HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » Three myths about the det...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 08:50 AM

Three myths about the detention bill

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/


6 replies, 1942 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

Response to 4dsc (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 08:57 AM

1. The argument is in regard to detention of US citizens

And the English language here is also clear...it isn't permissible. Or is it? Considering that you can find countless articles claiming careful, thorough dissection of the language, reaching totally opposite conclusions, tells me only one thing...someone is going to have to be a test case before the SCOTUS.

Any volunteers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 09:03 AM

3. That is Myth #3 in Greenfield's article linked in the OP. I think he deals with convincingly. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 09:08 AM

4. I updated my post while you were responding.

I don't think the argument is made "convincingly." It is made well, but it is still based upon a person's interpretation of the vagueries in the language. Others interpret the language differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 08:59 AM

2. Not to mention that this law raping the U.S. Constitution is even more dangerous...

 

.. should we ever get a John McCain, Michele Bachmann, or any one of many Neocon swine in office.

This law is bad bad bad, any way you look at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 09:26 AM

5. It is dangerous logic to call the codifying of the 'war' on 'terror' a myth, no matter how well

 

one might make an argument for such a state.

And given the history of how these Laws of Abstract and Endless War have been used, it's a foolish argument to try and make.

The long and the short of it are that these so-called 'wars' are being used and a pretext for the erosion of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:21 AM

6. but there is an exception for U.S. citizens....

that is very clear from the language of the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread