You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #49: Tell me how the AUMF of 9.17.2001 violates due process??? nt [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
49. Tell me how the AUMF of 9.17.2001 violates due process??? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US Synicus Maximus  Dec-01-11 12:34 PM   #0 
  - In other words...  Vinnie From Indy   Dec-01-11 12:38 PM   #1 
  - and nary a word  azureblue   Dec-01-11 12:48 PM   #2 
  - Actually, the government has never been real particular about the philosophy of the folks  razorman   Dec-01-11 01:03 PM   #3 
     - +1  mike_c   Dec-01-11 01:12 PM   #5 
     - I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge.  AlbertCat   Dec-01-11 01:47 PM   #8 
     - agreed. the party line is always a pale facade to con their end of the voting public.  marasinghe   Dec-01-11 07:02 PM   #61 
     - ITA....  AnneD   Dec-02-11 10:57 AM   #88 
  - Barack W. Bush is that you? nt  msongs   Dec-01-11 01:12 PM   #4 
  - and when the government declares OWS a terrorist organization ?  KILL THE WISE ONE   Dec-01-11 01:28 PM   #6 
  - As soon as anyone in association with OWS would start blowing sh*t up.  Amonester   Dec-01-11 01:35 PM   #7 
  - Thing is, you don't get to decide when OWS gets branded a terrorist organization  tavalon   Dec-02-11 07:46 AM   #85 
  - The language is so broad that literally anyone they want can be included.  indepat   Dec-01-11 06:44 PM   #51 
  - What language in the AUMF are you talking about? Can you cite it??? nt  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:49 PM   #55 
  - Can't cite language in AUMF, but please refer to Jeh Johnson's interpretation  indepat   Dec-02-11 03:10 PM   #100 
  - Exactly!  tavalon   Dec-02-11 07:46 AM   #86 
  - We are already guilty of thoughtcrime, brother.  wandago   Dec-01-11 10:55 PM   #81 
  - Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US  The Northerner   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #9 
  - Would Obama defenders please explain the  spotbird   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #10 
  - Obama Haters - please defend Anwar al-Awlaki!  AllTooEasy   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #24 
  - what about his 16 year old son (US citizen), assassinated 2 days after his father by drone strike,  stockholmer   Dec-01-11 03:29 PM   #34 
  - It's unfortunate his parents allowed him to be in the company of the terrorist the strike targeted.  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:35 PM   #47 
  - Awlaki was so evil he even managed to do that posthumously.  JackRiddler   Dec-02-11 11:21 AM   #90 
  - Extra-judicial executions are as American as cherry pie. - n/t  coalition_unwilling   Dec-01-11 06:52 PM   #57 
     - What is extra-judicial about the War Powers Act? Can you explain which part of the AUMF  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:57 PM   #60 
        - The part where you imagine it applies forever to all "combatants" globally by executive designation.  JackRiddler   Dec-02-11 11:23 AM   #91 
  - It's about the Constitution, not al-Awlaki and not Obama.  No Elephants   Dec-01-11 03:34 PM   #35 
  - Yeah. Can you explain to us how the AUMF of 9.18.2001 is unconstitutional?? nt  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:51 PM   #56 
  - It's the constitution that needs defense  spotbird   Dec-01-11 04:14 PM   #40 
  - Soon as you provide a bill of indictment against him, not just the PR statements...  JackRiddler   Dec-02-11 11:12 AM   #89 
  - (Raising Hand!!) Bush lacked the fortitude to target our actual enemies.  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:36 PM   #48 
     - While Obama on the other hand is happy to target our enemies,  JoeyT   Dec-02-11 12:09 PM   #95 
  - Excuse me, I seem to have misplaced my due process.  WilliamPitt   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #11 
  - it might be under here..  frylock   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #12 
  - *wince*  WilliamPitt   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #13 
  - No, you still have it. I believe that this is in reference largely to say if someone from the US  cstanleytech   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #15 
  - Are you sure?  WilliamPitt   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #17 
  - They carry around membership cards now??  Angry Dragon   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #18 
  - We don't know what Awlaki did. We only know what the government claims  EFerrari   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #21 
  - Actually we have video  cstanleytech   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #23 
     - So, where did you study Arabic?  EFerrari   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #27 
     - Do you?  cstanleytech   Dec-01-11 03:19 PM   #31 
        - I'm pointing out to you that you have no first hand knowledge  EFerrari   Dec-01-11 03:48 PM   #39 
           - Ya might want to consider trying some  cstanleytech   Dec-01-11 04:41 PM   #42 
           - I believe Anthony Weiner. I think you forget his crusade on YouTube  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 07:20 PM   #70 
     - And that video might be admissible as evidence in court, if al Awaki had been granted due process,  No Elephants   Dec-01-11 03:37 PM   #37 
        - Hey I would have liked there to be a trial but he made no attempt that I am aware of to turn himself  cstanleytech   Dec-01-11 04:49 PM   #43 
        - Was there a Warrant issued by a Judge for his arrest...  bvar22   Dec-01-11 06:12 PM   #46 
        - Actually, yes. He had been convicted in Yemen. They could not obtain him.  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:44 PM   #52 
           - LOL. Yemen does NOT even have an Extradition Treaty with the US.  bvar22   Dec-01-11 06:54 PM   #58 
           - Oh, no--we didn't need the Yemeni crime, or the British one. We've had the authorization  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 07:08 PM   #64 
              - Onward with the Bush legacy of a Unitary Executive!!!!  bvar22   Dec-01-11 07:20 PM   #69 
                 - We don't need a trial to pursue people we are at war with. Like Confederates. Nazis.  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 07:26 PM   #73 
                    - How about the children of those "accused" of being "terrorists"?  bvar22   Dec-02-11 11:55 AM   #93 
           - it would have saved us iraq?  shanti   Dec-02-11 12:01 PM   #94 
        - To ALLEGEDLY aid bin ladens people. If the government accused  coalition_unwilling   Dec-01-11 06:57 PM   #59 
           - No. You don't get a trial in this case.  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 07:13 PM   #66 
           - No, not allegedly since he is on videos working hard for them or are you claiming the videos fake or  cstanleytech   Dec-01-11 07:14 PM   #67 
              - Yes "allegedly" - until the defense has a chance to challenge the  coalition_unwilling   Dec-01-11 07:23 PM   #71 
                 - He had plenty of time to dispute them, years in fact so its kinda of moot issue.  cstanleytech   Dec-01-11 11:36 PM   #82 
        - Explain how his due process was violated, specifically????  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:47 PM   #53 
  - No. The administration does not want any legal checks on its unitary executive power.  Demit   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #26 
  - +1000  stockholmer   Dec-01-11 03:22 PM   #33 
  - your wrong, it leaves it wide open for anyone, anywhere to be designated a terrorist and Obama wants  stockholmer   Dec-01-11 03:22 PM   #32 
  - You are conflating substance and due process.  No Elephants   Dec-01-11 03:35 PM   #36 
  - Tell me how the AUMF of 9.17.2001 violates due process??? nt  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:37 PM   #49 
  - Part of our Constitutionally granted Rights is to be against the government  DJ13   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #14 
  - +1, it's about OWS not Terror.  harun   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #16 
  - Bullshit  AllTooEasy   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #25 
     - Wrong. Even people you dislike and disagree with are entitled  EFerrari   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #28 
     - I agree. Every American citizen deserves a trial, even at war..  mvd   Dec-01-11 07:07 PM   #62 
        - He should have shown up to his trial, then??? Any of them?  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 07:31 PM   #74 
           - I do not support killing him and..  mvd   Dec-01-11 09:02 PM   #76 
              - "AQ is overrated"? I call a Poe. nt  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 09:24 PM   #77 
                 - They are.  mvd   Dec-01-11 10:07 PM   #80 
     - I'd rather not have to trust any of them and have the law stay the way it is.  harun   Dec-01-11 02:00 PM   #30 
     - Actually, al-Qaeda is not the monolithic entity upon which your  coalition_unwilling   Dec-01-11 07:08 PM   #63 
  - Please see 1861-1865 in US History for a precedent.  hugo_from_TN   Dec-02-11 02:04 PM   #98 
     - I kinda disagree, I see it more as 1929-39 and the '50s combined.  AverageJoe90   Dec-02-11 03:59 PM   #101 
  - And We Thought the Right Had a Monopoly on Reactionary Paranoia!!!  mckara   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #19 
  - Does this also include those clinging to the idea of the Confederacy?  slutticus   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #20 
  - no, but it did apply to Confederate soldiers. n/t  Bacchus39   Dec-02-11 10:50 AM   #87 
  - Is there any doubt who runs the government? 'CIA counsel' and 'Pentagon counsel' are now doing the  sinkingfeeling   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #22 
  - First they came for...  Democracydiva   Dec-01-11 01:55 PM   #29 
  - Yet another DU thread demonstrating "De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt" and idolatry is not  No Elephants   Dec-01-11 03:40 PM   #38 
  - When the President does it, that means it is NOT illegal.  bvar22   Dec-01-11 04:37 PM   #41 
  - +1 I wonder how those supportive of this policy would react if  The Northerner   Dec-01-11 05:28 PM   #44 
  - If I had a family member in Al-Qaeda, I would turn them in.  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:41 PM   #50 
     - We KNOW you would,  bvar22   Dec-02-11 12:14 PM   #97 
  - Bravo! Due process is not there to protect 'them' but to protect 'us' - n/t  coalition_unwilling   Dec-01-11 07:11 PM   #65 
  - The next Republican president will put Obama on Rushmore for this.  rug   Dec-01-11 05:44 PM   #45 
  - The authorization for this was passed under a Republican.  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 06:48 PM   #54 
     - I could but this current piece of shit action is more pertinent.  rug   Dec-01-11 07:16 PM   #68 
     - The current action was authorized 10 years ago. Too bad W. lacked the intestiinal fortitude,  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 07:24 PM   #72 
        - Remember your words when they come for you, lickspittle.  Zhade   Dec-01-11 07:42 PM   #75 
           - Aw, sweetie. I suspect I won't be the one up against the wall. nt  msanthrope   Dec-01-11 09:27 PM   #78 
              - Ain't that always the way  a simple pattern   Dec-02-11 12:19 AM   #84 
     - Professional Left?  U4ikLefty   Dec-01-11 11:50 PM   #83 
     - Obama promised to return us to the rule of law.  JoeyT   Dec-02-11 12:13 PM   #96 
     - I agree, but S.1867 has me worried still.  AverageJoe90   Dec-02-11 04:01 PM   #102 
  - Why  ProSense   Dec-01-11 09:38 PM   #79 
  - So I guess this is a mute point now ......  doublethink   Dec-02-11 11:41 AM   #92 
     - mute point  hugo_from_TN   Dec-02-11 02:05 PM   #99 
        - Okay moot ..... got me lol ...  doublethink   Dec-02-11 04:19 PM   #103 
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC