Reply #46

In the discussion thread: Military NOT Authorized To Indefinitely Detain US Citizens Under The NDAA [View all]

Response to SunsetDreams (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:37 PM

46. you are ruining...

are hyperspeculation party with the facts...can you please leave DU and let us continue bashing the presidents with non facts...

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

63 replies	Author	Time	Post
Military NOT Authorized To Indefinitely Detain US Citizens Under The NDAA [View all]	SunsetDreams	Dec 2011	OP
K&R. Facts are good...	SidDithers	Dec 2011	#1
No probem,	SunsetDreams	Dec 2011	#27
Required? No. Authorized? Read it again.	gratuitous	Dec 2011	#2
I see no gap, it's unconstitutional.	SunsetDreams	Dec 2011	#7
Just because you (and I) believe it's unconstitutional, doesnt mean they dont do it.	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#15
From what I've read,	boxman15	Dec 2011	#9
The military is not REQUIRED to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#3
"does not extend to citizens of the United States."	SunsetDreams	Dec 2011	#13
You are cherry picking.	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#19
Not cherry picking however you are inserting lines that do not exist	SunsetDreams	Dec 2011	#26
Presidents all interpret the Constitution.	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#32
He already had an American teenager assassinated.	Zhade	Dec 2011	#62
The REQUIREMENT does not extend to U.S, citizens.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#20
Read it one more time . . .	gratuitous	Dec 2011	#28
I read it...	SunsetDreams	Dec 2011	#30
What doesn't exist? From your own post . . .	gratuitous	Dec 2011	#33
you're reading it wrong, or in the wrong context anyway	themadstork	Dec 2011	#36
Thank you, your honor	gratuitous	Dec 2011	#42
This message was self-deleted by its author	themadstork	Dec 2011	#43
actually on another look i was wrong	themadstork	Dec 2011	#53
It wasn't that many years ago that we wouldn't have drawn the distinction	Dreamer Tatum	Dec 2011	#4
Where were all the critics when I was in jail a couple months ago?	RiffRandell	Dec 2011	#5
It	ProSense	Dec 2011	#6
Yet.	FiveGoodMen	Dec 2011	#17
The REQUIREMENT does not extend to U.S. citizens.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#24
So	ProSense	Dec 2011	#45
Thanks for posting this, seems to clarify much concern about NDAA. n/t	teddy51	Dec 2011	#8
It does not say anything about what the President's current authority is. It meary states that he	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#12
The problem with that is, it will depend on the President of the day. But I see	teddy51	Dec 2011	#14
So it would be important to know what current law is. Bush believes current law	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#38
My pleasure :)	SunsetDreams	Dec 2011	#29
Aw, gee. No more hot-headed outrage over something that didn't happen. nt	MADem	Dec 2011	#10
Very clever wording, but I think this is horrible.	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#11
I don't think so, cause I think that Senator Feinstein's amendment address's that. n/t	teddy51	Dec 2011	#16
Where can I find the Feinstein amendment? nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#21
Here ------------>	teddy51	Dec 2011	#23
Both Feinstein amendments failed.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#31
The third Feinstein amendment passed 99 - 1	karynnj	Dec 2011	#35
And it is meaningless. Only courts can construe the law...	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#47
All her amendment did was clarify that existing law stands.	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#37
Lets face it, this country has not been heading a positive direction for many years.	teddy51	Dec 2011	#39
The text you quote does not say the military is not authorized to indefinitely detain US citizens	EFerrari	Dec 2011	#18
In that case, I left you and anyone else a link to the actual bill :)	SunsetDreams	Dec 2011	#25
Essentially this just got tossed to the courts to decide individual cases	librechik	Dec 2011	#22
I dont think so. I believe this has already been tested in the courts.	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#34
After more research I found that the Padilla case is still in the court system	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#40
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. (nt)	Robb	Dec 2011	#44
Thanks for that. It appears that habeas corpus is alive and well. nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#51
yes, they've been keeping it vague and opaque, which is so worrisome	librechik	Dec 2011	#49
The Fourth Circuit's decision still stands. U.S. citizens	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#56
Doesnt Hamdi v. Rumsfeld reestablish habeas corpus? nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#61
No one likes an I-told-you-so.	Robb	Dec 2011	#41
you are ruining...	dennis4868	Dec 2011	#46
You are giving your own and wrong interpretation.	former9thward	Dec 2011	#48
The article you're using says	sufrommich	Dec 2011	#52
Try the ACLU	former9thward	Dec 2011	#54
the correct reading, thx	themadstork	Dec 2011	#57
+1000 I have been posting	joshguitar	Dec 2011	#60
Well that makes it just peachy keen then...	SomethingFishy	Dec 2011	#50
you're not even quoting from the section that discusses authorization	themadstork	Dec 2011	#55
+1000 nt	joshguitar	Dec 2011	#59
and this is why unrec needs to be brought back.	provis99	Dec 2011	#58
The bill also includes provisions relating to the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.	freshwest	Jan 2012	#63

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.