General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,922 posts)

53. There shouldn't be an absolute exemption

Reply to cthulu2016 (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 01:55 AM

Dec 2011

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.

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