Reply #51

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

Response to Robb (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:49 PM

rhett o rick (26,769 posts)

51. Thanks for that. It appears that habeas corpus is alive and well. nm

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.