Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans

[Better Believe It]

Happy Birthday, Bill of Rights: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans
By JONATHAN TURLEY
December 15, 2011

There was a brief moment when civil libertarians were stunned to see President Barack Obama actually take a stand in favor of civil liberties after years to rolling back on basic rights of citizens and moving beyond the Bush Administration in building up the security state. Obama said that he would veto the defense bill that contained a horrific provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens. While many predicted it, Obama has now again betrayed the civil liberties community and lifted the threat of the veto. Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

he White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Even more distressing is the statement from sponsor Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Read the full article at:

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Loom of the Jackboot: Obama Gives Military Extreme Powers
by Alexander Cockburn
December 23, 2011

After months of declaring that he would veto such legislation, Obama has now crumbled and will soon sign a monstrosity called the Levin/McCain detention bill, named for its two senatorial sponsors, Carl Levin and John McCain. It's snuggled into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

The detention bill mandates — don't glide too easily past that word — that all accused terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; this includes U.S. citizens within the borders of the United States.

All onslaughts on potential sedition like to cast as wide a net as possible, so the detention act authorizes use of military force against anyone who "substantially supports" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." Of course, "associated forces" can mean anything. The bill's language mentions, "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." That's language that can be bent, at will, by any prosecutor. Protest too vigorously the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki by American forces in Yemen in October and one day it's not fanciful to expect the thump of the military jackboot on your front step, or on that of any anti-war organizer, or any journalist whom some zealous military intelligence officer deems to be giving objective support to the forces of evil and darkness. Since 1878, here in the U.S., the Posse Comitatus Act has limited the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. The detention bill renders the Posse Comitatus Act a dead letter.

Governments, particularly those engaged in a Great War on Terror, like to make long lists of troublesome people to be sent to internment camps or dungeons in case of national emergency. Back in Reagan's time, in the 1980s, Lt. Col. Oliver North, working out of the White House, was caught preparing just such a list. Reagan speedily distanced himself from North. Obama, the former lecturer on the U.S. Constitution, is brazenly signing this authorization for military internment camps.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/23-2


------------------------------------------------------------------------



ACLU on Obama's non-veto
White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON – The White House today announced that it will support passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. The final version of the NDAA was agreed to earlier this week by House and Senate conferees.

Though Obama administration had threatened to veto a previous version of the bill based on these provisions, it has reversed its position. The House is expected to pass the bill tonight and Senate will vote soon after.

“The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law,” Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/aclu-on-obamas-non-veto.html


------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Human Rights Watch
For Immediate Release

US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights
President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act

(Washington, DC, December 14, 2011) – US President Barack Obama’s apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the military’s role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, it issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation.

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act. The bill would also bar the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo into the US for any reason, including for trial. In addition, it would extend restrictions, imposed last year, on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to home or third countries – even those cleared for release by the administration.

There are currently 171 detainees at Guantanamo, many of whom have been imprisoned for nearly 10 years. As one of his first acts in office, Obama signed an executive order for the closure of Guantanamo within one year. Instead of moving quickly to close the prison and end the use of the discredited military commissions, he supported modifications to the Military Commissions Act.

“It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights,” Roth said.

The bill also requires the US military take custody of certain terrorism suspects even inside the United States, cases that previously have been handled by federal, state and local law enforcement authorities. During debate over the bill, several senior administration officials, including the secretary of defense, attorney general, director of national intelligence, director of the FBI, and director of the CIA, all raised objections that this provision interfered with the administration’s ability to effectively fight terrorism. In the last 10 years over 400 people have been prosecuted in US federal courts for terrorism related offenses. Meanwhile during that same period, only six cases have been prosecuted in the military commissions.

“President Obama cannot even justify this serious threat to basic rights on the basis of security,” Roth said. “The law replaces an effective system of civilian-court prosecutions with a system that has generated the kind of global outrage that would delight recruiters of terrorists.”

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/human-rights-watch.html

[DeSwiss]

1. K&R n/t

[libmom74]

2. Is anyone really surprised?

[Summer Hathaway]

52. Surprised to find yet another

anti-Obama cut-and-paste job from this OPer?

No, not surprised at all.

[libmom74]

62. So now being

pro-Constitutional rights is now considered anti-Obama? Strange days.

[Summer Hathaway]

83. "Obama breaks promise ..."

No, not anti-Obama at all.

The bill Obama threatened to veto was changed; he agreed to sign the changed version. No promise was broken.

But it seems no matter how many times that gets pointed out, some people refuse to acknowledge that fact.

[me b zola]

90. Turley clearly addresses your version of "fact"

[T]he White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

[Cameron27]

93. Thank you.

[Vincardog]

101. +1

[Summer Hathaway]

102. Turley can "address" whatever he likes

I don't have to buy it. And I don't.

[libmom74]

135. The bill was changed from

bad to worse, Obama wanted to veto the bill before the changes because it did not give enough Executive power.

[RBInMaine]

111. Kindly take your anti-Obama BS over to freepland where it belongs. We're not buying crazy here.

[libmom74]

123. I thought the

Freepers were the ones that live for blind, lockstep support of any politician who happens to have the R beside their name, it's disturbing the shit that so called Democrats and progressives find acceptable from this administration.

[Better Believe It]

137. I have to put you on ignore due to your personal attack against a DU'er.

[limpyhobbler]

3. come on Obama, what are you doing...

[SunsetDreams]

4. U.S. Citizens and Lawful Aliens are exempt

Not sure why that is so hard to understand, and how many times and different ways you are going to post about this hyperbolic factually incorrect nonsense.

[Capn Sunshine]

7. raison d'etre

the OP lives to post this in as many ways as possible, even though we all know that lawful US Citizens are exempt.

[cthulu2016]

8. Are unlawful aliens exempt?

The 5th amendment guarantee of due process applies to persons, not citizens or legal residents or visaed tourists.

Just persons.

[libmom74]

124. Not anymore.

Imagine if Bush II had supported and passed this same legislation, the same people spinning so hard to justify it because Obama did it would be up in arms. It is almost as if they have zero foresight, Obama will not be the president forever and even if you trust everything he says and does it does not mean some future president will not abuse the power granted by this bill.

[Better Believe It]

11. They are not exempt. Why do you think Human Rights Watch and the ACLU are wrong and you are right?

Once again:

The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Even more distressing is the statement from sponsor Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

What are you challenging in the above information?

[cthulu2016]

13. But the ACLU hasn't read the bill!

(that's a joke, of course. Arguments based on the ACLU having lousy lawyers are kind of non-starters.)

[donheld]

36. And neither have you.

[SunsetDreams]

14. They are exempt if you would read the actual bill instead of someone spinning it for you

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

p. 362

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted y the Constitution of the United
2 States.

[JDPriestly]

20. What does "requirement" mean in that context?

Saying that there is no requirement to detain US citizens is not at all the same as saying that US citizens my not be detained.

The bill should be much clearer in ratifying the rights of US citizens under the Constitution. It is very vaguely written and is therefore subject to differing interpretations. Really a bad bill in my view.

[bhikkhu]

22. "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities..."

I would think the clear statements: "Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." and "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." - would resolve any problems of interpretation or context, and carry more weight than abstruse spin over the use of the word "requirement".

The bill doesn't change anything. Basically it extends the original war authorization of 2001, which is the whole problem to begin with. I'd like to see a clear plan for an end to the war, and more focus on that in the next year going into the elections.

[TheKentuckian]

97. How do you make plans to end a war on a tactic old as civilization and utilized by virtually

every disadvantaged force (including our own Revolutionaries)?

The war isn't designed to end.

[JDPriestly]

112. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the law now is rather uncertain.

The Constitution seems quite clear to me, but the laws concerning terrorists muddy the waters. The problem with unclear language in a statute is that it gives judges the license to interpret the law as they wish.

It is ironic that so many Republicans complain about activist judges but are willing to pass a law like this that opens itself up to judicial activism. This statute is, in my opinion, a cop-out. Legislators just wanted to get home and were willing to pass a law with ambiguous, confusing language just to get on their way.

[Cali_Democrat]

46. Exactly right

[Major Nikon]

32. Pot/Kettle

The section you are quoting does not provide an exemption for indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial. What this section says is the executive branch is not REQUIRED to detain US citizens or lawful aliens in military custody. It does not say they are forbidden from doing so. What this means is that the executive branch has the choice of either the civilian courts or indefinite military detention.

There is no exemption from indefinite detention for anyone, including US citizens. If you think there is, you don't know how to read and interpret the legislation, and probably need someone to "spin" it from your erroneous interpretation.

[Better Believe It]

33. The ACLU and Human Rights Watch are always pushing that civil liberties crapola stuff!

Spinners .... that's what they are .... professional leftist spinners!

To hell with the ACLU and Human Rights Watch .... who do they think they are?

[Major Nikon]

30. There is no exemption for US citizens and lawful aliens

You may want to check what the facts actually are. If you think there's an exemption, you have either been woefully mislead or you don't know how to read and understand the legislation.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. As other posters have stated....

there is no exemption for US citizens.

[Major Hogwash]

69. Who are also wrong as the day is long.

There are exemptions, so you can stop now.

[Cali_Democrat]

95. Please go sell that stuff elsewhere

'cause I ain't buyin'

[The Doctor.]

79. Except for where it is clearly stated in the bill itself.

Other than that, you're absolutely right.

I'm against the bill for more substantial reasons than this nitpicking bullshit though. There should be NO indefinite detention of any human being without charges and/or trial.

In the meanwhile, it would help if we focused on that instead of whether US citizens are subject to this or not.

[Cali_Democrat]

96. Link to the clearly stated exemption statement in the bill, please

thank you in advance.

[The Doctor.]

98. Ummm, Really? Okay, I'll, ummm.... Link to this very thread... for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100274367#post14


Also, I do this thing where I provide quotes:

p. 362

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted y the Constitution of the United
2 States.

And where they're from:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
(With thanks to SunsetDreams)


Some people are so desperate for reasons to hate Obama that they'll throw reality itself out the window. One must be deliberately ignorant to be given this information and continue to deny the facts.

You now have the 'clearly stated exemption statement in the bill'. The only question now is whether you will choose to remain ignorant of it.

[Cali_Democrat]

103. Nice try, but I don't see any exemption for US citizens

That section of the bill only refers to the "requirement to detain." Nowhere does it state that US citizens are exempt. See reply #20 and you will see that the talking point you're attempting to use has already been debunked.

Fail.

[The Doctor.]

116. You mean where it says it in black and white... you can't see that?

Here:

"17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States." (I'd add arrows if I could)

As for being 'debunked', #20 does nothing of the sort. The legal meaning of "requirement" in this context is 'supercede prior law'. When a 'requirement' is 'not extended' to an entity, then the current law in effect is the default.

I think the question we should be asking is "Where in this bill does it grant authority to indefinitely detain US citizens or legal aliens?".

If you can find that, I'll gladly stand corrected.

[Cali_Democrat]

117. LOL. Keep trying

As the ACLU and many others have stated, the "requirement to detain" not extending to US citizens is not the same as exempting US citizens. There is no clearly stated exemption for US citizens as you claimed. Reading is fundamental.

I'm done going back and forth with you on this as it is utterly pointless and will likely never sink in. You're repeating things that have already been debunked.

Have a nice day.

[The Doctor.]

118. Where? I'm seriously asking.

And you're not bringing anything but "They said so!".

I posted what I have and understand. You've posted nothing substantive to help me see any differently. I'm sorry, but 'because they said so' has never been and should never be an adequately convincing argument.

If you have nothing to show how I'm mistaken, then I suppose you would find a reason to leave.

You have a nice day too.

[The Doctor.]

119. This is how it is done:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277290#post3

It's a good start, but still not definitive.

[Mojorabbit]

64. I have to trust the ACLU's lawyers on this one.

It is too convoluted for me to follow with one side saying it does and one it does not.I know they have teams of lawyers looking it over and they have my utmost respect.

[vaberella]

131. This is a weak defense.

The whole thing is...Obama hasn't signed the bill while this posts says contrary and therefore lieing.

[Hardrada]

5. What's next from our constitutional-scholar-in-chief?

[dickthegrouch]

86. I think his scholarship should be looked at closely

He sure doesn't seem to have learned much from history. How anyone, far less a black man, could think this is constitutionally sound is beyond me.

[bhikkhu]

6. This same baloney-fest still

By now probably most people know the bill is just an extension of the war authorization of 2001, and really changes nothing. Some language was questioned back in July, and several bits of language were changed. What would satisfy me (and what would also satisfy the ACLU and critics, I think) is to see a plan to end the war and retire the war authorization, and end the various threats it has made on civil liberties for 10 years now. But this whole narrative that Obama just did this, just now, and we'd be all fine if he just didn't do it, is unhelpful crap.

[boppers]

16. Indeed. No war = no detention based on that war.

There's too much nit-picking over the battlefield tactics, and not enough questioning the premise of the whole enterprise.

[Capn Sunshine]

9. When did the President promise to give Al Queada a break and not interfere with them in the US?

because that would be the only broken promise relevant to this discussion.

[johnaries]

10. Uh,no. He threatened to veto the ORIGINAL bill, so they changed it.

The Bill he signed is NOT the bill he threatened to veto.

[Better Believe It]

12. It's worse!

[Major Hogwash]

70. No, it's better.

[onion belt]

94. LOL!

[Bobbie Jo]

113. LOL

The troll agrees with you, BBI.

Go figure.

[unkachuck]

15. I'm being totally confused....

....by all you smart people....

....did Obama sign a bill granting the military the power to indefinitely detain Americans or not?

....if he did sign such a bill, he just made it impossible for me to vote for him.

[SunsetDreams]

17. No he did not, because that is not in the bill

U.S. Citizens and Lawful Aliens are exempt.

[cthulu2016]

18. difficult to make an informed personal decision

The meaning of the bill depends on the relationships between sections and the laws they change, and court decisions rendered since the first law.

Reading legislation is not like reading the sports page. There are reasons that a brief challenging a two word phrase can be 1,000 pages.

So we are left to either read some language without comprehending the full context and implications and conclude that we have "read the bill" and thus know the answers to these questions, or we must rely to some degree on experts who have earned our trust.

Personally, when a president and the ACLU have a different view of a potential expansion of presidential power I lean toward the ACLU.

That doesn't mean they are sure to be right, but I have long-standing reason to respect their analysis of things.

[boppers]

24. No, he signed a bill formalizing the pre-existing "military [...] power to [...] detain Americans".

The bill did not grant it, as it was already established, and held up by the Supreme Court, provided there is some judicial review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

The whole "indefinitely" word is a red flag that somebody is spinning, in some direction.

[RZM]

21. It's interesting seeing Turley threads now

During the Bush administration Turley was a Fox News contributer. I was only a lurker at that time, but I imagine his opinion was scorned back then. I'm sure people who now take his word wouldn't have done so 7 years ago.

Either you were wrong then or wrong now. Pick one

[cthulu2016]

23. Actually, Turley was fine vs. Bush

It was his support of impeaching Clinton that was the whiplash-inducer

[RZM]

25. I don't disagree

I imagine that's one reason he no longer works for Fox. He was a little too hot for them to handle. But still, I stand by my statement that some people who would have dismissed any opinion he had then are embracing him now.

I've never had much of an opinion on him either way. He's a legal scholar and I'm not. In most cases, I'm forced to take his word for it.

[libmom74]

63. Attack the messenger

That's what happens when you can't defend horrible legislation passed by a "Democratic" adminstration.

[jefferson_dem]

121. Actually, there have been countless defenses of this administration policies ...

much to the chagrin of teabaggers, republicans, and his supposedly "liberal" critics. Look around...

Oh, it's always important to consider the source. Have you never said anything critical of a FauxNews story because it originated on FauxNews...or do you trust their reporting to be credible?

[Major Hogwash]

71. No kidding.

I miss seeing that one Constitutional expert with the red beard that taught at Georgetown speak on issues like this.
But, the media probably got to him.

[PSPS]

26. The exemption seems to still be there

While I disagree with this Act in principle, the specific complaint about hauling off American citizens into a military black hole seems without merit to me.

Here is the specific section from the final version of the Act:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS. -- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.-- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.-- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.-- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

It seems to me that section (e) addresses the concerns raised.

[cthulu2016]

28. It seems that section 1021 isn't what the OP is primarily about

Reading the OP, Turley seems most concerned with 1031

I do not claim expertise or hold a set opinion on these questions.

[PSPS]

29. Section 1031 is only about briefings

SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.

(a) BRIEFINGS REQUIRED.—Beginning not later than March 1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional
defense committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving
special operations forces.

(b) ELEMENTS.—Each briefing under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:

(1) A global update on activity within each geographic combatant command.
(2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including limitations.
(3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.
(4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.

[cthulu2016]

31. A typo, I guess > > >

He probably means 1033, since 1031 isn't likely to be the one after 1032.

"The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial."

[PSPS]

39. No, 1033 just changes dates and makes other unrelated clarifications

SEC. 1033. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE REWARDS FOR COMBATING TERRORISM.

Section 127b of title 10, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (c)(3)(C), by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2013’’; and
(2) in subsection (f)—
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘December’’ and inserting ‘‘February’’; and
(B) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting ‘‘and the recipient’s geographic location’’ after ‘‘reward’’; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
‘‘(E) A description of the status of program implementation in each geographic combatant command.
‘‘(F) A description of efforts to coordinate and de-conflict the authority under subsection (a) with similar rewards
programs administered by the United States Government.
‘‘(G) An assessment of the effectiveness of the program in meeting its objectives.’’.

[cthulu2016]

42. Here is the 1031 section language from Turley's blog:

Section 1031:

Subtitle D–Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

[SunsetDreams]

44. It's right there in what you quote from Turley's blog

Read (e)

Section 1031:

Subtitle D–Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

[Tx4obama]

58. Your excerpt is NOT from the final bill.

In the final bill the Sections are 1021 and 1022

Enrolled Bill (Final as Passed Both House and Senate): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

White House - PENDING legislation page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/pending-legislation

[SunsetDreams]

60. it's not my excerpt, I was quoting another post

[PSPS]

45. The same section (e) is in what you posted.

The section I copied and pasted in my earlier post is from the final version of the Act as published and signed by the President.

[cthulu2016]

51. That is not an exemption for anyone

It is a statement that, among other things, if such exemption already exists in law that this law defers to that exemption. And if not, there is no exemption.

I am not with you or against you, and I am not even sure what side you are on, if any.

I am just commenting on law and language and looking at the ongoing skirmish, but I am not dedicated to any conclusion.

Thank you for your posts here. They are informative.

[Tx4obama]

59. In The Senate bill Sections 1031/1032. In The House bill: Sections 1021/1022, then ...

and those two sections are numbered Sections 1021/1022 in the FINAL bill that finally passed both The Senate and The House

Enrolled Bill (Final as Passed Both House and Senate): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

It can get confusing sometimes

[Major Nikon]

37. There is no exemption from indefinite military detention for US citizens

The exemption is for the REQUIREMENT to detain US citizens and lawful residents by indefinite military detention, which Obama said he would veto. What this means is that the executive branch has the option of prosecuting suspects through the civilian courts OR detaining them indefinitely by the military. Keep in mind that this option has been exercised in the past and almost certainly will be again in the future so long as an actual exemption does not exist.

[cthulu2016]

49. Correct, but with a clarification.

The section does not exempt Americans in any way from indefinite detention under the laws of war.

That is plain.

If, however, such jurisdiction for Americans under the laws of war is barred by existing law or valid court precdent then this law does not overturn that law or authority.

So the question is, does other law/authority bar holding Americans captured in America as prisoners of war?

That is what determines the real meaning of the section.

[Major Nikon]

53. There shouldn't be an absolute exemption

Taking the example of WWII, the executive branch shouldn't have the option removed simply because during a time of actual war the government should be able to detain subversives which can be dealt with after hostilities are over. So when we have an actual war as declared by congress, and an actual threat that goes along with that, I'm all for the detention of people who are a genuine threat to the welfare of US citizens. I'm even OK with the executive branch making those decisions. However, this is nowhere near that situation. The so-called 'war on terror' isn't a war. You can't wage war on a tactic. Using instances of terror to somehow declare a never ending undeclared war is madness and a recipe for abuses which we have already seen.

[cthulu2016]

55. I agree, of course, but this is an act of congress and

congress probably thinks it's a war (or would not want to be caught saying it isn't)... not that they would declare it or anything because that's so 1941.

My botom line on this stuff is that congress revisted some reign-of-terror Bush bullshit that made the whole world hate us and decided, in their awesomeness, to not make it dramatically worse.

The idea of rolling anything back... not so much.

So hooray! You're not any worse than Bush.

[RC]

27. H.R. 1540 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540rh/xml/BILLS-112hr1540rh.xml

Now everyone can read and search it for themselves.

I am inclined to believe the exemption for Americans is taken away elsewhere in the bill.
Why? Because of the ballyhoo still going on over this bill. If it were really cut and dried one way or the other, it would be a settled argument by now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit to add:
It seem the stronger one's support for Obama, the more likely one is to think the deputed text does not apply to Americans.
I say again, the very fact that a section of this bill is is still in contention should be a red flag for everyone, regardless of their support for Obama.

[PSPS]

34. Believe it or not, I have read the entire final bill and find nothing that alters 1021(e)

Section 1021...

(e) AUTHORITIES.-- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

[Tx4obama]

54. The exemption is STILL in there, read Sections 1021 and 1022 in the link below

White House - PENDING legislation page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/pending-legislation

Enrolled Bill (Final as Passed Both House and Senate): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

[Major Hogwash]

72. What was the final vote on that?

Do you know?

[MannyGoldstein]

35. I trust this president to do the right things

Practical Liberals understand that courts and trials just waste time and money.

Sincerely yours,

Practical Manny

[LeftyMom]

40. What a shock.

[Major Nikon]

41. Obama didn't break his most recent promise

He didn't promise to veto a bill that ALLOWED indefinite detention of US citizens. He promised to veto a bill that REQUIRED it. You can read the actual promise here in the NPR interview of John Brennan.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/09/143462913/brennan-discusses-national-defense-authorization-bill

As far as his more vague promises to roll back the totalitarian state Shrub created, not so much.

[cstanleytech]

47. Plus one aspect alot of people arent looking at is with this law on the books its bound to be

brought before scotus and it might actually force the court to really address the question rather than dodging it and hopefully they will rule it unconstitutional and spank congress for passing it.

[Major Nikon]

50. Don't hold your breath

The 4th circuit has already ruled that indefinite detention of US citizens is indeed constitutional. Since Padilla was transferred to the civilian court system by political pressure rather than legal pressure, this appeal went unchallenged by the USSC. I have absolutely no hope that it would have been overturned. The cat is already out of the bag on this one.

[cthulu2016]

48. Okay, here's the deal on the language, IMHO

The REQUIREMENT that the military gets terror suspects does not apply to people in the US. It is not required. The law leaves open whether Americans MAY be detained but is governed by existing law and precedent so I guess whatever the law was governing Jose Padilla is still whatever it is.

The section about detainees who have materially aided al queda or other anti-US fighters being subject to the laws of war (indefinite detention until end of conflict) does not exempt anybody, American or otherwise. It does, however, say that it doesn't change existing law and authorities regarding people in America.

So the military can continue to do whatever the hell it has been doing. And whatever the hell the supreme court has said is not challenged via revision. (SCOTUS has the last word on interpreting the law, but congress is free to then change the law if they don't care for SCOTUS's interpretation -- like, "This law does not mean X!" )

One is free to take this codification in law of certain shady practices that the SCOTU said were okay seriously or not.

It does not appear quite as nefarious as its critics say and not quite as harmless as its defenders say.

It should be noted that the President issued a signing statement saying that parts of this law, as passed, are unconstitutional. My impresssion was that the signing statement did not, however, concenr the parts we are arguing about here.

That's my take.

[Tx4obama]

56. There is a bit of confusion going on :)

President Obama has NOT yet signed: H.R. 1540 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
it is still 'pending legislation': http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/pending-legislation
and has NOT issued a signing statement yet regarding the NDAA bill.

President Obama has issued a signing statement, but it was in regards to: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Omnibus)
which President Obama signed on Dec 23rd: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

[cthulu2016]

57. Thanks for the info

[MjolnirTime]

61. Do you mislead through ignorance or deliberation?

[Better Believe It]

65. So we should trust you for the facts rather than the ACLU and Human Rights Watch?

Are you accusing Human Rights Watch and the ACLU of deception?

Or are you only engaged in a personal attack against me?

[MjolnirTime]

84. I notice you didn't answer my question.

[Better Believe It]

107. "Do you mislead through ignorance or deliberation?" The answer is No and you're now on ignore.

For engaging a yet another personal attack against DU'ers you disagree with.

If you're looking for a place to engage in trash talk you should try some other discussion board that encourages that sort of uncivil behavior.

Bye.

[ProSense]

66. Turley: This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign

This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate...

Maybe Turley has the same issues Paul does.


NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562

Statement by the President on H.R. 2055
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/23/statement-president-hr-2055

[MineralMan]

67. Did you just now find that Turley article from December 15?

I seem to remember it being posted on the day it appeared. If you just found it now, you're slipping in your reading.

[Better Believe It]

76. Yes. And I take it you support indefinite detention of Americans by the military ....

and that you're not one of those "professional leftist" pro civil libertarian nuts who is constantly yapping about civil rights, the Bill of Rights, government spying on legal political activities and other fringe stuff.

Well, good for you!

Do you also think the Supreme Court should uphold government violations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

[MineralMan]

80. Have I said that? I don't believe I have.

It's a mistake to "take it that" I mean anything I have not said. My comment was about the timeliness of your post, not about detaining Americans by the military. I do not support that. Please do not assume what I support or do not support. If you ask, I will tell you quite honestly and frankly what I think. I do not necessarily list all of my beliefs and opinions in each post. In this post, I meant to comment on the untimeliness of your quoted material, and on that alone.

As far as the SCOTUS is concerned, it is the arbiter of constitutional issues because the Constitution says that it is the arbiter of such issues. I don't think you can get much more constitutional than that. Are they always correct in their ruling? No, they are not, but they are constitutionally the arbiter of constitutional issues. perhaps a rereading of that document is in order for you.

[rhett o rick]

100. A couple of comments.

As I see it, the Constitution does not authorize the SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of laws. This power was assumed by Chief Justice John Marshall via the Marbury v. Madison. Whether this decision itself was constitutional or not has been long debated.

As far as arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens goes, IMO the court system has not cleared this up with either Hamdi v Rumsfeld or Padillo v. Rumsfeld. The current wording in the NDAA also doesnt clear this up IMO.

Have a great holidays

[MineralMan]

106. I think it is quite clear that cases involving

constitutionality are the purview of the SCOTUS, and that the Constitution itself makes that the case.

As for your second question, I would agree that the court has not made that clear at all. Since the internment of the Japanese Americans in WWII, I've felt that that issue has not been properly addressed. They made a poor decision in that case, and have not properly reversed it.

[rhett o rick]

133. I agree that since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has reviewed laws

to determine their constitutionality. However, the Constitution does not clearly authorize the SCOTUS that power. This issue has been of some contention since. I believe that the SCOTUS has acquired too much power when 9 men and/or women can strike down laws passed by Congress and approved by the POTUS. Just my humble opinions.

[Better Believe It]

122. Since you are opposed to indefinite detention I take that to mean you think Obama

should have refused to sign the bill permitting such detention.

Is that correct?

You can't be both against the bill and in favor of Obama signing it at the same time .... right?

Or are you both for and against the legislation?

Clarify your position.

Thanks.

[Tx4obama]

127. President Obama has NOT signed the NDAA bill - see comment #126 n/t

[bvar22]

68. The Final Authoruty has SPOKEN!

[font size=6]This Debate is OVER[/font]

[font size=1]from this weeks This Modern World[/font]






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[treestar]

73. The Courts are the final authority

[treestar]

74. I'll let the courts decide

Rather than Jonathan Turley and the ACLU. They can do amicus briefs.

That is the rule of law and the way it rolls.

[Better Believe It]

75. You so right! This is a real pro Bill of Rights Supreme Court!

Right-wing reaction runs this Supreme Court and that "the way it rolls".

So we should learn to live with it .... isn't that right "treestar"?

[treestar]

77. Do you oppose the case of Marbury v. Madison?

Or the creation of the Judiciary in Article III?

As to the personnel on the court, there are two chosen by President Obama and you'd better hope he gets a second term and picks the next ones rather than Mittens.

The justices are on for life and that is to protect them from politics. Even during the Shrub Administration, the Court in being at that time held in favor in Padilla and Hamdi.

[bvar22]

78. Obama Supreme Court Appointments are disappointing.

The court is even MORE conservative with Obama's Centrist appointments replacing a True Liberal
and a Liberal leaning Moderate.
So far, Obama's appointments have shown an Authoritarian, Pro-Unitary Executive bias.
I am NOT happy that these new appointments are siding WITH those that are chipping away at the Bill of Rights.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justices-side-police-warrantless-search/story?id=13613343




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[treestar]

81. Kagan and Sotomayor?

They are as conservative as Alito and Scalia?

[bvar22]

87. No, but they ARE more conservative than the judges they replaced,

and THAT makes the Supreme Court MORE conservative over all,
and they HAVE demonstrated a frightening inclination to join with Scalia and Alito on issues involving Authority vs Civil Liberties.

Replacing unapologetic Liberal and Liberties protectionist Justice JP Stevens with a Centrist swung the composition of the SC waaaaay to The Right.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justices-side-police-warrantless-search/story?id=13613343






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[rhett o rick]

82. Did you say that the courts found in favor of Padilla and Hamdi? Dont agree. nm

Pres Obama had the chance to set this straight but he didnt.

[treestar]

91. Please quote the parts of those decisions

That you do not agree with.

[bvar22]

85. By ALL means, do so!!!

Don't dare to Question Authority,
or Think for Yourself!

Never, EVER look at the direction we are heading or connect any dots.

Let someone else do that for you,
then just join the parade!
It so much EASIER that way!

When the Fascists took control of Italy and Germany in the 30s,
almost everything they did was first codified bu their courts,
but since their courts said it was A-OK,
many Germans and Italians just joined the parade.

[Zorra]

89. Totally lost all faith in that after the 2000 election. nt

[TheKentuckian]

99. Sounds very thoughtful...I'll leave it to the Citizens United, Bush v Gore, Bush junta affirming

courts.

I love how in one breath replacing them is the most important thing ever and worth considerable policy sacrifice just to be able to take advantage and in the next that they are to be trusted to properly interpret the constitution.

[Why Syzygy]

88. k/r

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. Politicians consider promises (and the truth) to be conveniently flexible and open to "change".

[rbixby]

104. So I guess now we should all vote Santorum? NT

[slay]

105. Nobody should be surprised by this shit anymore

Obama talks a good game but at the end of the day - he is part of the problem, not the solution. We all know it, but don't want to admit - that the Dems are this terribly corrupt and OWNED. The system is broken. #OccupyWallStreet knows it - and when we are honest with ourselves - we do too.

[Xicano]

108. Let us not deceive ourselves.....

Here's an altered version of Patrick Henry's speech.

Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this legislative array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has the government any enemy in this quarter of the world after a decade of crushing country after country who the government believed in all their profiteering wisdom constituted some phantom threat to now all of the sudden call for all this accumulation of laws, militarized police and now armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us after these latest public assemblies to petition the government with a list of grievances: they can be meant for no other. In this eve before ever greater wealth disparity between the 1% vs the 99% they are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the 1% have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last fifty years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm of feudalism which is now coming on at an ever increasing rate. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne called Washington/Wall Street, and have implored any of its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of those who have corrupted it and used it to commit acts of fraud, theft and tyranny too numerous to list. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and the reconciliation of real change we can believe in. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious and just object of our contest shall be obtained -- we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to all the 99% to simply sit down in solidarity and withhold all of our labor from today's feudal lords, the 1%, and withdraw all our wealth from their institutions and invest it in new ones created by and for the 99% is all that is left us!

[just1voice]

109. Unbelievable what the U.S. has become regardless of the blame game

The fact that such "legislation" even exists in this country thoroughly ruins any pretense of the U.S. being a country that believes in equal rights or democracy.

[RBInMaine]

110. Yawn... more hyprbolic bullshit from the whacko purist pulpit.

[mrdmk]

114. Your statement is a contradiction in terms

When writing a law concerning, 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' I expect lawmakers to be perfectly clear. Not to leave meanings in terms to where a person disappears for life never to be found again. There are some major problems with this bill.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Jane Mecom, 23 February 1769

Having a bill put into law such as this, you have to wonder, who is protecting whom from what?

[Xicano]

120. So was it "hyprbolic bullshit from the whacko purist pulpit" when folks argued against Bush signing

the patriot act? Or are you just another one of these regressed tribalistic types today who believe all that matters is "their tribe, right or wrong"? n/t

[bertman]

115. REC. The "we're all safe" spin is not working on this one. nt

[tishaLA]

125. Rachel said last week that Pres O issued a signing statement

When he signed this. Do we know what the signing statement said? Did it have anything to do with indefinite detention? And if it did, does that eliminate some concerns--or does it make us hate signing statements as much as we did under *?

[Tx4obama]

126. See comment #56 on this thread, it says ...

There is a bit of confusion going on

President Obama has NOT yet signed: H.R. 1540 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
it is still 'pending legislation': http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/pending-legislation
and has NOT issued a signing statement yet regarding the NDAA bill.

President Obama has issued a signing statement, but it was in regards to: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Omnibus)
which President Obama signed on Dec 23rd: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

[tishaLA]

128. Gracias

Christ, I feel like I pay close attention but I'm always missing stuff.

[vaberella]

130. Understand clearly there are people on this board with an agenda against the President.

And they feed off of the ire of other people who are not paying close attention. Especially if thread means anything.

[Bobbie Jo]

132. Right you are, vaberella.

Obvious agenda is obvious.

[vaberella]

129. The mere fact people support this post says to me DU is not a place of facts but lives for lies! n/t

[Lord Helmet]

136. thanx

I thought this was bs.

[T S Justly]

134. K&R (nt)