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: "Obama Prepares to Authorize Indefinite Detention of US Citizens for First Time Since McCarthy Era" [View all]Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)126. really...this is your argument?
The law doesn't state that a person cannot crap on their neighbors yard either. So then it must be ok to do that? This is the nonesensical arguement you are trying to put forward?
Gawd luv ya..
The Constitution and DUE process are where a law says it cannot be done
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
158 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
"Obama Prepares to Authorize Indefinite Detention of US Citizens for First Time Since McCarthy Era" [View all]
Cali_Democrat
Dec 2011
OP
Actually it doesn't answer that, Where specifically again, does it state that..
SunsetDreams
Dec 2011
#28
Modification of Conditions On Status Of Retired Aircraft Carrier Ex-John F. Kenney?
SunsetDreams
Dec 2011
#40
And all of this on the heels of killing bin Laden with no new perceived threat.
ScottLand
Dec 2011
#94
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
Can you point me to a link where the 4th circuit opinion was vacated in its entirety?
justiceischeap
Dec 2011
#95
That says the current law needs to be fixed (something I agree with), not that the defense bill made
karynnj
Dec 2011
#100
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
and the overall statement of intentions of the section, which would guide a court challenge:
bhikkhu
Dec 2011
#74
No it does NOT. The Feinstein amendment language added a line (clause 'e') to Section 1031
Tx4obama
Dec 2011
#88
Obama the candidate was for warrantless wiretaps. Signing the bill is entirely consistent with that.
McCamy Taylor
Dec 2011
#22
Graham cracker wants us to forgo this right.... He prefer we just "shut up"...
midnight
Dec 2011
#103
So, Jose Padilla was detained by Eisenhower? Silly me. I thought it was Bush.
McCamy Taylor
Dec 2011
#20
Precisely. And that was illegal. Not any more when this bill is signed into law.
EFerrari
Dec 2011
#35
What political currency does this gain. It makes him look horrible to the left. It also makes..
JVS
Dec 2011
#66
Senator Finestein said she is going to write another bill that will clarify her 2 amendments further
Major Hogwash
Dec 2011
#69
They are doing this to shut down protests like occupy wall street. And the right wingers on this
scentopine
Dec 2011
#60
No, US citizens in The USA are exempt from indefinite detention requirement.
blackspade
Dec 2011
#111
Do we enjoy too much freedom? What other civil liberties to you support destroying?
scentopine
Dec 2011
#152
So there is an underlying wrong, & a complementary wrong. Does that make one of them okay?
DirkGently
Dec 2011
#72
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
The section numbers are different because they are taken from the reconciliation
Luminous Animal
Dec 2011
#120
The "war on terror" IS the new McCarthyism. Same lie that it's to protect us. Same authoritarianism.
DirkGently
Dec 2011
#71
Which is precisely why the President of the United States has the power of the veto
green917
Dec 2011
#135
i thought this had been settled. why are we still reading made up fairy tales. n/t.
okieinpain
Dec 2011
#114
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