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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
23. It's not a *requirement*, but it's an *option*. So I ask again
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:40 AM
Dec 2011

are you claiming that the NDAA does not authorize indefinite imprisonment of US citizens?

yeah, thank Jeebus for the Obama supporters setting us all right, eh? provis99 Dec 2011 #1
thought you were serious for a minute limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #2
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
And THAT is why I give away my jokes Zalatix Dec 2011 #82
K&R Solly Mack Dec 2011 #3
It's just what the USA PATRIOT Act ordered. Octafish Dec 2011 #4
K&R DeSwiss Dec 2011 #5
Finally, here is the text Turley is referring to: JDPriestly Dec 2011 #42
Turley is correct - Obama should veto this bill. TBF Dec 2011 #54
That's out of date. I just looked at the conference report in the Cong Record beginning at H8356. struggle4progress Dec 2011 #57
Thank You, JDP On the Road Dec 2011 #59
Can you explain the existing law or authorities on the topic of unlimited detention JDPriestly Dec 2011 #81
I'm Sure It *Is* Unclear On the Road Dec 2011 #83
The existing law should be changed as I understand it. Codifying existing law JDPriestly Dec 2011 #86
OK -- Fair Enough. Maybe it Should be Clarifying On the Road Dec 2011 #87
Good point. Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch said much the same. suffragette Dec 2011 #77
it's TALLIBURTON!!!11 you now must go straight to prison11! StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #6
ummm it does allow indefinite imprisonment of US citizens Cronus Protagonist Dec 2011 #7
How and where are the Armed Forces policing US citizens? TheDebbieDee Dec 2011 #10
You're being a bit too literal Demstud Dec 2011 #73
Sorry, I was being sarcastic, of course you're right. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #13
My guess is once they realize you are a citizen you will be released rustydog Dec 2011 #79
kickeroo frylock Dec 2011 #8
Turley: This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign ProSense Dec 2011 #9
Isn't it pathetic that Ron Paul is in favor of civil rights? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #12
Yeah, ProSense Dec 2011 #14
So what's your point? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #15
No ProSense Dec 2011 #16
So you're OK with indefinite imprisonment of US citizens with zero judicial recourse? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #17
No ProSense Dec 2011 #18
So are you claiming that the NDAA does not authorize indefinite imprisonment of US citizens MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #19
Here ProSense Dec 2011 #20
It's not a *requirement*, but it's an *option*. So I ask again MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #23
Again ProSense Dec 2011 #26
You simply haven't answered the question. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #28
No ProSense Dec 2011 #31
I don't see a "yes" or "no" answer. Unless MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #34
If the 34 post-per-day average of your debate partner is to be maintained, ... xocet Dec 2011 #75
This message was self-deleted by its author MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #29
Yup, says it isn't a requirement and then in another sub-section it punts it back to TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #33
You don't understand what 'requirement' means in legispeak. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #46
Maybe it doesnt matter as long as the Pres is a Democrat. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #62
I posted the actual text that is JDPriestly Dec 2011 #43
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
"zero judicial oversight" boppers Dec 2011 #36
So what role does Obama agree that the courts have MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #38
Already established in Hamdi. boppers Dec 2011 #41
"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
.00000001% is not zero eom boppers Dec 2011 #70
Actually. it is. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #72
How quaint, lets just set in stone the practices of George W Jim_Shorts Dec 2011 #76
I believe that was his son, the jr senator from KY WCGreen Dec 2011 #51
Indeed. Union Scribe Dec 2011 #25
Don't fall for the our side just doesn't see how bad they are manipulation lunatica Dec 2011 #49
Ron Paul is in favor of his own version of what he calls "civil rights" Major Nikon Dec 2011 #85
Turley is a libertarian and evidently a Paulite: struggle4progress Dec 2011 #35
He endorses Paul in exactly zero of those links. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #39
Turley clearly likes Paul better than any other candidate. They share an anti-regulatory agenda, struggle4progress Dec 2011 #52
lolol TBF Dec 2011 #64
Du rec. Nt xchrom Dec 2011 #11
Not the first time DU has nailed the fucker grantcart Dec 2011 #21
Nope. Looks like Turley is consistant... Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #30
And let's not be distracted by the fact he was right on each occassion. EFerrari Dec 2011 #44
occupy nt Zorra Dec 2011 #22
The greatest compliment! Thanks you! nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #24
LOL! G_j Dec 2011 #32
Kick... AzDar Dec 2011 #37
does section 1031 really follow section 1032? hfojvt Dec 2011 #40
He's not saying 1031 follows sequentially from 1032 Major Nikon Dec 2011 #84
This law is a travisty. blackspade Dec 2011 #47
So can we now accept that the lines in the sand have been drawn? lunatica Dec 2011 #48
Not a line in the sand Autumn Dec 2011 #50
I dread to imagine JEB Dec 2011 #53
Umm, he's right a2liberal Dec 2011 #55
Laws, schmaws has been the official policy for many years now. harmonicon Dec 2011 #56
All I know for sure is that any law Bernie and Al vote against hootinholler Dec 2011 #58
Especially if the ACLU is also opposed - TBF Dec 2011 #66
Right on. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #67
Representative Nadler explained it in floor debate. ohwinston Dec 2011 #60
Here, here. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #68
Hoist by your own petard. saras Dec 2011 #69
What about Habeas Corpus? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #71
Kick for truth. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #74
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
So why does this guy still get airtime on Countdown with Keith Olbermann? alp227 Dec 2011 #80
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jonathan Turley is a Liar...»Reply #23