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

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)

17. Except it did change the provisions of the AUMF

Reply to karynnj (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 11:18 AM

Dec 2011

If you read the AUMF, there is a statement that basically says those who may be indefinitely detained by the military must have some connection to 9/11. Gone is this language in the NDAA, which effectively makes these provisions last until(if?) another act of congress reverses them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Letter from Senator Ben Nelson Explaining NDAA [View all] SunsetDreams Dec 2011 OP

See? Al Franken, the ACLU and the other Chicken Little crowd MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #1

Maybe they should have considered both sides, or all of the sides, before treestar Dec 2011 #19

Of course our honorable colleague nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #3

That signing statement you posted is NOT for the NDAA bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #6

The link in your OP is for the Senate bill, NOT the final House bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #4

thanks SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #7

my understanding after researching the issue was that senator Nelson is wrong. nt limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #5

what research have you done that would prove Senator Nelson wrong? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #8

Probably I looked at all the same materials you did but just came to a different conclusion. limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #9

The clause added due to the Feinstein amendment reads ... Tx4obama Dec 2011 #10

That's not what they mean by "existing law" Major Nikon Dec 2011 #13

I think that is why both of these things can simultaneously be true karynnj Dec 2011 #14

Except it did change the provisions of the AUMF Major Nikon Dec 2011 #17

I didn't see that in the language - though I am not disputing it karynnj Dec 2011 #24

You can read it here... Major Nikon Dec 2011 #25

Isn't the Patriot Act "existing law"? Bandit Dec 2011 #26

At least you've considered another side of the question treestar Dec 2011 #20

see all the other posts in this thread and watch this video limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #30

Thats the same crap he sent me newfie11 Dec 2011 #11

Ben Nelson is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate Major Nikon Dec 2011 #12

On this matter (and several others) he and the President seem to agree. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #15

I don't see the President putting this kind of spin on the bill Major Nikon Dec 2011 #16

So, that fact that the President and Ben Nelson agree on this matter is irrelevant? Romulox Dec 2011 #18

I never agreed with your "fact" in the first place Major Nikon Dec 2011 #28

Those are reasons (perhaps "excuses") for his agreement. Signing the bill signals the President's Romulox Dec 2011 #29

What spin? treestar Dec 2011 #21

That's a big "If" Major Nikon Dec 2011 #27

If it's already in place why again legislate it, and why then resist our demand to remove it? Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #22

Is there, like, a school in or near DC where they teach politicians how to speak fluent Weasel? Zorra Dec 2011 #23