Reply #97

In the discussion thread: I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus [View all]

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:42 AM

97. There's really nothing more Left than the truth. Which is all I'm speaking.

I haven't even mentioned whether I agree with it or not, just pointing out FACTUAL statements pulled directly from the bill itself.

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

420 replies	Author	Time	Post
I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus [View all]	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	OP
Well on the record, I am not one of those! n/t	teddy51	Dec 2011	#1
Me, neither. n/t	Zalatix	Dec 2011	#64
Nor am I	RoccoR5955	Dec 2011	#153
I would only add that he failed to close the Pandora's boxES that Bush opened. nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#344
One of my biggest objections with President Obama.	Jake2413	Dec 2011	#205
I was blown away when Bush was president and	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#2
History always repeats.	hobbit709	Dec 2011	#12
You don't have to give up your rights	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#18
I've always been a firm adherent of Franklin's comment.	hobbit709	Dec 2011	#27
History repeats	Pharaoh	Dec 2011	#240
It is Fascism. Go OWS!	dotymed	Dec 2011	#156
I'll be there with you. Something has to be done to stop this and it's clear now	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#345
many Americans were perfectly willing to throw away the freedoms	AlbertCat	Dec 2011	#239
we have become an echo chamber. nt	awoke_in_2003	Dec 2011	#298
I'm fine with	bigtree	Dec 2011	#3
What about policy, tactics, and actions?	PufPuf23	Dec 2011	#139
I used to really enjoy your posts	Marrah_G	Dec 2011	#409
What's	ProSense	Dec 2011	#4
In what way is that hyperbole?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#7
You	ProSense	Dec 2011	#11
And the fact that American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention without trial.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#15
It's really weird that you call yourself "Far Left Fist" when you spend most of the time	Ken Burch	Dec 2011	#63
There's really nothing more Left than the truth. Which is all I'm speaking.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#97
No, actually Ken Burch is correct.	DisgustipatedinCA	Dec 2011	#378
+1	nashville_brook	Dec 2011	#191
That has always been SOP at DU for the 10 years I have been here.	bvar22	Dec 2011	#206
especially if they choose the Che avatar	AlbertCat	Dec 2011	#245
but that Avatar makes sense, and isn't used to deceive people	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#390
I think you've got it. Support Bradley Manning. nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#341
I have noticed that too. But his name is "Far Left Fist", so how can you question his "leftness". nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#343
But not extrajudicial assasinations	Riftaxe	Dec 2011	#89
I have no problem with those	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#96
In combat. Zero evidence presented anywhere at any time that Awlaki was a terrorist.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#126
Disagree - Awlaki was killed in a combat mission	NutmegYankee	Dec 2011	#163
In your example, you use an incident from a "Declared War" against another Nation	bvar22	Dec 2011	#209
Like the "war" on drugs	pscot	Dec 2011	#233
I have ony two thoughts as to the entirely of your thesis	indepat	Dec 2011	#281
That's an excellent observatiion bvar, there is no end to it and just as	Uncle Joe	Dec 2011	#363
And we are still waiting for evendence that there was any combat involved in that killing.	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#223
The GWOT is similar to the Barbary Wars.	NutmegYankee	Dec 2011	#280
There was most definitely combat	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#340
We are at war with Yemen? Since when??	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#352
If that sovereign country gives us permission, then no, it's not a crime.	NutmegYankee	Dec 2011	#364
Were we at war with Tunisia?	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#366
We are not at war, unless you are accepting the Bush/Cheney policies.	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#369
We are at war	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#373
Who are we at war with?	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#377
You need to read the news more	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#381
OBL is dead. You cannot be at war with an idea.	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#383
Did you read the Authorization?	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#384
Regarding your last sentence, I don't know what you have been reading, but	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#388
Wow, where to start	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#407
I read that piece of garbage when it first was voted on, unfortunately by too many	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#408
This wasn't the authorization for use of force in Iraq	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#413
I do not support Bush policies, the US Government has adapted Bush policies.	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#414
You just completely bypassed all facts	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#417
I have read it. The whole WOT is nothing more than an excuse	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#418
Are you sure this time?	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#420
Yet we are not at war. Haven't been in a war since WWII. Congress has issued no declaration of war.	mbperrin	Dec 2011	#276
We are at war - Congress has authorized this war.	NutmegYankee	Dec 2011	#284
Can't declare a war on a noun.	mbperrin	Dec 2011	#350
Of course you can declare war on a noun. A nation's name is a noun.	NutmegYankee	Dec 2011	#358
Naturally no one is going to challenge it. It makes too much money for the right people.	mbperrin	Dec 2011	#360
Naturally, I should have specified a common noun.	mbperrin	Dec 2011	#361
You need to go the other way	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#375
That was the Bush administration's claims. We elected Democrats to put an end to those	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#370
Congress authorized the war.	NutmegYankee	Dec 2011	#379
What war? Who are we at war with?	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#380
You refuse to accept the answer.	NutmegYankee	Dec 2011	#386
I refuse to accept the Bush claim that we are at war with the world. Yes, absolutely	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#387
You have got to be kidding me	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#338
Show me that mountain of evidence.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#342
You have got to be kidding	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#382
Haha! Wikipedia, indeed.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#391
"Constitutional conditions"	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#401
In regards to a U.S. citizen?	Luminous Animal	Dec 2011	#403
This isn't a criminal proceeding	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#406
WWII was a war declared by congress via the powers in the US constitution.	Javaman	Dec 2011	#220
Congress authorized these military actions	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#335
authorizing and declaring are two vastly different things.	Javaman	Dec 2011	#349
It's completely constitutional	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#367
And the barbary wars also were illegal according to the constitution.	Javaman	Dec 2011	#371
Show me that determination	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#372
and because they disregarded the war powers act that makes it okay?	Javaman	Dec 2011	#389
Post of the year!	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#402
"Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war,"	Javaman	Dec 2011	#404
Why do you support my argument?	DissedByBush	Dec 2011	#405
Perhaps we are just arguing about the same thing and don't	Javaman	Dec 2011	#412
Can you show me where in the Constitution these rights are limited to citizens?	Bjorn Against	Dec 2011	#182
not if you are overseas.	Javaman	Dec 2011	#218
Three myths about the detention bill	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#229
Actually, NO we are NOT.	plantwomyn	Dec 2011	#278
Two things:	ChadwickHenryWard	Dec 2011	#304
One of us has a reading comprehension problem.	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#16
It's	ProSense	Dec 2011	#23
Apprently the ACLU has a reading comprehension problem	dflprincess	Dec 2011	#42
Speaking	ProSense	Dec 2011	#52
83 traitors to the Constitution and the American People.	Fuddnik	Dec 2011	#100
Yeah,	ProSense	Dec 2011	#108
+1. nt	MADem	Dec 2011	#116
His statement is weasel worded	Major Nikon	Dec 2011	#132
yes, traitors for making it possible for another president to abuse	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#192
+1000 n/t	dotymed	Dec 2011	#158
Here you go	Major Nikon	Dec 2011	#135
Once again, please read...it's professionally written, and makes a lot of sense...	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#230
ProSense, Are you an attorney? Have you researched the precedent, the case law on this?	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#266
You don't think there is a chilling effect	noise	Dec 2011	#20
Its not really vague. It actually says it very plainly and clearly.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#25
You are assuming they will abuse the power	siligut	Dec 2011	#196
The President can order arrest and assassination	caseymoz	Dec 2011	#140
Well, I took your word for it that the bill was amended	SomethingFishy	Dec 2011	#202
Yes, sure	Cherchez la Femme	Dec 2011	#238
ProSense, your comment expresses shock but does not	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#263
Very well said, JDP. nt	tpsbmam	Dec 2011	#297
So tell me what your opinions are of these things without the WWII monikers	icymist	Dec 2011	#303
The collapse of the US is due to the fact that during the 1970s,	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#326
Well said, JD	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#317
This message was self-deleted by its author	icymist	Dec 2011	#301
Does that mean you think we still honor habeas corpus? Or does that mean you are ok with not	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#351
So, what is your position on this? Codifying Bush's	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#109
Not a person who supports that at all.	Burgman	Dec 2011	#5
Where does it say U.S citizens don't have a right to trial?	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#6
In the cherished NDAA	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#14
None of those are the NDAA. But here it is:	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#19
The requirement does not extend, but the option sure does	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#28
The option? We are protected under the Constitution. It even says that in the NDAA, along with	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#33
We'll have to agree to disagree	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#53
OK, and I'll side with the Bill itself. If the language changes to be used against us in the future	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#57
If you're for depriving habeus to anyone	caseymoz	Dec 2011	#142
I'm siding with Mother Jones.	Robb	Dec 2011	#180
US citizens aren't entitled to a trial if detained under the provisions of 1031 a-e	Major Nikon	Dec 2011	#133
US citizens can't be held under section 1031, as section 1032 exempts them	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#244
You might want to read 1032 again	Major Nikon	Dec 2011	#261
If they are "covered persons", involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda in the war against the US	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#265
There is no exemption for US citizens	Major Nikon	Dec 2011	#277
1031 defines "covered persons", who are to be held in the military detention system	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#286
That's not what 1032 says and you are passing very bad information off as fact	Major Nikon	Dec 2011	#337
That is exactly what it states. N/T	zeljko	Dec 2011	#353
You should go and read the debate.	plantwomyn	Dec 2011	#282
How can you be for the end of Habeus Corpus in regards to any human being?	Marrah_G	Dec 2011	#410
You can't tell the difference between a blog at a URL, and a vetted media story?	boppers	Dec 2011	#107
"REQUIREMENT to detain"	Martin Eden	Dec 2011	#178
The "requirement" refers back to section 1031	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#251
So then, a US citizen by definition can't be al Qaeda?	Martin Eden	Dec 2011	#274
The logic is pretty straightforward	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#279
Man you are passing misinformation all over the place.	zeljko	Dec 2011	#354
I think what is missing from this discussion is the Patriot Act	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#355
Of course it gives it new explicit power.	zeljko	Dec 2011	#356
Brush up on the patriot act - its all in there	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#365
Some laws do require a lawyer to explain them to you.	caseymoz	Dec 2011	#193
And "associated force that acts in coordination ..." THAT COULD BE ANYONE!	AllyCat	Dec 2011	#247
But not in the bill itself, apparently	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#24
And who decides who qualifies as an al Qaeda member?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#32
If you are a U.S. citizen then a judge does. And you have to be proven to be planning an attack.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#36
I think that you're mistaken	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#41
Al-Awlaki was already convicted by a Yemenite court to be captured dead or alive.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#44
Did the Yemenis kill him? That's news to me.	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#46
Rushdie did not aid a terrorist organization against us.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#48
Wait - did we execute US citizen al-Alwlaki because Yemen wanted him dead,	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#60
I'm sure the reason was because he was aiding Al-Qaeda, like the NDAA says is allowed.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#73
Then a US court could have tried, convicted, and sentenced him	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#78
Rushdie?	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#85
Manny, This bill is shit and goes against our freedom	dotymed	Dec 2011	#160
so if they say i am aiding al quida they can strip my citizenship?	SwampG8r	Dec 2011	#59
No, not if THEY say, if YOU say. He was videotaped waging "jihad" on the U.S.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#76
Sorry, FarLeftFist, there is no definition for terrorism that is clear and understandable.	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#264
A terraist is anyone TPTB say is a terraist, even if the supposed connection is	indepat	Dec 2011	#295
Yes. It is overkill.	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#300
Well put. Rethugs have been able to set most of the national agenda since WWII imo	indepat	Dec 2011	#314
Thanks for your input. True, true, true.	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#347
Ridiculous, the President of the US	caseymoz	Dec 2011	#143
YEMMEN ?? !!!!	bvar22	Dec 2011	#213
The National Security Council approved that, and it wasn't done lightly	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#50
You mean like Al Awlaki and his teenage son who were given the death penalty without	sabrina 1	Dec 2011	#114
"proven" ... how?	Martin Eden	Dec 2011	#179
But who determines who's a member of Al-Qaeda?	caseymoz	Dec 2011	#144
The President doesn't even have to "determine".	bvar22	Dec 2011	#216
Where does the Constitution say non-citizens don't have the right to trial.	Bjorn Against	Dec 2011	#184
As far as military detention, section 1036 details the rights to trial and recourse	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#254
IOKIODI	KG	Dec 2011	#8
IMO it's putting us on a very dangerous path for abuse by someone, eventually. Imagine the	RKP5637	Dec 2011	#9
Habeus corpus is a foundational right.	PDJane	Dec 2011	#10
When you refuse to exercise your rights, you lose them.	boppers	Dec 2011	#110
Uh, come again? Where the fuck did you get THAT idea?	Zhade	Dec 2011	#127
When you refuse to show up for your trial, you don't get to moan about your defense.	boppers	Dec 2011	#129
Accused criminals, self admitted or not, are read miranda rights.	Ed Suspicious	Dec 2011	#171
None of which is really true, but none of which has anything to do with my point.	PDJane	Dec 2011	#328
I'm not old enough to personally remember, but by the 80's it turned out to be all theater anyways.	boppers	Dec 2011	#357
That was my point.	PDJane	Dec 2011	#362
I'm astonished that so many buy into that crap	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#13
Not a police state because we do not yet have check points at state border crossings?	RC	Dec 2011	#61
I go though a border check point coming into Calif. from Oregon.	WHEN CRABS ROAR	Dec 2011	#105
I went through one of those coming from Nevada. The bastards wanted me to	MADem	Dec 2011	#119
I went through one just a few weeks ago...	KansDem	Dec 2011	#159
This Bill makes the US a Police State	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#392
According to the bill itself:	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#395
Orwell is rolling in his grave.	Odin2005	Dec 2011	#16
no actually he isnt	SwampG8r	Dec 2011	#62
LOL! nt	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#72
Orwell? I'm surprised we're not getting reports of an earthquake in Philadelphia	dflprincess	Dec 2011	#88
Go USA! Land of the Free and Home of the Brave!	neverforget	Dec 2011	#21
land of the free to keep your mouth shut and home of the airport molesters	leftyohiolib	Dec 2011	#267
Aside from the broad assumption about DUers, how are we ending Habeas Corpus specifically?	pinto	Dec 2011	#22
What do you think habeus corpus is?	Pamela Troy	Dec 2011	#201
It does specifically exempt US citizens from military detention	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#256
No it doesn't.	Pamela Troy	Dec 2011	#285
This is a very good write-up on the major difficulties with that:	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#289
"Not intended to state a policy which changes anything" except, you see, it does.	Pamela Troy	Dec 2011	#296
What about human beings who are not US citizens?	Marrah_G	Dec 2011	#411
I agree with you, Manny. I think the complacency here is due to confusion about what	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#26
Obama has the right to veto it if it's sloppy	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#38
But its not sloppy. Obama is a lawyer. I'm sure its plain to see for him.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#51
+1, I'm surprised how many seem to treat it as a joke. while others demand evidence but then ignore	limpyhobbler	Dec 2011	#29
This message was self-deleted by its author	limpyhobbler	Dec 2011	#111
Japanese internment camps	nadinbrzezinski	Dec 2011	#30
They had them for Germans and Italians living in this country too.	hobbit709	Dec 2011	#55
Absolutely	nadinbrzezinski	Dec 2011	#66
Not to the same extent.	Pamela Troy	Dec 2011	#226
Obama = Third Reich?	NYC_SKP	Dec 2011	#31
The protections were diminished before Hitler came to power	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#35
Let me list a few others more palatable examples	nadinbrzezinski	Dec 2011	#49
+1 n/t	area51	Dec 2011	#136
Obama is going to be President for about 5 more years	Autumn	Dec 2011	#141
The best solution is to end the war soon	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#257
The war on terror will never end.	Autumn	Dec 2011	#260
I agree and will add that I think that most likely a President Obama will not abuse this power - But	Douglas Carpenter	Dec 2011	#34
Which is exactly what happened in Germany. nt	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#37
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause ii:	struggle4progress	Dec 2011	#39
The NDAA is congressional approval to suspend Habeas Corpus	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#43
Where in the bill is habeas suspended? The writ is guaranteed by plain language of	struggle4progress	Dec 2011	#56
Congress can and does pass laws nullifying the Constitution	RC	Dec 2011	#71
No one will subscribe to the legal theory that Congress has the power to override the Constitution;	struggle4progress	Dec 2011	#83
Habeas corpus was suspended for foreigners in 2006. Having lived Overseas, I have been waiting for	Overseas	Dec 2011	#195
OH NOES! Godwins LAW!	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#40
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#45
But our protections AREN'T diminished. We are still protected by the Constitution. It even says that	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#47
First they came for the trade unionist...	nadinbrzezinski	Dec 2011	#54
You expect the bill to say it violates the Constitution?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#58
No, the bill actually says it upholds the Constitution for U.S. citizens.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#80
but we all watched as Dimsun 'misunderstood' his way to robust presidential power...	StarsInHerHair	Dec 2011	#70
But it IS written clearly.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#81
Not when the Fascists own 5 SCOTUS justices.	Odin2005	Dec 2011	#74
This is getting very fringe. Lets talk about jobs, the environment, economics.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#84
You Sir, need to change those rose colored glasses	2banon	Dec 2011	#253
The Constitution is only as strong as the current courts inforcement. The courts ruled	rhett o rick	Dec 2011	#346
we're doomed to repeat it anyway. enjoy the ride	leftyohiolib	Dec 2011	#268
Actually they are not so much for it	Jakes Progress	Dec 2011	#65
I think this is the best post in the thread.	smokey nj	Dec 2011	#219
We should all be concerned for the potential Administrative abuse of power ...	AnotherMcIntosh	Dec 2011	#67
Amen, Om shanti shanti shanti, and All Hail His Noodly Appendage!	SaintPete	Dec 2011	#68
Too many uppity serfs made the powers-that-be take off the velvet gloves to show us their steel fist	phasma ex machina	Dec 2011	#69
K&R	midnight	Dec 2011	#75
I second that. I remember how people went crazy when this type of law was brought up during the	Justice wanted	Dec 2011	#77
Thats because Habaeus Corpus actually WAS dropped under Bush. This bill doesn't do that.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#86
It doesn't restore it either. It basically drop what few part of Habaeus Corpus we had left.	Justice wanted	Dec 2011	#92
It doesn't drop anything, it actually just keeps the status quo, being:	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#94
the bill codifies the power of the president to designate who gets detained indefinitely	Fiendish Thingy	Dec 2011	#122
I read the bill, 6x already. It EXEMPTS U.S. citizens. UNLESS they are proven to work for Al-Qaeda.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#138
Truly none so blind as those who will not see.	COLGATE4	Dec 2011	#165
Tell me about it.	FarLeftFist	Dec 2011	#174
well, I guess you can count me among the "blind"	Fiendish Thingy	Dec 2011	#186
Not aware of the level of concern during Bush Regime.. got to be inside a the DC bubble	2banon	Dec 2011	#255
I Do Think the DC bubble exists on DU	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#393
Election year cheerleading is just getting warmed-up...	JCMach1	Dec 2011	#79
Or election-year implosion	bhikkhu	Dec 2011	#101
Haha, this has been going on for about 2.5 years now.	joshcryer	Dec 2011	#121
I forgot the election year 'trolling' as well!	JCMach1	Dec 2011	#164
I can only imagine what those on this board who support this bill would be saying	dflprincess	Dec 2011	#82
bush and obama are two different people	leftyohiolib	Dec 2011	#271
But when it comes to ignoring the Consitution	dflprincess	Dec 2011	#321
I've yet to see a cogent explanation of why the ominous legal gibberish in this bill is necessary.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2011	#87
Aww, Manny, what'cha complainin' about? Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, the Geneva Conventions - all	kath	Dec 2011	#90
not cool with it at all <eom>	catrose	Dec 2011	#91
Nothing surprises me here anymore, Manny. n/t	Blue_In_AK	Dec 2011	#93
ACLU: President Obama: Veto Indefinite Detention	steve2470	Dec 2011	#95
I'm not even cool with indefinite detention used against non-citizens.	JoeyT	Dec 2011	#98
me too. What is wrong with putting people on trial?	dana_b	Dec 2011	#415
Putting people on trial requires evidence.	JoeyT	Dec 2011	#419
War, Constitution shredding, universal surveillance are OK if Democrats do them	kenny blankenship	Dec 2011	#99
Ah, I bet they do a comeback tour	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2011	#102
Joe's dead, mate.	boppers	Dec 2011	#113
I know. I was making a joke, like if "Habeas Corpus" were a band. I used a picture of The Clash	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2011	#120
Heh....	boppers	Dec 2011	#124
From Oxnard, no less.	Warren DeMontague	Dec 2011	#128
Obama has to work with Congress	LuckyTheDog	Dec 2011	#103
There is no fight this guy will have.	bowens43	Dec 2011	#154
+1	andlor	Dec 2011	#157
If you are going to make absurd assertions...	LuckyTheDog	Dec 2011	#293
well said!	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#394
"...this is not a fight Obama wants to have..." HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA	panzerfaust	Dec 2011	#177
Feel free to vote for Obama's opposition	LuckyTheDog	Dec 2011	#294
repeat ad nauseum	U4ikLefty	Dec 2011	#309
I am serious	LuckyTheDog	Dec 2011	#310
It's fine when the right party does it...	Modern_Matthew	Dec 2011	#104
But fascism is trending now! It's so tomorrow!	Zorra	Dec 2011	#106
So this is what my father gave his life for in world war two.	WHEN CRABS ROAR	Dec 2011	#112
Senator Merkley Explains How YOU Could Be Indefinitely Imprisoned With No Trial thanks to NDAA 2012	limpyhobbler	Dec 2011	#115
On the contrary, it's hard to keep up.	emcguffie	Dec 2011	#117
You are mistaken about how the bill is applied to US Citizens. The Feinstein amendment specifically	BzaDem	Dec 2011	#118
Guantanamo?	AllyCat	Dec 2011	#169
Yes -- that Supreme Court decision specifically applies to detainees in Guantanamo.	BzaDem	Dec 2011	#176
And are they getting that?	AllyCat	Dec 2011	#242
the Feinstein amendment didn't make it to the final bill	Fiendish Thingy	Dec 2011	#189
Nothing Shocks Me Anymore. nt	bananas	Dec 2011	#123
SO AM I, MANNY...	MrMickeysMom	Dec 2011	#125
eh.. certainly not me but DU3 probaby	PatrynXX	Dec 2011	#130
Nope, I am not cool with it. Please tell me what we should do about, Manny?	juajen	Dec 2011	#131
I challenge you to link one post where a DUer, who believes Habeas Corpus is ending...	joshcryer	Dec 2011	#134
Yeah I second that.	Rex	Dec 2011	#145
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.	joshcryer	Dec 2011	#146
Well I won't hold my breath...	Rex	Dec 2011	#147
I have not seen a denial that Obama will eat all newborn babies.	boppers	Dec 2011	#148
Is that like something that is unseen?	Rex	Dec 2011	#149
Supporting this bill is supporting Habeas Corpus	AllyCat	Dec 2011	#168
Yes, I would like that too.	emulatorloo	Dec 2011	#188
I second that.	AtomicKitten	Dec 2011	#210
anyone supporting this Bill is doing just that	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#396
No, they don't believe the bill does that.	joshcryer	Dec 2011	#399
Weren't you saying this very same thing ever since Obama came into office?	Whisp	Dec 2011	#137
No - but feel free to present refuting evidence. nt	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#172
I think folks would need to be mental to support the ending of Habeas Corpus	MichaelMcGuire	Dec 2011	#150
I was astonished so many were fine	nineteen50	Dec 2011	#151
I'm certainly not ok with it.	bowens43	Dec 2011	#152
Obama = Hitler comparisons.	jefferson_dem	Dec 2011	#155
Manny, from reading the responses to your O.P.	dotymed	Dec 2011	#161
For those thinking some of us are interpreting NDAA wrong, please look at	justiceischeap	Dec 2011	#162
+1 n/t	Laelth	Dec 2011	#166
All the posts from people saying "If he just had his magic wand" and "You whiners! Just because you	AllyCat	Dec 2011	#167
It all depends on whose inking the dotted line.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Dec 2011	#170
Republiscams and Birchers won't be able to vote from their detention facility	L. Coyote	Dec 2011	#173
I wouldn't think a single DUer is "cool" with that, Manny. I'm guessing everybody	gateley	Dec 2011	#175
There are some, who will defended the president, and their party, no matter what they do.	got root	Dec 2011	#181
I'm not astonished at all. Something pernicious is going on here (at DU)....	truth2power	Dec 2011	#183
The definition	JEB	Dec 2011	#185
Just another item on a growing list.	99Forever	Dec 2011	#187
I'm Not.... Too Many Here live and breath "the end justifies the means"	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#190
Unsupportable & inexcusable.	DirkGently	Dec 2011	#194
A fair number of "DUers" don't seem to care for the Constitution at all...	saras	Dec 2011	#197
Yeah	sendero	Dec 2011	#198
That's what it amounts do.	Vinca	Dec 2011	#199
It is like living in a surreal nightmare inhabited by brain dead pod people.	Dragonfli	Dec 2011	#200
How did that Habeus Corpus work for the American Citizens	MineralMan	Dec 2011	#203
Under Hamdi, a plurality of SCOTUS Justices said that Habeas Corpus can be suspended if	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#207
Plurality, not majority.	Bucky	Dec 2011	#215
OK, then the answer has to be to elect a Congress that won't OK it.	MineralMan	Dec 2011	#231
Aw c'mon. Using the Bill of Rights for toilet paper is OK if the person has a "D" after their name..	abq e streeter	Dec 2011	#204
This is a good thing!	donttazemebro	Dec 2011	#208
win	Bucky	Dec 2011	#214
K&R (n/t)	a2liberal	Dec 2011	#211
The 3rd Reich analogy is incorrect (and hysterical) but I recommend anyway.	Bucky	Dec 2011	#212
Amazing, isn't it?	Javaman	Dec 2011	#217
I'm disheartened but not surprised. I've been reading DU for a long time. /nt	yardwork	Dec 2011	#221
We are the NEW Democratic Party!	donttazemebro	Dec 2011	#222
I fear both parties in Congress love to have the power to keep the "little people" under control...	spin	Dec 2011	#236
I call it	Phlem	Dec 2011	#241
Not in favor of Habeas Corpus, but you have to have a CONGRESS who believes in DEMOCRACY	CarmanK	Dec 2011	#224
If the Leader of the Political Party currently in Power...	bvar22	Dec 2011	#225
Well	Phlem	Dec 2011	#227
I've been astonished that DUer's have accepted the constant shift to the right ever since Obama took	slay	Dec 2011	#228
Let The Arrest Begin!	donttazemebro	Dec 2011	#232
Only the usual Obama-fellators	RetroLounge	Dec 2011	#234
Habeas Corpus	papa3times	Dec 2011	#235
MannyGoldstein	Diclotican	Dec 2011	#237
This whole issue was put to rest in Ex Part Milligan	soryang	Dec 2011	#243
Did you mean to link to your other post?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#246
Thanks Manny!	soryang	Dec 2011	#270
Links	soryang	Dec 2011	#273
Nicely Put	colsohlibgal	Dec 2011	#252
There is no emergency that justifies this kind of action	Jack Rabbit	Dec 2011	#248
you really should post when habeas corpus ended and how many du'ers are cool with it	spanone	Dec 2011	#249
Yes, I would like to see that too.	emulatorloo	Dec 2011	#258
That's how the author rolls.	great white snark	Dec 2011	#262
Oh, hell . . . there's no unrec button any more.	mistertrickster	Dec 2011	#250
Count me out on this one too. Giving up our liberty for security is unacceptable.	ScottLand	Dec 2011	#259
I've seen many troubling things during this presidency -	TBF	Dec 2011	#269
We have won...now lets ROLL!	donttazemebro	Dec 2011	#272
oh Lord	Broderick	Dec 2011	#374
I'm astonished so many DUers think they know precisely what so many other DUers think.	patrice	Dec 2011	#275
I would be if that was happening	Capn Sunshine	Dec 2011	#283
And who decides who is a member of, or is aiding, al Qaeda?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#315
Isn't mischaracterization of others THE tactic of propaganda?	patrice	Dec 2011	#287
Which Duers do you mean? What "so many"? Link or hyperbole?	uppityperson	Dec 2011	#288
IOKIYAD	Jack Rabbit	Dec 2011	#290
Not just DU members...Americans in general....	Pachamama	Dec 2011	#291
some will kiss obama's butt even as they are loaded on the trucks. consider	roguevalley	Dec 2011	#292
Not cool with it... AT ALL!!	Lifelong Protester	Dec 2011	#299
Obama has done the right thing for the nation	donttazemebro	Dec 2011	#302
During a Repub Admin will the law still be on our side? nt	Taverner	Dec 2011	#306
Welcome to DU	Pamela Troy	Dec 2011	#307
Me too - but I can understand defeatism at this point	Taverner	Dec 2011	#305
Do you really believe they see it as ending Habeas Corpus?	ZombieHorde	Dec 2011	#308
Rose colored glasses...get your rose colored glasses right here....	ooglymoogly	Dec 2011	#311
I'm astonished anyone in this country is cool with it. nt	Deep13	Dec 2011	#312
Unfortunately Manny....	DeSwiss	Dec 2011	#313
Yet you couldn't name any if your reputation depended on it.	The Doctor.	Dec 2011	#316
I could, but that would be "calling out" which is against DU rules.	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#319
Bullshit.	The Doctor.	Dec 2011	#322
If Obama doesn't want it, he can veto it.	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#323
My PM box is open.	The Doctor.	Dec 2011	#325
Yes, if you apologize and delete your posts, I'd be happy to answer your questions.	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2011	#329
Oh goodness. I could never, ever erase my shame so readily.	The Doctor.	Dec 2011	#333
Yep, that's what I thought.	The Doctor.	Dec 2011	#359
k&r	Liberal_in_LA	Dec 2011	#318
This was so disappointing after the great speech of the previous week that I'm left speechless	diane in sf	Dec 2011	#320
Where's the link that shows many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus? Sounds fishy to me. nt	valerief	Dec 2011	#324
Ain't gonna see one.	The Doctor.	Dec 2011	#330
Anyone Supporting this Bill	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#397
I was never a fan of miranda rights and all that crap so im ok with it...n/t	IamK	Dec 2011	#327
Uh-huh.	The Doctor.	Dec 2011	#331
But... But... We Have An Election To Win !!!	WillyT	Dec 2011	#332
I am astonished that someone would make such a claim without any evidence.	yellowcanine	Dec 2011	#334
Excellent explanation:	zeljko	Dec 2011	#336
Have you ever seen the president with his shirt off? n/t	QC	Dec 2011	#339
Agree 100%. REC. nt	bertman	Dec 2011	#348
see: patriot act	shanti	Dec 2011	#368
I support the ACLU on this	Broderick	Dec 2011	#376
I asked the students in my class about this	Charlemagne	Dec 2011	#385
Wanna know why the US is becoming a Police State	fascisthunter	Dec 2011	#398
You know the more I think about it	nadinbrzezinski	Dec 2011	#400
What's Habeas Corpus?	Zorra	Dec 2011	#416

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.