Editorials & Other Articles

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

75. The language of the law is too ambiguous.

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:45 AM

Jan 2012

It's nice that Jason Easley thinks it is OK, but Jason Easly apparently majored in political science. There is no indication that he has a background in law or in interpreting law in the way that courts do.

Several prominent lawyers have expressed doubts about the meaning of the law. I personally think it is vague. The definition of terrorism and of supporting terrorism is vague in this law and in the Patriot Act and could include a lot of harmless or just plain crazy people and in some cases even nonviolent people who may not know that they are supporting a group that is considered to be a terrorist group by the government.

The law should make it very clear that, with the exception of the National Guard in extremely unusual emergencies, the military should not be involved in law enforcement within the US whether the laws are to be enforced against so-called terrorists or ordinary criminals.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it doesn't do is authorize the detention of Americans" [View all] Tx4obama Dec 2011 OP

Not good enough! Off with his head! gateley Dec 2011 #1

Astonishing. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #7

Yep. Astonishing. nt gateley Jan 2012 #8

Seems to me like you are arguing both sides of the issue? mazzarro Jan 2012 #28

I don't think anything is all good or all bad in politics. I'm thankful for the good we get, gateley Jan 2012 #51

Well he may have said that, and Feinstien's bill may say that, but how will a teddy51 Dec 2011 #2

re: teddy51 TheDizzzle Jan 2012 #5

There were THREE Feinstein amendments, the 3rd one passed before the NDAA bill did n/t Tx4obama Jan 2012 #9

Correct. freshwest Jan 2012 #47

Good stuff. Read the article linked to in the article as well: napoleon_in_rags Dec 2011 #3

"Wow government listening to the people...how exciting is that?" <--- ROFLMAO stockholmer Jan 2012 #15

you don't need to 'detain' someone SixthSense Jan 2012 #50

It amazes me sometimes, shouldn't the legislative branch receive the ire? I mean I blame... roseBudd Dec 2011 #4

Exactly. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #6

It is an appropriations bill, there is no line item veto. roseBudd Jan 2012 #16

True, but ... ddickey Jan 2012 #22

No, he could NOT have vetoed the bill. TheWraith Jan 2012 #25

He could have, he should have ddickey Jan 2012 #27

They believe in magic POTUS roseBudd Jan 2012 #30

So what? Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #43

Cowardice, plain and simple. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #71

Obama's veto might not have stopped the enactment of the bill, but there is a chance it would have JDPriestly Jan 2012 #76

You are so right. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #80

Had he vetoed the bill, most likely, the Democrats in the Senate would have prevailed JDPriestly Jan 2012 #82

Surreal. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #83

You are not alone. JDPriestly Jan 2012 #84

He could have vetoed the bill cheapdate Jan 2012 #26

Uh huh. Now is not the time for gay rights. Now is not the time to question our president Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #45

A person of truly good character does what is right and if he does it with strength and conviction, JDPriestly Jan 2012 #77

Non-sequiter FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #70

It's easier to blame one person instead of 535. Besides, they like some of those jobs. freshwest Jan 2012 #49

Those who didn't read and understand the President's signing statement will also refuse to lamp_shade Jan 2012 #10

Oh? Did he say citizens can't be detained without charges? Great -- where is that? DirkGently Jan 2012 #20

A signing statment doesn't mean jack shit Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #46

Oh, come on!! polmaven Jan 2012 #11

Nice propaganda MNBrewer Jan 2012 #12

+10000, the OP is pure bollocks stockholmer Jan 2012 #14

Funny, when we blew up that kid with a missile, we heard AUMF trumped the Constitution. DirkGently Jan 2012 #17

Not true. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #24

Yes indeed - just like people believed G.W. Bush more than all the screaming antiwar activists? mazzarro Jan 2012 #29

It's an excuse they can later use to explain their ignorance when their rosy predictions turn out to Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #36

A signing statement? Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #35

You didn't know that? Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #39

Once again, please try clarifying your ramblings a little bit so they make sense. n/t Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #41

Signing statements are extra-Constitutional MNBrewer Jan 2012 #55

President Obama already signed this bill into law. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #59

The signing statement carries no force of law MNBrewer Jan 2012 #60

You said that already. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #61

And you replied with a non sequitur, so I repeated it. MNBrewer Jan 2012 #62

It is the law. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #64

No, I called the OP propaganda MNBrewer Jan 2012 #65

Are you honestly trying to say that the president's signing statement carries the rule of law with Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #63

We already have the Patriot Act, War Commissions Act, secret CIA prisons all over the globe... lib2DaBone Jan 2012 #13

Why? OWS is one reason. This Act that was passed, IS terrorism, by the state. webDude Jan 2012 #19

BINGO! Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #38

They will believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts treestar Jan 2012 #18

What fact would that be? Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #40

No, it doesn't treestar Jan 2012 #52

Okay, explain to me how it doesn't Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #53

Here's a start treestar Jan 2012 #54

LOL. From your own link: Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #56

Oh and as for me proving that it is unconstitutional, I give you the 5th Amendment Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #58

However... FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #81

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not " DirkGently Jan 2012 #21

What kind of rag tag crap is that from a constitutional lawyer???? Pleeez like a used car lot lunasun Jan 2012 #33

He's been convinced to hold on to power he says he will not use. Wasn't that the plot of LOTR? DirkGently Jan 2012 #66

This from the same president who FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #72

"NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it doesn't do is authorize the detention of Americans" plantwomyn Jan 2012 #23

And they should not be if they are actively attempting to cause loss of life roseBudd Jan 2012 #31

Why do we need a special law at this time to deal with terrorists Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #42

I really don't care if they have a freaking atom bomb. plantwomyn Jan 2012 #44

plantwomyn happy holidays from lunasun in Chicago!!! lunasun Jan 2012 #34

It's not that it's "new." It codifies & builds upon Bush's illegal interpretation of AUMF. DirkGently Jan 2012 #69

It does authorize the detention of American citizens; it simply doesn't "require"'it ddickey Jan 2012 #32

Ding!!! Ding!!! Ding!!! FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #73

Not to mention citizenship is locked in stone.. except it isn't, should Congress pass this POS bill Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #74

As others have noted, your post is a steaming pile of crap Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #37

I agree completely. ddickey Jan 2012 #57

Miss the days when "Tx4obama" was on my ignore list. blkmusclmachine Jan 2012 #48

Happy New Year to YOU :) Tx4obama Jan 2012 #68

As noted elsewhere MFrohike Jan 2012 #67

The language of the law is too ambiguous. JDPriestly Jan 2012 #75

I think that misses the point. morningfog Jan 2012 #78

And what gives Jason Easley, with a Bachelors in Political Science... Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #79