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 chimes in on Obama & the NDAA. Another Constitutional scholar is appalled. [View all]"But I'm not even getting into this one until Turley posts a good Ron Paul love letter. It's early yet."
...late!
This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate. He also noted that the Patriot Act provisions were long advocated before 9-11, which was used as an opportunity to expand police powers. As discussed in a prior column, Obama has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the United States and has convinced many liberals to fight for an Administration that blocked torture prosecutions, expanded warrantless surveillance, continued military tribunals, killed Americans on the sole authority of the President, and other core violations of civil liberties.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/
Evidently Ron Paul is the next FDR in Turley's mind. Oops!
What's interesting is the following is from the piece linked to above. It includes the same language as in the OP:
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
101 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
Jonathan Turley chimes in on Obama & the NDAA. Another Constitutional scholar is appalled. [View all]
tpsbmam
Jan 2012
OP
especially since only "you know who" is speaking out against this in their campaign
think
Jan 2012
#2
In other words, some anonymous people on the internet will disagree with him.
Dewey Finn
Jan 2012
#3
The "constitutional scholar" seems to rely on hyperbole, rather than the constitution, for arguments
bhikkhu
Jan 2012
#5
Said "constitutional scholar" just lost a case against Obama, and got spanked by the judge.
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#42
And the fact that the 2001 military authorization is appalling is beside the point?
eridani
Jan 2012
#54
As do you, going so far to ignore some of those who wrote the damn thing.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#10
Incomplete--Turley just lost a case to Obama. Turley now criticizes Obama. nt
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#43
This is a terrible provision of the NDAA, but where's the outrage at Congress?
boxman15
Jan 2012
#13
Congress is useless and ineffective on both sides. Obama could have vetoed.
piratefish08
Jan 2012
#16
It's not that bizarre. It would take congress another month or two to pass it.
killbotfactory
Jan 2012
#37
Two months of no funding for the VA. I can imagine how kindly the "liberal media" would treat that.
Robb
Jan 2012
#45
Nah, better to do childish shit just to prove a point rather than do something constructive
uponit7771
Jan 2012
#99
And yet, most people stay away from voting in a non-presidential election year.
killbotfactory
Jan 2012
#26
Can Turley wait his turn please? This board is not yet done with the Greenwald hate festival.
JackRiddler
Jan 2012
#19
I take it Turley's still sore over the public spanking he got in Kucinich v. Obama?
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#40
Turley's is a reasonable if somewhat mild response to a fascist law. K&R (nt)
T S Justly
Jan 2012
#71
Oh, c'mon. We can trust the miliatary and government to do the right thing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jan 2012
#72
feh. turley likes to get his name in print. the compromise language makes clear that the ndaa cannot
struggle4progress
Jan 2012
#93