HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Jonathan Turley is a Liar...

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:58 PM

Jonathan Turley is a Liar! Thanks to DU, I Caught The Fucker!

Now according to today's column by Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, the NDAA provides for indefinite imprisonment of US citizens without judicial supervision or recourse:

Turley writes:

"Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights."

Now, as a DU reader, I know that the NDAA absolutely does not allow indefinite imprisonment of US citizens without judicial supervision or recourse. I read it several times a day. Yet, that rat bastard Turley can't keep from lying about it!!!

"The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial."

Thank goodness I know the real story. Clearly, Turley is trying to thwart the War On Terra. People like him should be in jail. Indefinitely.

87 replies, 11648 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 87 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jonathan Turley is a Liar! Thanks to DU, I Caught The Fucker! (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 OP
provis99 Dec 2011 #1
limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #2
rhett o rick Dec 2011 #65
Zalatix Dec 2011 #82
Solly Mack Dec 2011 #3
Octafish Dec 2011 #4
DeSwiss Dec 2011 #5
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #42
TBF Dec 2011 #54
struggle4progress Dec 2011 #57
On the Road Dec 2011 #59
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #81
On the Road Dec 2011 #83
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #86
On the Road Dec 2011 #87
suffragette Dec 2011 #77
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #6
Cronus Protagonist Dec 2011 #7
TheDebbieDee Dec 2011 #10
Demstud Dec 2011 #73
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #13
rustydog Dec 2011 #79
frylock Dec 2011 #8
ProSense Dec 2011 #9
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #12
ProSense Dec 2011 #14
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #15
ProSense Dec 2011 #16
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #17
ProSense Dec 2011 #18
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #19
ProSense Dec 2011 #20
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #23
ProSense Dec 2011 #26
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #28
ProSense Dec 2011 #31
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #34
xocet Dec 2011 #75
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #29
TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #33
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #46
rhett o rick Dec 2011 #62
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #43
2banon Dec 2011 #27
rhett o rick Dec 2011 #61
boppers Dec 2011 #36
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #38
boppers Dec 2011 #41
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #45
rhett o rick Dec 2011 #63
boppers Dec 2011 #70
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #72
Jim_Shorts Dec 2011 #76
WCGreen Dec 2011 #51
Union Scribe Dec 2011 #25
lunatica Dec 2011 #49
Major Nikon Dec 2011 #85
struggle4progress Dec 2011 #35
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #39
struggle4progress Dec 2011 #52
TBF Dec 2011 #64
xchrom Dec 2011 #11
grantcart Dec 2011 #21
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #30
EFerrari Dec 2011 #44
Zorra Dec 2011 #22
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #24
G_j Dec 2011 #32
AzDar Dec 2011 #37
hfojvt Dec 2011 #40
Major Nikon Dec 2011 #84
blackspade Dec 2011 #47
lunatica Dec 2011 #48
Autumn Dec 2011 #50
JEB Dec 2011 #53
a2liberal Dec 2011 #55
harmonicon Dec 2011 #56
hootinholler Dec 2011 #58
TBF Dec 2011 #66
rhett o rick Dec 2011 #67
ohwinston Dec 2011 #60
rhett o rick Dec 2011 #68
saras Dec 2011 #69
MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #71
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #74
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #78
alp227 Dec 2011 #80

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:05 PM

1. yeah, thank Jeebus for the Obama supporters setting us all right, eh?

 

Don't look at the Act itself! don't look at the Act itself! don't look at the man behind the curtain!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:08 PM

2. thought you were serious for a minute

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:19 PM

65. I did too. He should be careful doing that to an old man that's already on the edge. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 11:03 PM

82. And THAT is why I give away my jokes

 

by putting (SATIRE!!) in the thread title.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:10 PM

3. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:23 PM

4. It's just what the USA PATRIOT Act ordered.

More business for Halliburton, too. Nice racket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:46 PM

5. K&R

In a insightful flash, it came to me why this provision was added to the defense appropriations bill:

When the European markets begin to cascade into oblivion -- as a result of the MF straw that has broken the EU camel's back -- it will eventually reach these shores because of the FED's prior $15 trillion ''investments'' in trying to prop up this global Ponzi Scheme they've been running all these years, and then the cat will be totally out of the bag.

So this US citizen detainment and loss of due process provision in the defense bill is one way to have a form of martial law without actually having to declare it.

Why would they do that? Because if Obama declares martial law, total upheaval and possibly civil war will be the result. But if he can tamp down dissent and ''detain'' the worst of the trouble-makers, they might just buy themselves some time.

- Not that more time will matter. This shit's coming down and taking the whole rotten system with it. And real soon too.....

''Rome’s ruling class was unable to restrain its rapacity, even in its own ultimate interest. Adams saw what liberals are rarely willing to admit—namely, that a system based on corrupt practice cannot be saved merely by tinkering with it.''

'The Economics of Human Energy' in Brooks Adams, Ezra Pound, and Robert Theobald - by John Whiting, London University - http://www.whitings-writings.com/diatribes/ehe03.htm


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:17 AM

42. Finally, here is the text Turley is referring to:

Section 1031:

Subtitle D–Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/

And here is the part on which those who think nothing is wrong rely in justifying Obama's signing the bill:

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Now, here is the problem: what is the "existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, etc."?

I gather that the answer to that question is "Nobody really knows."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29

Please correct me if I am wrong. I so hope I am wrong. Turley is probably right in that it appears that the law on this is unclear, and unfortunately will probably be decided, if ever, in a time of great upheaval and emotional distress.

Obama should not sign this law. This matter is not urgent enough to justify signing a law that is so ambiguous and likely to lead to huge problems for the entire nation in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:15 AM

54. Turley is correct - Obama should veto this bill.

It's a sad day when Ron Paul is the only one making sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:29 AM

57. That's out of date. I just looked at the conference report in the Cong Record beginning at H8356.

The bill was modified in conference. Here's the current Sec 1031:

SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.
(a) BRIEFINGS REQUIRED.—Beginning not later than March 1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense
committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving special operations forces.
(b) ELEMENTS.—Each briefing under subsection
(a) shall include each of the following:
(1) A global update on activity within each geographic combatant command.
(2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including limitations.
(3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.
(4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:40 PM

59. Thank You, JDP

Always like to see the original language. That clarifies the issue tremendously.

However, I thought the claim was that this statute expanded the government's ability to imprison citizens. How does a sentence saying "nothing...shall affect existing law or authorities" constitute a change of any kind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to On the Road (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 10:54 PM

81. Can you explain the existing law or authorities on the topic of unlimited detention

for American citizens or lawful residents found by the president to be terrorists?

I don't think that law is clear at all, hence the absence of clarity in the text of the proposed statute. Seems clearly unclear to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #81)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:54 AM

83. I'm Sure It *Is* Unclear

And I don't have the knowledge to explain it. What I was focusing on is the claim that's being bandied about that the law changes the situation when all the language states that it does not change it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to On the Road (Reply #83)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:37 PM

86. The existing law should be changed as I understand it. Codifying existing law

is really, really vague and can encourage courts to have a hayday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #86)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:46 PM

87. OK -- Fair Enough. Maybe it Should be Clarifying

But as I understand, the vocal proponents of "Obama supports illegal denention US citizens!" seem to claiming that the law changes existing law.

Faulting Obama for a signing a bill (written by Congress) that neglects to make a change the critic feels is necessary is hardly the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:40 PM

77. Good point. Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch said much the same.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama?CMP=twt_gu

Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed. "The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:47 PM

6. it's TALLIBURTON!!!11 you now must go straight to prison11!

yeah, can I wake up now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:01 AM

7. ummm it does allow indefinite imprisonment of US citizens

If you don't mind that the armed forces is now policing US citizens in direct violation of posse comitatus, and an appointed judge making the decision to fuck you up for life, fine, but I do care about that, so it's a fine needle you're picking with there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronus Protagonist (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:11 AM

10. How and where are the Armed Forces policing US citizens?

Do you have a link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:30 PM

73. You're being a bit too literal

Arrests and investigations would be carried out by non-military domestic agencies (like the FBI for example) but would be turned over to the actual military for imprisonment. Just like the many terrorist arrests we've had domestically over the last decade. So the military is definitely directly involved and deciding on the fate of terrorist suspects, but not doing the work entirely on their own as a completely independent law enforcement branch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronus Protagonist (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:20 AM

13. Sorry, I was being sarcastic, of course you're right.

Too dry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronus Protagonist (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:34 PM

79. My guess is once they realize you are a citizen you will be released

but the main point is, Posse comitatus and the fact all the military has to say is, I didn't know he was an American Citizen! He looked Muslim!
As soon as we had proof he was a true-blood Amurikan Citizen (took two years) we released him from enhanced interrogation central.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:03 AM

8. kickeroo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:05 AM

9. Turley: This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign

This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate. He also noted that the Patriot Act provisions were long advocated before 9-11, which was used as an opportunity to expand police powers. As discussed in a prior column, Obama has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the United States and has convinced many liberals to fight for an Administration that blocked torture prosecutions, expanded warrantless surveillance, continued military tribunals, killed Americans on the sole authority of the President, and other core violations of civil liberties.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/

Edvidently, Turley sees Ron Paul as the next FDR!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:19 AM

12. Isn't it pathetic that Ron Paul is in favor of civil rights?

I don't recall having dropped acid recently... but it kind of feels that way sometimes...

P.S. - Where does Turley say that Paul's the next FDR? I'm sure that it's there, if you say it is. But I can't seem to find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:23 AM

14. Yeah,

"Isn't it pathetic that Ron Paul is in favor of civil rights?"

...he's wants to prove it by repealing the civil rights act!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:25 AM

15. So what's your point?

That it's OK to imprison people indefinitely with zero judicial oversight because Ron Paul's against it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:26 AM

16. No

"That it's OK to imprison people indefinitely with zero judicial oversight because Ron Paul's against it?"

...it's that Ron Paul sucks and Turley has gone off the deep end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:28 AM

17. So you're OK with indefinite imprisonment of US citizens with zero judicial recourse?

Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:29 AM

18. No

"So you're OK with indefinite imprisonment of US citizens with zero judicial recourse?"

Are you OK with hyperbole and fear mongering?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:31 AM

19. So are you claiming that the NDAA does not authorize indefinite imprisonment of US citizens

with zero judicial oversight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:33 AM

20. Here

"So are you claiming that the NDAA does not authorize indefinite imprisonment of US citizens

with zero judicial oversight?"

...decide for yourself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100225479

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:40 AM

23. It's not a *requirement*, but it's an *option*. So I ask again

are you claiming that the NDAA does not authorize indefinite imprisonment of US citizens?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:46 AM

26. Again

"So I ask again
are you claiming that the NDAA does not authorize indefinite imprisonment of US citizens?"

...decide for yourself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=25600

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:59 AM

28. You simply haven't answered the question.

Are you afraid to answer the question? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Unless you're ashamed of your position, then evasion might seem a better path to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #28)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:04 AM

31. No

You simply haven't answered the question.

Are you afraid to answer the question? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Unless you're ashamed of your position, then evasion might seem a better path to you.

...I'm not, but my opinion is irrelevant to your interpretation of what you read. My opinion is in a number of threads on the subject.

You have been given the language in the bill, make your own determination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:10 AM

34. I don't see a "yes" or "no" answer. Unless

you can answer directly, I'll just have to assume that you are ashamed of your position and won't reveal it. DU readers can decide for themselves where you stand.

The verbiage that you link to in no way precludes endless imprisonment with zero judicial oversight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #28)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:09 PM

75. If the 34 post-per-day average of your debate partner is to be maintained, ...

you should not expect for your question to be addressed with anything resembling a thoughtful post.


As Omar Khayyam might have written were he alive today:

"The Typing Finger spins; and, having spun,
Types on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to delete half a Line ...."

(http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/14196)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #26)


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:07 AM

33. Yup, says it isn't a requirement and then in another sub-section it punts it back to

whatever the President decides.

It also obviously enshrines unconstitutional indefinite detention into law for non-citizens/legal residents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:00 AM

46. You don't understand what 'requirement' means in legispeak.

 

Essentially it means that the new language supercedes the old. Anything that is not a 'requirement' in the new legislation defaults to extant law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:15 PM

62. Maybe it doesnt matter as long as the Pres is a Democrat. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:24 AM

43. I posted the actual text that is

being questioned.

It is not reassuring. Looking at the text of the bill and the state of the law on the issue, I think Obama is wrong in signing it -- seriously, grievously wrong.

This law could mean a lot of bad things for a lot of people including you, Pro Sense, and anyone else who is active politically, at some time in the future.

Having read the provision that is questioned and having tried to understand the current law on the issue of the detention of American nationals and legal residents if deemed by the president to be linked to Al Qaeda (it appears to be very unclear as to just what the law is), this is a really serious matter.

Knee-jerk support of the president is foolish in this situation.

The language that is supposed to make the National Defense Authorization Act acceptable is just meaningless nonsense from what I can tell -- just so much mumbo-jumbo to make people who can't understand that the current state of the law if pretty much undecided feel foolishly, giddily good when they should feel pretty depressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:57 AM

27. forget about Ron Paul, Suddenly Turley has gone off the deep end, did you view Turley in this light

when he nailed Bush, Cheney and Gonzalez for countless occasions of similar egregious and unconstitutional matters? Just wondering.. Did you see that he was lacking in perspective, acumen or reason during the Bush/Cheney regime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:14 PM

61. But, but, but this president is a Democrat. How could you even think to question a Democrat?

Some people support Obama regardless of what he does. More power to them. However, I dont like it when they use ridicule to try to stifle discussion. I wouldnt think a Democrat would favor blind allegiance.

This post is not intended to attack anyone, only to explain my disappointment that some try to stifle honest discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:19 AM

36. "zero judicial oversight"

You keep saying those words. They do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

No bill has been proposed that has zero judicial oversight. Perhaps it's the "zero" hyperbole that is tripping you up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:22 AM

38. So what role does Obama agree that the courts have

If Obama decides to throw someone in jail forever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:50 AM

41. Already established in Hamdi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

A impartial judge or panel looks at the case (that would not be "zero" ). The bill is simply codifying the current system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:25 AM

45. "The plurality held that judges need not be involved in reviewing these cases, ...

rather only an impartial decision maker was required."

(From your link)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:18 PM

63. Thank you. That's an important point. Seems to me that means the president

can arrest and detain an American citizen "if an impartial decision maker" agrees. I feel soo much better. (I can be sarcastic too)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:27 PM

70. .00000001% is not zero eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:25 PM

72. Actually. it is.

It's not 0.00000000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:26 PM

76. How quaint, lets just set in stone the practices of George W

I guess Obama would also like to be "The Decider"

Here is the clip of Levin telling us just what The Decider wants:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:29 AM

51. I believe that was his son, the jr senator from KY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:44 AM

25. Indeed.

I always feel like I need a shower when I see a few Republicans/Libertarians who have more ethical stances on something like this. Can no one on our side look at the bedfellows they're keeping and realize how fucked up this all is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:19 AM

49. Don't fall for the our side just doesn't see how bad they are manipulation

If you and I can see it, they can certainly see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:28 AM

85. Ron Paul is in favor of his own version of what he calls "civil rights"

Ron Paul would overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in it's entirety given the chance. However, he would also overturn the so-called Patriot Act. So while Ron Paul/Rand Paul aren't really civil libertarians, there are some civil liberties issues that they are head and shoulders above most Democrats in congress. Turley acknowleges that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:14 AM

35. Turley is a libertarian and evidently a Paulite:

The libertarian FFF seems to put some effort into promoting Turley, to judge from material at their website

October 3, 2007 at 4:33 pm
... I tend to have a fair dose of libertarian feelings ...
http://jonathanturley.org/about/

Then, there's Turley's continuing concern that wacko Paul just isn't getting a fair shake:

Is The Media Actively Erasing Ron Paul From Election Coverage?
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/16/is-the-media-actively-erasing-ron-paul-from-election-coverage/

Ron Paul Get 90 Seconds in 90 Minute Debate
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/14/ron-paul-get-90-seconds-in-90-minute-debate/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:25 AM

39. He endorses Paul in exactly zero of those links.

Does the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis mean that the ACLU *are* Nazis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:39 AM

52. Turley clearly likes Paul better than any other candidate. They share an anti-regulatory agenda,

which is probably why Paul suggested Turley for Supreme Court Justice (9 April 2010 on Larry King) -- a fact Turley mentions from time to time. The links, that I provided, show Turley complaining repeatedly about lack of media coverage for Paul, further evidence of Turley's support for Paul

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:18 PM

64. lolol

Jonathan Turley may be a lot of things, but Paulite is not one of them ...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:13 AM

11. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:35 AM

21. Not the first time DU has nailed the fucker



I think this post from 09 captured DU's overview of Turley rather well



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8351402


Median Democrat (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-17-09 12:04 PM
Original message
Jonathan Turley - An Overrated, Overquoted One Trick Pro-Impeachment Pony?
Edited on Fri Apr-17-09 12:04 PM by Median Democrat
Is there any President over the past three administrations that Jonathan Turley has not claimed was engaging in illegal acts, and that he did not want to impeach? Turley testified in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which I think completely destroy his credibility.

I do think that the impeachment of Bush would have been completely justified, but now we have Turley getting an amazing amount of air time to essentially argue that President Obama is breaking the law.

My question is why shouldn't I dismiss Jonathan Turley as a kook, particularly after he testified in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

Has Jonathan Turley won any trials or significant cases? Has he written any influential books? Has he ever served as an appellate court judge and authored any notable opinions?

My point is what makes Professor Turley anything more than a media whore and a one trick pony who is willing to argue that the President is breaking the law, and can be impeached for not doing X?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:02 AM

30. Nope. Looks like Turley is consistant...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:36 AM

44. And let's not be distracted by the fact he was right on each occassion.

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:40 AM

22. occupy nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:42 AM

24. The greatest compliment! Thanks you! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:05 AM

32. LOL!

Thanks for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:19 AM

37. Kick...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:42 AM

40. does section 1031 really follow section 1032?

And Turley has not quoted 1031 there. What exactly does it say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:21 AM

84. He's not saying 1031 follows sequentially from 1032

What he's saying is that language in 1032 was inserted as a way to placate civil libertarians who are concerned about 1031, but that language does not exempt American citizens from the indefinite detention provisions of 1031. In other words, much of the language in the bill is very misleading and no exemption for American citizens applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:15 AM

47. This law is a travisty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:17 AM

48. So can we now accept that the lines in the sand have been drawn?

The 99% have always scared the shit out of the 1%. Who says the government hasn't been bought by the 1%?

Anybody...?

Anybody...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:23 AM

50. Not a line in the sand

more like a great wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:13 AM

53. I dread to imagine

the ways this law will be used by a president Huckabee, Gingrich, or Jeb Bush, let alone President Obama. The USA is acting like a broken state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:16 AM

55. Umm, he's right

I know nothing about this guy so maybe he's despicable and what not, but he's right in this point. The amendment was completely meaningless for the exact reasons he says, despite what some people here (who believe Democrats can do no wrong) may desperately want to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:17 AM

56. Laws, schmaws has been the official policy for many years now.

It amazes me that people get up in arms about one bill or another, since it's been demonstrated many times that laws will simply be ignored when it's the president's wont. Execute some American citizens? Sure, no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:56 AM

58. All I know for sure is that any law Bernie and Al vote against

Is very likely to be bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:19 PM

66. Especially if the ACLU is also opposed -

that is what clinched it for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:20 PM

67. Right on. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 02:00 PM

60. Representative Nadler explained it in floor debate.

Nadler, a member of House Judiciary, detailed the language and showed conclusively that the "fix" was window dressing.
As written and passed the original intent of Senators Levin and McCain remain intact. Incidentally, if MannyGoldstein has
made a tongue in cheek comment too sophisticated for everyone to understand then why doesn't he run for Congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ohwinston (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:21 PM

68. Here, here. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:50 PM

69. Hoist by your own petard.

 

"Now, as a DU reader, I know that the NDAA absolutely does not allow indefinite imprisonment of US citizens... "

Yes, it does. It's quite clear and unequivocal. It doesn't REQUIRE it but it DOES allow it. In exactly the same two quotes floating all over DU.

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. "

The second part, "without judicial supervision or recourse" - you just made that up and stuck it on later. It's not been a serious part of the argument for anyone else. You made it up to replace "without trial in federal courts", which is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saras (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:17 PM

71. What about Habeas Corpus?

Or any contact with the judiciary whatsoever? How is that guaranteed by the NDAA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 06:52 PM

74. Kick for truth.

 

Rec for justice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:57 PM

78. thank you..it's a great thing that here on DU we always have people who can explain why we did not

Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)

hear what we heard, we did not read what we read and we did not see what we saw. Where would we be without people to set us right on these matters? - and also to expose liars, scam artist and terror supporters like Senators Carl Levin, Al Franken and Bernie Sanders and now this so-called Jonathan Constitutionall Schola, Jonathan Turley.



.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:32 PM

80. So why does this guy still get airtime on Countdown with Keith Olbermann?

And I read his blog reasonably, generally he's a reasonable pro-civil liberties voice. But people make mistakes. I wonder if Turley had any political motivation for this. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, isn't heavily partisan, as he's criticized both the Bush and Obama admins from a CL viewpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread