appropriations laws to allocate 24601 Jan 2012 #143

"my administration" JDPriestly Dec 2011 #13

Exactly right. colorado_ufo Dec 2011 #67

Why detain, if he can just kill them without trial? Does he say anything about Fool Count Dec 2011 #70

That comment made me LOL. jaxx Dec 2011 #104

well said Charlemagne Dec 2011 #105

Bingo. And the logic that AUMF trumps constitutional rights is THE SAME. DirkGently Jan 2012 #164

This message was self-deleted by its author DirkGently Jan 2012 #165

well, bless his heart Donnachaidh Dec 2011 #72

Yeah, and once upon a time he said he'd veto this bill. dflprincess Dec 2011 #93

Watch what they do, not what they say. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #101

Exactly. dflprincess Jan 2012 #116

Obama said he'd veto the bill IF the language was not changed, and Tx4obama Jan 2012 #132

The ACLU remains against this bill dflprincess Jan 2012 #162

I find this terribly disturbing. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #5

"existing court interpretations that allow the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens" boppers Dec 2011 #12

Ssh. Hamdi is inconvenient to the narrative. Robb Dec 2011 #24

I dont find these words very reassuring. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #41

Padilla got his due process, trial, and sentence. boppers Dec 2011 #94

What framework? He was still arrested and detained illegally. That still needs to be rhett o rick Dec 2011 #98

Okay, lets discuss this. boppers Dec 2011 #102

I am sorry but your point is lost on me. Are you suggesting that what happened to Padilla rhett o rick Jan 2012 #151

So you are ok with the courts decision that our liberty is protected by rhett o rick Jan 2012 #152

In hamdi v. rumsfeld the court required due process. That's why Bush admin set up the tribunals. limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #74

Then, the point being made needs to reflect that. boppers Dec 2011 #88

what should they call it then? limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #103

Damn, well stated Charlemagne Jan 2012 #107

Well put. boppers Jan 2012 #120

In Hamdi the court said it was ok to skip due process if ok via an rhett o rick Jan 2012 #161

Cannot agree with the "Bravo" part. truedelphi Dec 2011 #18

I understand. It is a small victory. At least he says he wont arrest and detain American citizens rhett o rick Dec 2011 #42

"At least" doesn't mean anything. "At least" is forever - unless there is a chance in peacetalksforall Dec 2011 #84

I agree it isnt much. But unlike a lot of other things, he did speak out. Whether he sticks to it rhett o rick Dec 2011 #100

Veto discocrisco01 Dec 2011 #6

Agree. But his own party was against him. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #8

I know. This is not the bill Obama would have written. Shameful that he didn't have gateley Dec 2011 #60

Just think with a GOP majority what the next bill will look like. freshwest Jan 2012 #109

+ 1. n/t truedelphi Dec 2011 #19

Its less than a year till the elections so do you really think it wise to make it easier for the GOP cstanleytech Dec 2011 #21

So by your reasoning, we elect A Democat to serve as the President but he must truedelphi Dec 2011 #25

You raise an excellent point RC Dec 2011 #36

If so many democrats in the senate and congress hadnt supported it he probably could have. cstanleytech Dec 2011 #40

That is why the President has veto power over Congress. RC Dec 2011 #45

Not an infinite version though as cstanleytech Dec 2011 #51

So a Congress of right leaning (D)'s & (R)'s does not scare you? RC Dec 2011 #54

No it doesnt scare me......concern, yes but hopefully we can fix the problem eventually. cstanleytech Dec 2011 #82

Please see comment #133 n/t Tx4obama Jan 2012 #134

Its an issue of pragmatism or can you honestly say that if he had vetoed it that cstanleytech Dec 2011 #37

The problem with your argument is that truedelphi Dec 2011 #56

Well your entitled to that opinion of course however I dont believe cstanleytech Jan 2012 #113

No, they are hopelessly idealistic and everything is a battle to the brink treestar Dec 2011 #106

Ive seen Op-Eds on Faux News Charlemagne Jan 2012 #108

He took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution dflprincess Jan 2012 #118

Sadly we live in an age of pragmatic politicans, though truedelphi Jan 2012 #121

And he is doing so because SCOTUS so far has cstanleytech Jan 2012 #125

You are right. We have to deal with the reality of the situation. nt gateley Dec 2011 #62

And by going along with it, they will not run ridiculously false ads against the president? quakerboy Jan 2012 #138

For many people, personal and ethical convictions outweigh political conveniences LanternWaste Jan 2012 #170

Integrity..........in politics? Since when? cstanleytech Jan 2012 #173

Ah, but you're forgetting this important point ... Tx4obama Jan 2012 #133

Expediency over constitution - got it. TBF Jan 2012 #140

By signing it, Obama goes along with it. RC Jan 2012 #141

ask Anwar al -Awlaki's 16 year old (& a US citizen) son,murdered in separate drone attack on Obama's stockholmer Dec 2011 #9

Just giving the man what he wants. Robb Dec 2011 #26

That young man's death resonates with me the same way truedelphi Dec 2011 #27

I think perhaps some research is in order so that you'll have the facts. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #47

By that logic, my very good friend in the seventies, KW, truedelphi Dec 2011 #53

I was suggesting that YOU go and do some research. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #57

research says...... extrajudicial murder stockholmer Dec 2011 #63

My real name Charlemagne Jan 2012 #110

You say: truedelphi Jan 2012 #122

Anwar al -Awlaki's 16 year old son was NOT the target of that drone, A TERRORIST WAS Tx4obama Dec 2011 #31

Don't you just love the lengths the Obama excusers go to justify our atrocities? RC Dec 2011 #38

Yes, he did know they were his father's terrorists buddies Tx4obama Dec 2011 #46

What are WE doing "fighting terrorism" in other countries? If you look at the history, the RC Dec 2011 #52

Standing Ovation OKDem08 Jan 2012 #129

RC makes a good point Charlemagne Jan 2012 #112

The 16 year old son was NOT assassinated and he was NOT the target of the drone. Tx4obama Jan 2012 #117

but his dad was Charlemagne Jan 2012 #119

His dad was also posting video online advocating for jihad if I recall cstanleytech Jan 2012 #126

"I dont see him turning himself in if he was working with bin ladens people, do you?" Charlemagne Jan 2012 #128

Well feel free to update us when the SCOTUS cstanleytech Jan 2012 #130

"do not HANG AROUND with al Qaeda terrorists!" unless of course they are Libyan 'freedom fighters' stockholmer Dec 2011 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Dec 2011 #85

Sorry, in my opinion, your statement is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to address it. n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #86

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Dec 2011 #90

He never got a trial Charlemagne Jan 2012 #111

I think it sounds reasonable and prudent OKNancy Dec 2011 #10

to put trust in any politician is a mistake bowens43 Dec 2011 #14

I feel the same way. And politicians are more "politicians" than truedelphi Dec 2011 #23

Eliminating Posse Comitatus and Habeus Corpus is prudent and reasonable? Uhm, no, it isn't. ixion Dec 2011 #15

Over and over again, Obama shows us that he is a truedelphi Dec 2011 #28

Agreed....and once you give "it" up you're not gonna get it back. Magoo48 Dec 2011 #55

Dateline, 2008 Charlemagne Jan 2012 #114

Well then, you will agree to be the first when he, or another President, do not? webDude Dec 2011 #16

LOL - yes I'm a super-duper agent here to OKNancy Dec 2011 #20

The signing statement is posturing. The legislation is what matters. ixion Dec 2011 #32

Not true. Igel Dec 2011 #69

Yes, it true, I'm afraid. ixion Dec 2011 #83

Well done. I anticipate repubs in congress will soon have their knickers all in a twist over this. lamp_shade Dec 2011 #11

The truly horrifying question about our democracy Gringostan Dec 2011 #17

You Are N-A-I-L-I-N-G truedelphi Dec 2011 #30

so he has reservations because of restrictions on his options magical thyme Dec 2011 #29

What about past administrations? boppers Dec 2011 #35

They didnt always say no, check out Executive Order 9066 cstanleytech Dec 2011 #49

Stare decisis. boppers Dec 2011 #99

Its even harder to defend cstanleytech Jan 2012 #127

As predicted the signing contests restrictions on the executive branch. Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #33

This: FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #34

Obama signed this unconstitutional dreck, which is evidence he needs to be primaried. RC Dec 2011 #43

Yup. Looks like a few folks here didn't bother to read the whole thing. lamp_shade Dec 2011 #44

So he signs our warrants Charlemagne Dec 2011 #61

sounds like extortion limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #68

"seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Admin" stockholmer Dec 2011 #75

"seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Admin" Charlemagne Dec 2011 #79

Obama ur not JFK, Clinton, FDR or anything of the above.... BenYehuda Dec 2011 #39

None of them have been perfect sadly. cstanleytech Dec 2011 #48

A signing statement? A friggin signing statement? James48 Dec 2011 #50

as long as he can still blow up middle eastern people with drones, he is good..... IamK Dec 2011 #58

Of COURSE he voted for it. He has to do what his masters on Wall Street tell him to do. lib2DaBone Dec 2011 #59

Should have been vetoed - TBF Dec 2011 #65

This is not what I voted for Pavlo Dec 2011 #76

I just said I disagreed with passing this legislation in it's present form - TBF Dec 2011 #81

Me either. joshcryer Dec 2011 #95

It's far deeper than one president - TBF Dec 2011 #96

I was genuinely pissed that he threatened the veto and then pulled back. joshcryer Dec 2011 #97

Please see comment #133 n/t Tx4obama Jan 2012 #135

wait till the spring when the real protests begin... Javaman Dec 2011 #66

where this is really gonna kick the US citizens in the teeth is under Jeb Bush in 2017 (or 2013, if stockholmer Dec 2011 #78

were the Charlemagne Dec 2011 #77

Click the link below if you want to read a GREAT article regarding Obama's signing statement & bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #87

So he won't detain and torture Americans but other administrations might, ahhh OK, sure. just1voice Dec 2011 #89

BUT RON PAUL SAYS HE'S ANTI WAR. joshcryer Dec 2011 #91

Should have been veto'd but had no doubt it wouldn't. Obama has governed the same as the harun Dec 2011 #92

Please see comment #133 on the current thread. Tx4obama Jan 2012 #136

"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it." RUMMYisFROSTED Jan 2012 #115

Weaselly indeed Charlemagne Jan 2012 #123

To veto, or not to veto the appropriation bill funding our national defense cheapdate Jan 2012 #124

that's one of the greatest OPPORTUNITIES handed to the president in decades... mike_c Jan 2012 #149

Good point... cheapdate Jan 2012 #153

And on a minor note. fasttense Jan 2012 #137

Health care provisions are in Title VII of the bill. cheapdate Jan 2012 #155

I don't see references to Sec 1031 & 1032 fredamae Jan 2012 #139

I think they got renumbered in the final version. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #142

Ahh, Thanks..That could be it as the fredamae Jan 2012 #145

lame.... mike_c Jan 2012 #148

THIS is what supposedly makes it okay? He's griping it doesn't give ENOUGH power to the Executive. DirkGently Jan 2012 #150

Yes but not in the same way Bush wanted more powers. cstanleytech Jan 2012 #156

Nothing wrong with the sentiment. But he never says the law doesn't permit indefinite detention DirkGently Jan 2012 #159

I thought he addressed that in the part where he said cstanleytech Jan 2012 #160

Not when it's argued AUMF allows indefinite detention, and summary execution, of American citizens. DirkGently Jan 2012 #163

Perhaps I am mistaken will you quote please where it says in the AUMF cstanleytech Jan 2012 #166

REALLY? humbled_opinion Jan 2012 #158

Odd. There's nothing humble about your ability to predict "reality". patrice Jan 2012 #167

Do you deny that humbled_opinion Jan 2012 #168

He is a CONSTITUtional Lawyer!!! lovuian Jan 2012 #171

Come up to speed. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #172

Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #174