Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Senator Al Franken: Why I Voted Against the National Defense Authorization Act [View all]Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)105. They do and already have
Certain cases have been challenged and the USSC has ruled congress can't simply deny the right to everyone, but it really doesn't matter. You can still be detained indefinitely, with no charge and no trial. The 4th circuit ruled exactly that in the Padilla case and this has NOT been overturned. So even if you qualify as a person the USSC has ruled can file a writ of habeas corpus, and even if you can get a court to accept it, it's not going to do you any good.
The Congress of the United States, in the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Joint Resolution, provided the President all powers
necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist
acts by those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.
As would be expected, and as the Supreme Court has held, those powers
include the power to detain identified and committed enemies
such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime,
who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies,
and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further
prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens and targets on
our own soil a power without which, Congress understood, the
President could well be unable to protect American citizens from the
very kind of savage attack that occurred four years ago almost to the
day.
The detention of petitioner being fully authorized by Act of Congress,
the judgment of the district court that the detention of petitioner
PADILLA v. HANFT 17
by the President of the United States is without support in law is
hereby reversed.
Military Force Joint Resolution, provided the President all powers
necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist
acts by those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.
As would be expected, and as the Supreme Court has held, those powers
include the power to detain identified and committed enemies
such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime,
who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies,
and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further
prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens and targets on
our own soil a power without which, Congress understood, the
President could well be unable to protect American citizens from the
very kind of savage attack that occurred four years ago almost to the
day.
The detention of petitioner being fully authorized by Act of Congress,
the judgment of the district court that the detention of petitioner
PADILLA v. HANFT 17
by the President of the United States is without support in law is
hereby reversed.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/056396.P.pdf
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Senator Al Franken: Why I Voted Against the National Defense Authorization Act [View all]
kpete
Dec 2011
OP
I found this post at wariscrime.org explains the issues with NDAA very well
justiceischeap
Dec 2011
#62
You know what govt lawyers do with a loophole when alone can't be printed on the internetz
kenny blankenship
Dec 2011
#109
Uh, actually it can be proven that this bill will authorize the detention of
truedelphi
Dec 2011
#21
Did you support Bush's policies on the president having the power to name anyone an 'enemy combatant
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#41
so you must have been fine with the Patriot Act, because it only mentions terrorists
StarsInHerHair
Dec 2011
#43
The point is, that there is no reason to have any clauses related to indefinite detention...
blackspade
Dec 2011
#88
He voted for the Feinstein amendment, I was confused because he voted for S. 1867 on Dec 1
jakeXT
Dec 2011
#10
That was on the Senate bill earlier this month. He voted "no" on the conference bill today
karynnj
Dec 2011
#14
And the difference between the two versions is that the conference bill moves the
patrice
Dec 2011
#17
I listened to him on Air America for a couple of years. Someone tell me just how Liberal he is,
patrice
Dec 2011
#18
Not very. I'd call him a moderate but for a US Senator, he is pretty far left.
TheKentuckian
Dec 2011
#84
Which color is Franken on this graph? How many millionaires directly create our laws?
patrice
Dec 2011
#20
In other words, only reliable Democrats and the looneyest of the looneytarian Senators
Major Nikon
Dec 2011
#53
Since my 2 Senators both voted against this bill, I can guarantee you that nothing is wrong with it.
Major Hogwash
Dec 2011
#56