Three myths about the detention bill
It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) to detain them without trial until the end of the hostilities. That is the very definition of indefinite detention, and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Atman
(31,464 posts)And the English language here is also clear...it isn't permissible. Or is it? Considering that you can find countless articles claiming careful, thorough dissection of the language, reaching totally opposite conclusions, tells me only one thing...someone is going to have to be a test case before the SCOTUS.
Any volunteers?
enough
(13,263 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)I don't think the argument is made "convincingly." It is made well, but it is still based upon a person's interpretation of the vagueries in the language. Others interpret the language differently.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts).. should we ever get a John McCain, Michele Bachmann, or any one of many Neocon swine in office.
This law is bad bad bad, any way you look at it.
ixion
(29,528 posts)one might make an argument for such a state.
And given the history of how these Laws of Abstract and Endless War have been used, it's a foolish argument to try and make.
The long and the short of it are that these so-called 'wars' are being used and a pretext for the erosion of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Period.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)that is very clear from the language of the bill.