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
 

Remember Me

(1,532 posts)
32. The beef is --
Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:14 PM
Dec 2011

this creates a LAW authorizing it. Now no one subjected to this can object on legal grounds. Very big fucking deal, actually.

Talk about tarnishing his legacy. MotherPetrie Dec 2011 #1
Greenwald? Yes, I agree. great white snark Dec 2011 #4
Trash the messenger. Rush has taught you well my son. Dutchmaster Dec 2011 #110
Yes I agree, take a deep breath and accept fascism. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #140
This will be his legacy! green917 Dec 2011 #113
I Prefer to look at the actual bill: SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #2
or this: The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #6
Not a whole lot bhikkhu Dec 2011 #83
Unless you can't read. glinda Dec 2011 #124
The current law might be argued to permit it. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #145
Read This piece Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #7
Like I said, I prefer to look at the actual bill :) SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #11
Yes..... Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #13
Where does it specifically say they can be detained? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #15
Still waiting... SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #23
Sorry. didn't see your reply Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #25
Actually it doesn't answer that, Where specifically again, does it state that.. SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #28
Read the authorization for detention... Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #29
What is the section number? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #37
Section 1022 Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #38
Modification of Conditions On Status Of Retired Aircraft Carrier Ex-John F. Kenney? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #40
Here Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #41
ahhh Sec 1032 not 1022..but it still doesn't say what you support it does SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #48
Yes...I thought I wrote 1032...but I actually wrote 1022 Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #50
It doesn't matter what other posters are saying about it... SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #52
"It doesn't matter what other posters are saying about it" Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #53
If you could show me proof it would "sink in", SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #55
I'm glad other posters are challenging your manifestly incorrect statements. BzaDem Dec 2011 #78
Where does it say that US citizens CAN NOT be detained indefinitely? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #85
Because they will need that kind Rex Dec 2011 #93
BINGO! dgibby Dec 2011 #128
And all of this on the heels of killing bin Laden with no new perceived threat. ScottLand Dec 2011 #94
Wake up people!!! Dustlawyer Dec 2011 #106
The threat has always been the American people. Patriot act was ready to go long before they . . Dutchmaster Dec 2011 #121
For starters, you might look at Amendments V, VI and VII in the Bill of Rights struggle4progress Dec 2011 #119
really...this is your argument? Sheepshank Dec 2011 #126
He's explained it to you several times green917 Dec 2011 #115
Insisting that a law must be written to exclude actions in this instance Sheepshank Dec 2011 #127
Padilla v. Rumsfeld is your answer SunsetDreams. justiceischeap Dec 2011 #27
Yup Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #43
Padilla v. Rumsfeld was an appeal from the second circuit. BzaDem Dec 2011 #81
Can you point me to a link where the 4th circuit opinion was vacated in its entirety? justiceischeap Dec 2011 #95
It looks like you are correct. BzaDem Dec 2011 #154
If the president has the authority to sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #139
There is a difference between overseas vs. US, among other things. BzaDem Dec 2011 #148
Why would he have surrendered? He wasn't wanted for anything, there were no sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #149
That says the current law needs to be fixed (something I agree with), not that the defense bill made karynnj Dec 2011 #100
The fact that anyone is not totally outraged tblue Dec 2011 #16
The fact that you think I should be . . . Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #65
six one and half a dozen the other. It says the same thing doesn't it. Thanks, Obama. You made Ann roguevalley Dec 2011 #73
That is false. Section 1021e specifically exempts US citizens, and section 1022b only applies to a BzaDem Dec 2011 #75
The very real possibility is there dotymed Dec 2011 #105
It's much more complicated than this zipplewrath Dec 2011 #8
and the overall statement of intentions of the section, which would guide a court challenge: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #74
Not change, but codify court decisions zipplewrath Dec 2011 #97
Those were codified in the "torture" bill that passed in 2006 karynnj Dec 2011 #101
The strange part is that this was in there at all zipplewrath Dec 2011 #104
Would you like to have to adjudicate that defense? green917 Dec 2011 #117
Its not because Obama is in the White House bhikkhu Dec 2011 #118
I would too but... green917 Dec 2011 #134
screw that.... dennis4868 Dec 2011 #36
Well, it says the "requirement" does not apply dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #46
Yes, the actual bill says U.S. citizens can be detained by the military. DirkGently Dec 2011 #67
Oh, just get over it gratuitous Dec 2011 #3
+1... Principles schminciples! tblue Dec 2011 #14
AP: There is an exemption for U.S. citizens. rfranklin Dec 2011 #5
That doesn't matter! nt babylonsister Dec 2011 #10
I can't find any legal expert that agrees with that. nt EFerrari Dec 2011 #30
There's an exemption for citizens to the requirement gratuitous Dec 2011 #19
Regardless of citizenship Remember Me Dec 2011 #31
Precisely what I said upthread! green917 Dec 2011 #125
Like so much about this bill, misleading weasel words. EFerrari Dec 2011 #34
Gag. You obsessive people with your facts... SidDithers Dec 2011 #44
The Kos piece. FedUp_Queer Dec 2011 #77
Well, they're clearly right about SOME people Remember Me Dec 2011 #151
It has already been in effect since Bush, so what's the beef? rfranklin Dec 2011 #9
The beef is -- Remember Me Dec 2011 #32
No it does NOT. The Feinstein amendment language added a line (clause 'e') to Section 1031 Tx4obama Dec 2011 #88
Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #12
Obama the candidate was for warrantless wiretaps. Signing the bill is entirely consistent with that. McCamy Taylor Dec 2011 #22
You are acting like a child. great white snark Dec 2011 #26
There's certainly no universal agreement on that among Remember Me Dec 2011 #33
Nor do the authors TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #54
Yep Remember Me Dec 2011 #58
only Americans count!!!!!! Skittles Dec 2011 #91
habeas corpus reggie the dog Dec 2011 #17
Graham cracker wants us to forgo this right.... He prefer we just "shut up"... midnight Dec 2011 #103
check post #143 below L. Coyote Dec 2011 #147
K&R (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #18
So, Jose Padilla was detained by Eisenhower? Silly me. I thought it was Bush. McCamy Taylor Dec 2011 #20
The article mentions that Bush and Obama had already claimed this power Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #21
Precisely. And that was illegal. Not any more when this bill is signed into law. EFerrari Dec 2011 #35
Not to mention Susan Lindauer. n/t dgibby Dec 2011 #129
It's not difficult to understand ... GeorgeGist Dec 2011 #24
Well all I can say is... smile....xenu luvs u Dec 2011 #39
Oh, it's Greenwald... SidDithers Dec 2011 #42
What? No unrec? Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #45
Glad you can be amused by such a meaningless thing...nt SidDithers Dec 2011 #49
highly dicussed....more recs... Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #51
Totally agree about more eyeballs reading ALL the posts SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #56
I'm glad you agree Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #57
This is how it will go down: Taverner Dec 2011 #47
What political currency does this gain. It makes him look horrible to the left. It also makes.. JVS Dec 2011 #66
This is about power, not left v right Taverner Dec 2011 #123
Senator Finestein said she is going to write another bill that will clarify her 2 amendments further Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #69
That is fine and dandy but largely immaterial at this point TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #136
k and r nashville_brook Dec 2011 #59
They are doing this to shut down protests like occupy wall street. And the right wingers on this scentopine Dec 2011 #60
Your subject line is FALSE Tx4obama Dec 2011 #89
No, US citizens in The USA are exempt from indefinite detention requirement. blackspade Dec 2011 #111
Because only US Citizens count were the Constitution is concerned? green917 Dec 2011 #131
Do we enjoy too much freedom? What other civil liberties to you support destroying? scentopine Dec 2011 #152
And it is all predicated on the AUMF. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #61
Exactly. Or leave the AUMF, and the problem remains. bhikkhu Dec 2011 #70
So there is an underlying wrong, & a complementary wrong. Does that make one of them okay? DirkGently Dec 2011 #72
It means the solution is to end the war. bhikkhu Dec 2011 #76
Which war? The War on Terror? The War on Al Quaeda? The War on The Taliban? DirkGently Dec 2011 #82
The war(s) the bill directs its attention to - bhikkhu Dec 2011 #84
Exactly. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #87
Actually, he's debunked that angle pretty thoroughly. DirkGently Dec 2011 #79
Actually, you're wrong about that. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #86
Greenwald correctly points out the bill endorses & codifies Bush's illegal interpretation. So, no. DirkGently Dec 2011 #99
And as I have said, it is all predicated on the AUMF, something Greenwald glosses over. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #102
And what, pray tell, is the chance that the AUMF will be repealed? green917 Dec 2011 #132
It is a potential solution Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #146
Your argument is somewhat specious though green917 Dec 2011 #157
They didn't "want" the power, they had the power. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #158
Sorry but the article on that link is rubbish. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #90
quotes aren't by definition out of context TiberiusB Dec 2011 #96
The section numbers are different because they are taken from the reconciliation Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #120
k&r Starry Messenger Dec 2011 #62
K & R dreamnightwind Dec 2011 #63
another hitpiece from Greenwald. What's new? MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #64
Greenwald and his typical self-fellating bullshit. phleshdef Dec 2011 #68
Please link your own articles for us. L. Coyote Dec 2011 #144
You Say that Because he Challenges the Status Quo fascisthunter Dec 2011 #150
The "war on terror" IS the new McCarthyism. Same lie that it's to protect us. Same authoritarianism. DirkGently Dec 2011 #71
And Obama will sign it. FedUp_Queer Dec 2011 #80
ad hominem cowards ... TiberiusB Dec 2011 #92
yup.... any new reader will look at those posts fascisthunter Dec 2011 #112
Well said! green917 Dec 2011 #133
This is a VERY large problem for me and almost every one I know. 99Forever Dec 2011 #98
If Indefinite detention is a priority for Greenwald agentS Dec 2011 #107
Which is precisely why the President of the United States has the power of the veto green917 Dec 2011 #135
Two reasons agentS Dec 2011 #155
The indefinite detention provisions have no business... blackspade Dec 2011 #108
ITT: Sycophants saying this is okay because "OUR" guy is doing. Dutchmaster Dec 2011 #109
i thought this had been settled. why are we still reading made up fairy tales. n/t. okieinpain Dec 2011 #114
Some older kids made him do it. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #116
America doesn't torture! We just make people disappear. Kablooie Dec 2011 #122
Jonathan Turley ... "American citizens can be killed" Jim_Shorts Dec 2011 #130
+1... ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #138
Kr...the last straw...the last coffin nail... ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #137
K&R (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #141
The bill does not require indefinite detention of American citizens, BUT DOES ALLOW IT. Zhade Dec 2011 #142
Exactly - military can and will lock you up, this is a war against dissent and free speech -nt scentopine Dec 2011 #153
US: A Dangerous Woman - Indefinite Detention at Carswell L. Coyote Dec 2011 #143
i am horrified but not shocked reggie the dog Dec 2011 #156
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Obama Prepares to A...»Reply #32