Norman Goldman explaining the NDAA sects 1031-1032 right now

[alp227]

http://www.normangoldman.com/stream/norm-video-mac.asp

listen live, Norm is debunking common beliefs about the "indefinite detention" provisions of the defense bill and is breaking it down with his "senior legal analyst hat" (he's a lawyer too).

[hlthe2b]

1. Not able to listen. Can you please report back and summarize?

THANKS!!!!!

[alp227]

2. basically goldman said congress was re-affirming the 2001 AUMF

and this bill was from re-negotiations and accused Carl Levin of not reading this. And this is a Flash Video, not just for Macs (for some reason "Mac" is in the URL).

[Aerows]

4. He accused a member of Congress

one of the people critical of the bill of not reading it. However, the bill also changed cosmetically since Levin's remarks, but for some reason we are supposed to automatically accept the word of somebody I've never heard of because he says it's just dandy.

Okay.

[Aerows]

3. What exactly are his credentials?

He's the only one I've heard of people touting that thinks this law is a good idea. Many other organizations, legal groups and the ACLU don't. Hell, half of us have read the bill and see the vague as can be language in it that can be interpreted basically any way a president wants to interpret it.

One guy is saying "Hey, it's great!" and I'm supposed to ignore what I've seen, what others have seen, and what the legal community has seen? Yeah, okay.

I'm not trying to be a fly in your soup, but one person out of the thousands that have read this and went "NO" isn't going to convince me of anything other than that he wants to justify Congress and the fact that it wasn't vetoed.

[teddy51]

6. I don't know who this guy is either, but I do know he is a Lawyer not that it means anything.

Lets hope that he is on our side, and knows what he is talking about.

[Luminous Animal]

10. He's a trial lawyer.

Not that I have anything against trial lawyers but they are not my go to people when it comes to Constitutional law.

[Aerows]

11. Me either

I'll take the word of a Judge Advocate in the military over some trial lawyer, since this is concerning military law, after all.

[teddy51]

5. Thank you so much for this, he is explaining it very well and he is a Lawyer.

It would seem that we, citizens of the US have nothing to worry about with this new Legislation.

[Aerows]

7. Lots of other lawyers disagree

So do other people that bothered to read the bill. I'll take the word of the ACLU, myself that read it (I'm not a lawyer but I CAN read), and several other lawyers that are, among other things, judge advocates in the military, before I'll accept the word of some guy screaming "nobody read it." Plenty of people have read it. In this forum alone.

[teddy51]

9. I hear ya, just hoping I guess! n/t

[Dawson Leery]

13. There is room for interpretation of the law.

There is no explicit exemption for US citizens.

[Lint Head]

8. Norman Goldman is a smart man. I listen to him often.

[eridani]

12. He is NOT giving the law a pass

He has pointed out some bad things about it as well as debunking indefinite detention.