Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Jonathan Turley is a Liar! Thanks to DU, I Caught The Fucker! [View all]boppers
(16,588 posts)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.
A impartial judge or panel looks at the case (that would not be "zero" ). The bill is simply codifying the current system.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
87 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I did too. He should be careful doing that to an old man that's already on the edge. nm
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#65
That's out of date. I just looked at the conference report in the Cong Record beginning at H8356.
struggle4progress
Dec 2011
#57
Can you explain the existing law or authorities on the topic of unlimited detention
JDPriestly
Dec 2011
#81
The existing law should be changed as I understand it. Codifying existing law
JDPriestly
Dec 2011
#86
So you're OK with indefinite imprisonment of US citizens with zero judicial recourse?
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#17
So are you claiming that the NDAA does not authorize indefinite imprisonment of US citizens
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#19
Yup, says it isn't a requirement and then in another sub-section it punts it back to
TheKentuckian
Dec 2011
#33
forget about Ron Paul, Suddenly Turley has gone off the deep end, did you view Turley in this light
2banon
Dec 2011
#27
But, but, but this president is a Democrat. How could you even think to question a Democrat?
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#61
"The plurality held that judges need not be involved in reviewing these cases, ...
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#45
Thank you. That's an important point. Seems to me that means the president
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#63
Turley clearly likes Paul better than any other candidate. They share an anti-regulatory agenda,
struggle4progress
Dec 2011
#52
thank you..it's a great thing that here on DU we always have people who can explain why we did not
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2011
#78