General Discussion

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)

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

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 12:03 AM

Dec 2011

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans [View all] Better Believe It Dec 2011 OP

K&R n/t DeSwiss Dec 2011 #1

Is anyone really surprised? libmom74 Dec 2011 #2

Surprised to find yet another Summer Hathaway Dec 2011 #52

So now being libmom74 Dec 2011 #62

"Obama breaks promise ..." Summer Hathaway Dec 2011 #83

Turley clearly addresses your version of "fact" me b zola Dec 2011 #90

Thank you. Cameron27 Dec 2011 #93

+1 Vincardog Dec 2011 #101

Turley can "address" whatever he likes Summer Hathaway Dec 2011 #102

The bill was changed from libmom74 Dec 2011 #135

Kindly take your anti-Obama BS over to freepland where it belongs. We're not buying crazy here. RBInMaine Dec 2011 #111

I thought the libmom74 Dec 2011 #123

I have to put you on ignore due to your personal attack against a DU'er. Better Believe It Dec 2011 #137

come on Obama, what are you doing... limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #3

U.S. Citizens and Lawful Aliens are exempt SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #4

raison d'etre Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #7

Are unlawful aliens exempt? cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #8

Not anymore. libmom74 Dec 2011 #124

They are not exempt. Why do you think Human Rights Watch and the ACLU are wrong and you are right? Better Believe It Dec 2011 #11

But the ACLU hasn't read the bill! cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #13

And neither have you. donheld Dec 2011 #36

They are exempt if you would read the actual bill instead of someone spinning it for you SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #14

What does "requirement" mean in that context? JDPriestly Dec 2011 #20

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities..." bhikkhu Dec 2011 #22

How do you make plans to end a war on a tactic old as civilization and utilized by virtually TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #97

Unfortunately, as I understand it, the law now is rather uncertain. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #112

Exactly right Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #46

Pot/Kettle Major Nikon Dec 2011 #32

The ACLU and Human Rights Watch are always pushing that civil liberties crapola stuff! Better Believe It Dec 2011 #33

There is no exemption for US citizens and lawful aliens Major Nikon Dec 2011 #30

As other posters have stated.... Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #43

Who are also wrong as the day is long. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #69

Please go sell that stuff elsewhere Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #95

Except for where it is clearly stated in the bill itself. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #79

Link to the clearly stated exemption statement in the bill, please Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #96

Ummm, Really? Okay, I'll, ummm.... Link to this very thread... for you. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #98

Nice try, but I don't see any exemption for US citizens Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #103

You mean where it says it in black and white... you can't see that? The Doctor. Dec 2011 #116

LOL. Keep trying Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #117

Where? I'm seriously asking. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #118

This is how it is done: The Doctor. Dec 2011 #119

I have to trust the ACLU's lawyers on this one. Mojorabbit Dec 2011 #64

This is a weak defense. vaberella Dec 2011 #131

What's next from our constitutional-scholar-in-chief? Hardrada Dec 2011 #5

I think his scholarship should be looked at closely dickthegrouch Dec 2011 #86

This same baloney-fest still bhikkhu Dec 2011 #6

Indeed. No war = no detention based on that war. boppers Dec 2011 #16

When did the President promise to give Al Queada a break and not interfere with them in the US? Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #9

Uh,no. He threatened to veto the ORIGINAL bill, so they changed it. johnaries Dec 2011 #10

It's worse! Better Believe It Dec 2011 #12

No, it's better. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #70

LOL! onion belt Dec 2011 #94

LOL Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #113

I'm being totally confused.... unkachuck Dec 2011 #15

No he did not, because that is not in the bill SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #17

This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #19

difficult to make an informed personal decision cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #18

No, he signed a bill formalizing the pre-existing "military [...] power to [...] detain Americans". boppers Dec 2011 #24

It's interesting seeing Turley threads now RZM Dec 2011 #21

Actually, Turley was fine vs. Bush cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #23

I don't disagree RZM Dec 2011 #25

Attack the messenger libmom74 Dec 2011 #63

Actually, there have been countless defenses of this administration policies ... jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #121

No kidding. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #71

The exemption seems to still be there PSPS Dec 2011 #26

It seems that section 1021 isn't what the OP is primarily about cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #28

Section 1031 is only about briefings PSPS Dec 2011 #29

A typo, I guess > > > cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #31

No, 1033 just changes dates and makes other unrelated clarifications PSPS Dec 2011 #39

Here is the 1031 section language from Turley's blog: cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #42

It's right there in what you quote from Turley's blog SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #44

Your excerpt is NOT from the final bill. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #58

it's not my excerpt, I was quoting another post SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #60

The same section (e) is in what you posted. PSPS Dec 2011 #45

That is not an exemption for anyone cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #51

In The Senate bill Sections 1031/1032. In The House bill: Sections 1021/1022, then ... Tx4obama Dec 2011 #59

There is no exemption from indefinite military detention for US citizens Major Nikon Dec 2011 #37

Correct, but with a clarification. cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #49

There shouldn't be an absolute exemption Major Nikon Dec 2011 #53

I agree, of course, but this is an act of congress and cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #55

H.R. 1540 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 RC Dec 2011 #27

Believe it or not, I have read the entire final bill and find nothing that alters 1021(e) PSPS Dec 2011 #34

This message was self-deleted by its author PSPS Dec 2011 #38

The exemption is STILL in there, read Sections 1021 and 1022 in the link below Tx4obama Dec 2011 #54

What was the final vote on that? Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #72

I trust this president to do the right things MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #35

What a shock. LeftyMom Dec 2011 #40

Obama didn't break his most recent promise Major Nikon Dec 2011 #41

Plus one aspect alot of people arent looking at is with this law on the books its bound to be cstanleytech Dec 2011 #47

Don't hold your breath Major Nikon Dec 2011 #50

Okay, here's the deal on the language, IMHO cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #48

There is a bit of confusion going on :) Tx4obama Dec 2011 #56

Thanks for the info cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #57

Do you mislead through ignorance or deliberation? MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #61

So we should trust you for the facts rather than the ACLU and Human Rights Watch? Better Believe It Dec 2011 #65

I notice you didn't answer my question. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #84

"Do you mislead through ignorance or deliberation?" The answer is No and you're now on ignore. Better Believe It Dec 2011 #107

Turley: This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign ProSense Dec 2011 #66

Did you just now find that Turley article from December 15? MineralMan Dec 2011 #67

Yes. And I take it you support indefinite detention of Americans by the military .... Better Believe It Dec 2011 #76

Have I said that? I don't believe I have. MineralMan Dec 2011 #80

A couple of comments. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #100

I think it is quite clear that cases involving MineralMan Dec 2011 #106

I agree that since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has reviewed laws rhett o rick Dec 2011 #133

Since you are opposed to indefinite detention I take that to mean you think Obama Better Believe It Dec 2011 #122

President Obama has NOT signed the NDAA bill - see comment #126 n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #127

The Final Authoruty has SPOKEN! bvar22 Dec 2011 #68

The Courts are the final authority treestar Dec 2011 #73

I'll let the courts decide treestar Dec 2011 #74

You so right! This is a real pro Bill of Rights Supreme Court! Better Believe It Dec 2011 #75

Do you oppose the case of Marbury v. Madison? treestar Dec 2011 #77

Obama Supreme Court Appointments are disappointing. bvar22 Dec 2011 #78

Kagan and Sotomayor? treestar Dec 2011 #81

No, but they ARE more conservative than the judges they replaced, bvar22 Dec 2011 #87

Did you say that the courts found in favor of Padilla and Hamdi? Dont agree. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #82

Please quote the parts of those decisions treestar Dec 2011 #91

By ALL means, do so!!! bvar22 Dec 2011 #85

Totally lost all faith in that after the 2000 election. nt Zorra Dec 2011 #89

Sounds very thoughtful...I'll leave it to the Citizens United, Bush v Gore, Bush junta affirming TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #99

k/r Why Syzygy Dec 2011 #88

Politicians consider promises (and the truth) to be conveniently flexible and open to "change". Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #92

So I guess now we should all vote Santorum? NT rbixby Dec 2011 #104

Nobody should be surprised by this shit anymore slay Dec 2011 #105

Let us not deceive ourselves..... Xicano Dec 2011 #108

Unbelievable what the U.S. has become regardless of the blame game just1voice Dec 2011 #109

Yawn... more hyprbolic bullshit from the whacko purist pulpit. RBInMaine Dec 2011 #110

Your statement is a contradiction in terms mrdmk Dec 2011 #114

So was it "hyprbolic bullshit from the whacko purist pulpit" when folks argued against Bush signing Xicano Dec 2011 #120

REC. The "we're all safe" spin is not working on this one. nt bertman Dec 2011 #115

Rachel said last week that Pres O issued a signing statement tishaLA Dec 2011 #125

See comment #56 on this thread, it says ... Tx4obama Dec 2011 #126

Gracias tishaLA Dec 2011 #128

Understand clearly there are people on this board with an agenda against the President. vaberella Dec 2011 #130

Right you are, vaberella. Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #132

The mere fact people support this post says to me DU is not a place of facts but lives for lies! n/t vaberella Dec 2011 #129

thanx Lord Helmet Dec 2011 #136

K&R (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #134