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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(8,244 posts)
115. Senator Merkley Explains How YOU Could Be Indefinitely Imprisoned With No Trial thanks to NDAA 2012
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:41 AM
Dec 2011

I saw this in the video forum and thought I'd cross-post it here. I think it gives a pretty good explanation of people's concerns.

Well on the record, I am not one of those! n/t teddy51 Dec 2011 #1
Me, neither. n/t Zalatix Dec 2011 #64
Nor am I RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #153
I would only add that he failed to close the Pandora's boxES that Bush opened. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #344
One of my biggest objections with President Obama. Jake2413 Dec 2011 #205
I was blown away when Bush was president and sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #2
History always repeats. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #12
You don't have to give up your rights bhikkhu Dec 2011 #18
I've always been a firm adherent of Franklin's comment. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #27
History repeats Pharaoh Dec 2011 #240
It is Fascism. Go OWS! dotymed Dec 2011 #156
I'll be there with you. Something has to be done to stop this and it's clear now sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #345
many Americans were perfectly willing to throw away the freedoms AlbertCat Dec 2011 #239
we have become an echo chamber. nt awoke_in_2003 Dec 2011 #298
I'm fine with bigtree Dec 2011 #3
What about policy, tactics, and actions? PufPuf23 Dec 2011 #139
I used to really enjoy your posts Marrah_G Dec 2011 #409
What's ProSense Dec 2011 #4
In what way is that hyperbole? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #7
You ProSense Dec 2011 #11
And the fact that American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention without trial. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #15
It's really weird that you call yourself "Far Left Fist" when you spend most of the time Ken Burch Dec 2011 #63
There's really nothing more Left than the truth. Which is all I'm speaking. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #97
No, actually Ken Burch is correct. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #378
+1 nashville_brook Dec 2011 #191
That has always been SOP at DU for the 10 years I have been here. bvar22 Dec 2011 #206
especially if they choose the Che avatar AlbertCat Dec 2011 #245
but that Avatar makes sense, and isn't used to deceive people fascisthunter Dec 2011 #390
I think you've got it. Support Bradley Manning. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #341
I have noticed that too. But his name is "Far Left Fist", so how can you question his "leftness". nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #343
But not extrajudicial assasinations Riftaxe Dec 2011 #89
I have no problem with those DissedByBush Dec 2011 #96
In combat. Zero evidence presented anywhere at any time that Awlaki was a terrorist. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #126
Disagree - Awlaki was killed in a combat mission NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #163
In your example, you use an incident from a "Declared War" against another Nation bvar22 Dec 2011 #209
Like the "war" on drugs pscot Dec 2011 #233
I have ony two thoughts as to the entirely of your thesis indepat Dec 2011 #281
That's an excellent observatiion bvar, there is no end to it and just as Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #363
And we are still waiting for evendence that there was any combat involved in that killing. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #223
The GWOT is similar to the Barbary Wars. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #280
There was most definitely combat DissedByBush Dec 2011 #340
We are at war with Yemen? Since when?? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #352
If that sovereign country gives us permission, then no, it's not a crime. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #364
Were we at war with Tunisia? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #366
We are not at war, unless you are accepting the Bush/Cheney policies. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #369
We are at war DissedByBush Dec 2011 #373
Who are we at war with? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #377
You need to read the news more DissedByBush Dec 2011 #381
OBL is dead. You cannot be at war with an idea. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #383
Did you read the Authorization? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #384
Regarding your last sentence, I don't know what you have been reading, but sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #388
Wow, where to start DissedByBush Dec 2011 #407
I read that piece of garbage when it first was voted on, unfortunately by too many sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #408
This wasn't the authorization for use of force in Iraq DissedByBush Dec 2011 #413
I do not support Bush policies, the US Government has adapted Bush policies. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #414
You just completely bypassed all facts DissedByBush Dec 2011 #417
I have read it. The whole WOT is nothing more than an excuse sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #418
Are you sure this time? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #420
Yet we are not at war. Haven't been in a war since WWII. Congress has issued no declaration of war. mbperrin Dec 2011 #276
We are at war - Congress has authorized this war. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #284
Can't declare a war on a noun. mbperrin Dec 2011 #350
Of course you can declare war on a noun. A nation's name is a noun. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #358
Naturally no one is going to challenge it. It makes too much money for the right people. mbperrin Dec 2011 #360
Naturally, I should have specified a common noun. mbperrin Dec 2011 #361
You need to go the other way DissedByBush Dec 2011 #375
That was the Bush administration's claims. We elected Democrats to put an end to those sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #370
Congress authorized the war. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #379
What war? Who are we at war with? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #380
You refuse to accept the answer. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #386
I refuse to accept the Bush claim that we are at war with the world. Yes, absolutely sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #387
You have got to be kidding me DissedByBush Dec 2011 #338
Show me that mountain of evidence. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #342
You have got to be kidding DissedByBush Dec 2011 #382
Haha! Wikipedia, indeed. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #391
"Constitutional conditions" DissedByBush Dec 2011 #401
In regards to a U.S. citizen? Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #403
This isn't a criminal proceeding DissedByBush Dec 2011 #406
WWII was a war declared by congress via the powers in the US constitution. Javaman Dec 2011 #220
Congress authorized these military actions DissedByBush Dec 2011 #335
authorizing and declaring are two vastly different things. Javaman Dec 2011 #349
It's completely constitutional DissedByBush Dec 2011 #367
And the barbary wars also were illegal according to the constitution. Javaman Dec 2011 #371
Show me that determination DissedByBush Dec 2011 #372
and because they disregarded the war powers act that makes it okay? Javaman Dec 2011 #389
Post of the year! DissedByBush Dec 2011 #402
"Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war," Javaman Dec 2011 #404
Why do you support my argument? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #405
Perhaps we are just arguing about the same thing and don't Javaman Dec 2011 #412
Can you show me where in the Constitution these rights are limited to citizens? Bjorn Against Dec 2011 #182
not if you are overseas. Javaman Dec 2011 #218
Three myths about the detention bill Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #229
Actually, NO we are NOT. plantwomyn Dec 2011 #278
Two things: ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #304
One of us has a reading comprehension problem. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #16
It's ProSense Dec 2011 #23
Apprently the ACLU has a reading comprehension problem dflprincess Dec 2011 #42
Speaking ProSense Dec 2011 #52
83 traitors to the Constitution and the American People. Fuddnik Dec 2011 #100
Yeah, ProSense Dec 2011 #108
+1. nt MADem Dec 2011 #116
His statement is weasel worded Major Nikon Dec 2011 #132
yes, traitors for making it possible for another president to abuse fascisthunter Dec 2011 #192
+1000 n/t dotymed Dec 2011 #158
Here you go Major Nikon Dec 2011 #135
Once again, please read...it's professionally written, and makes a lot of sense... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #230
ProSense, Are you an attorney? Have you researched the precedent, the case law on this? JDPriestly Dec 2011 #266
You don't think there is a chilling effect noise Dec 2011 #20
Its not really vague. It actually says it very plainly and clearly. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #25
You are assuming they will abuse the power siligut Dec 2011 #196
The President can order arrest and assassination caseymoz Dec 2011 #140
Well, I took your word for it that the bill was amended SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #202
Yes, sure Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #238
ProSense, your comment expresses shock but does not JDPriestly Dec 2011 #263
Very well said, JDP. nt tpsbmam Dec 2011 #297
So tell me what your opinions are of these things without the WWII monikers icymist Dec 2011 #303
The collapse of the US is due to the fact that during the 1970s, JDPriestly Dec 2011 #326
Well said, JD MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #317
This message was self-deleted by its author icymist Dec 2011 #301
Does that mean you think we still honor habeas corpus? Or does that mean you are ok with not rhett o rick Dec 2011 #351
So, what is your position on this? Codifying Bush's sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #109
Not a person who supports that at all. Burgman Dec 2011 #5
Where does it say U.S citizens don't have a right to trial? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #6
In the cherished NDAA MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #14
None of those are the NDAA. But here it is: FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #19
The *requirement* does not extend, but the *option* sure does MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #28
The option? We are protected under the Constitution. It even says that in the NDAA, along with FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #33
We'll have to agree to disagree MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #53
OK, and I'll side with the Bill itself. If the language changes to be used against us in the future FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #57
If you're for depriving habeus to anyone caseymoz Dec 2011 #142
I'm siding with Mother Jones. Robb Dec 2011 #180
US citizens aren't entitled to a trial if detained under the provisions of 1031 a-e Major Nikon Dec 2011 #133
US citizens can't be held under section 1031, as section 1032 exempts them bhikkhu Dec 2011 #244
You might want to read 1032 again Major Nikon Dec 2011 #261
If they are "covered persons", involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda in the war against the US bhikkhu Dec 2011 #265
There is no exemption for US citizens Major Nikon Dec 2011 #277
1031 defines "covered persons", who are to be held in the military detention system bhikkhu Dec 2011 #286
That's not what 1032 says and you are passing very bad information off as fact Major Nikon Dec 2011 #337
That is exactly what it states. N/T zeljko Dec 2011 #353
You should go and read the debate. plantwomyn Dec 2011 #282
How can you be for the end of Habeus Corpus in regards to any human being? Marrah_G Dec 2011 #410
You can't tell the difference between a blog at a URL, and a vetted media story? boppers Dec 2011 #107
"REQUIREMENT to detain" Martin Eden Dec 2011 #178
The "requirement" refers back to section 1031 bhikkhu Dec 2011 #251
So then, a US citizen by definition can't be al Qaeda? Martin Eden Dec 2011 #274
The logic is pretty straightforward bhikkhu Dec 2011 #279
Man you are passing misinformation all over the place. zeljko Dec 2011 #354
I think what is missing from this discussion is the Patriot Act bhikkhu Dec 2011 #355
Of course it gives it new explicit power. zeljko Dec 2011 #356
Brush up on the patriot act - its all in there bhikkhu Dec 2011 #365
Some laws do require a lawyer to explain them to you. caseymoz Dec 2011 #193
And "associated force that acts in coordination ..." THAT COULD BE ANYONE! AllyCat Dec 2011 #247
But not in the bill itself, apparently bhikkhu Dec 2011 #24
And who decides who qualifies as an al Qaeda member? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #32
If you are a U.S. citizen then a judge does. And you have to be proven to be planning an attack. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #36
I think that you're mistaken MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #41
Al-Awlaki was already convicted by a Yemenite court to be captured dead or alive. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #44
Did the Yemenis kill him? That's news to me. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #46
Rushdie did not aid a terrorist organization against us. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #48
Wait - did we execute US citizen al-Alwlaki because Yemen wanted him dead, MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #60
I'm sure the reason was because he was aiding Al-Qaeda, like the NDAA says is allowed. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #73
Then a US court could have tried, convicted, and sentenced him MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #78
Rushdie? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #85
Manny, This bill is shit and goes against our freedom dotymed Dec 2011 #160
so if they say i am aiding al quida they can strip my citizenship? SwampG8r Dec 2011 #59
No, not if THEY say, if YOU say. He was videotaped waging "jihad" on the U.S. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #76
Sorry, FarLeftFist, there is no definition for terrorism that is clear and understandable. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #264
A terraist is anyone TPTB say is a terraist, even if the supposed connection is indepat Dec 2011 #295
Yes. It is overkill. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #300
Well put. Rethugs have been able to set most of the national agenda since WWII imo indepat Dec 2011 #314
Thanks for your input. True, true, true. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #347
Ridiculous, the President of the US caseymoz Dec 2011 #143
YEMMEN ?? !!!! bvar22 Dec 2011 #213
The National Security Council approved that, and it wasn't done lightly bhikkhu Dec 2011 #50
You mean like Al Awlaki and his teenage son who were given the death penalty without sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #114
"proven" ... how? Martin Eden Dec 2011 #179
But who determines who's a member of Al-Qaeda? caseymoz Dec 2011 #144
The President doesn't even have to "determine". bvar22 Dec 2011 #216
Where does the Constitution say non-citizens don't have the right to trial. Bjorn Against Dec 2011 #184
As far as military detention, section 1036 details the rights to trial and recourse bhikkhu Dec 2011 #254
IOKIODI KG Dec 2011 #8
IMO it's putting us on a very dangerous path for abuse by someone, eventually. Imagine the RKP5637 Dec 2011 #9
Habeus corpus is a foundational right. PDJane Dec 2011 #10
When you refuse to exercise your rights, you lose them. boppers Dec 2011 #110
Uh, come again? Where the fuck did you get THAT idea? Zhade Dec 2011 #127
When you refuse to show up for your trial, you don't get to moan about your defense. boppers Dec 2011 #129
Accused criminals, self admitted or not, are read miranda rights. Ed Suspicious Dec 2011 #171
None of which is really true, but none of which has anything to do with my point. PDJane Dec 2011 #328
I'm not old enough to personally remember, but by the 80's it turned out to be all theater anyways. boppers Dec 2011 #357
That was my point. PDJane Dec 2011 #362
I'm astonished that so many buy into that crap bhikkhu Dec 2011 #13
Not a police state because we do not yet have check points at state border crossings? RC Dec 2011 #61
I go though a border check point coming into Calif. from Oregon. WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2011 #105
I went through one of those coming from Nevada. The bastards wanted me to MADem Dec 2011 #119
I went through one just a few weeks ago... KansDem Dec 2011 #159
This Bill makes the US a Police State fascisthunter Dec 2011 #392
According to the bill itself: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #395
Orwell is rolling in his grave. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #16
no actually he isnt SwampG8r Dec 2011 #62
LOL! nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #72
Orwell? I'm surprised we're not getting reports of an earthquake in Philadelphia dflprincess Dec 2011 #88
Go USA! Land of the Free and Home of the Brave! neverforget Dec 2011 #21
land of the free to keep your mouth shut and home of the airport molesters leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #267
Aside from the broad assumption about DUers, how are we ending Habeas Corpus specifically? pinto Dec 2011 #22
What do you think habeus corpus is? Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #201
It does specifically exempt US citizens from military detention bhikkhu Dec 2011 #256
No it doesn't. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #285
This is a very good write-up on the major difficulties with that: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #289
"Not intended to state a policy which changes anything" except, you see, it does. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #296
What about human beings who are not US citizens? Marrah_G Dec 2011 #411
I agree with you, Manny. I think the complacency here is due to confusion about what JDPriestly Dec 2011 #26
Obama has the right to veto it if it's sloppy MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #38
But its not sloppy. Obama is a lawyer. I'm sure its plain to see for him. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #51
+1, I'm surprised how many seem to treat it as a joke. while others demand evidence but then ignore limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #111
Japanese internment camps nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #30
They had them for Germans and Italians living in this country too. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #55
Absolutely nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #66
Not to the same extent. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #226
Obama = Third Reich? NYC_SKP Dec 2011 #31
The protections were diminished before Hitler came to power MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #35
Let me list a few others more palatable examples nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #49
+1 n/t area51 Dec 2011 #136
Obama is going to be President for about 5 more years Autumn Dec 2011 #141
The best solution is to end the war soon bhikkhu Dec 2011 #257
The war on terror will never end. Autumn Dec 2011 #260
I agree and will add that I think that most likely a President Obama will not abuse this power - But Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #34
Which is exactly what happened in Germany. nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #37
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause ii: struggle4progress Dec 2011 #39
The NDAA is congressional approval to suspend Habeas Corpus MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #43
Where in the bill is habeas suspended? The writ is guaranteed by plain language of struggle4progress Dec 2011 #56
Congress can and does pass laws nullifying the Constitution RC Dec 2011 #71
No one will subscribe to the legal theory that Congress has the power to override the Constitution; struggle4progress Dec 2011 #83
Habeas corpus was suspended for foreigners in 2006. Having lived Overseas, I have been waiting for Overseas Dec 2011 #195
OH NOES! Godwins LAW! FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #40
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #45
But our protections AREN'T diminished. We are still protected by the Constitution. It even says that FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #47
First they came for the trade unionist... nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #54
You expect the bill to say it violates the Constitution? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #58
No, the bill actually says it upholds the Constitution for U.S. citizens. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #80
but we all watched as Dimsun 'misunderstood' his way to robust presidential power... StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #70
But it IS written clearly. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #81
Not when the Fascists own 5 SCOTUS justices. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #74
This is getting very fringe. Lets talk about jobs, the environment, economics. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #84
You Sir, need to change those rose colored glasses 2banon Dec 2011 #253
The Constitution is only as strong as the current courts inforcement. The courts ruled rhett o rick Dec 2011 #346
we're doomed to repeat it anyway. enjoy the ride leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #268
Actually they are not so much for it Jakes Progress Dec 2011 #65
I think this is the best post in the thread. smokey nj Dec 2011 #219
We should all be concerned for the potential Administrative abuse of power ... AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #67
Amen, Om shanti shanti shanti, and All Hail His Noodly Appendage! SaintPete Dec 2011 #68
Too many uppity serfs made the powers-that-be take off the velvet gloves to show us their steel fist phasma ex machina Dec 2011 #69
K&R midnight Dec 2011 #75
I second that. I remember how people went crazy when this type of law was brought up during the Justice wanted Dec 2011 #77
Thats because Habaeus Corpus actually WAS dropped under Bush. This bill doesn't do that. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #86
It doesn't restore it either. It basically drop what few part of Habaeus Corpus we had left. Justice wanted Dec 2011 #92
It doesn't drop anything, it actually just keeps the status quo, being: FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #94
the bill codifies the power of the president to designate who gets detained indefinitely Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #122
I read the bill, 6x already. It EXEMPTS U.S. citizens. UNLESS they are proven to work for Al-Qaeda. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #138
Truly none so blind as those who will not see. COLGATE4 Dec 2011 #165
Tell me about it. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #174
well, I guess you can count me among the "blind" Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #186
Not aware of the level of concern during Bush Regime.. got to be inside a the DC bubble 2banon Dec 2011 #255
I Do Think the DC bubble exists on DU fascisthunter Dec 2011 #393
Election year cheerleading is just getting warmed-up... JCMach1 Dec 2011 #79
Or election-year implosion bhikkhu Dec 2011 #101
Haha, this has been going on for about 2.5 years now. joshcryer Dec 2011 #121
I forgot the election year 'trolling' as well! JCMach1 Dec 2011 #164
I can only imagine what those on this board who support this bill would be saying dflprincess Dec 2011 #82
bush and obama are two different people leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #271
But when it comes to ignoring the Consitution dflprincess Dec 2011 #321
I've yet to see a cogent explanation of why the ominous legal gibberish in this bill is necessary. Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #87
Aww, Manny, what'cha complainin' about? Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, the Geneva Conventions - all kath Dec 2011 #90
not cool with it at all <eom> catrose Dec 2011 #91
Nothing surprises me here anymore, Manny. n/t Blue_In_AK Dec 2011 #93
ACLU: President Obama: Veto Indefinite Detention steve2470 Dec 2011 #95
I'm not even cool with indefinite detention used against non-citizens. JoeyT Dec 2011 #98
me too. What is wrong with putting people on trial? dana_b Dec 2011 #415
Putting people on trial requires evidence. JoeyT Dec 2011 #419
War, Constitution shredding, universal surveillance are OK if Democrats do them kenny blankenship Dec 2011 #99
Ah, I bet they do a comeback tour Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #102
Joe's dead, mate. boppers Dec 2011 #113
I know. I was making a joke, like if "Habeas Corpus" were a band. I used a picture of The Clash Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #120
Heh.... boppers Dec 2011 #124
From Oxnard, no less. Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #128
Obama has to work with Congress LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #103
There is no fight this guy will have. bowens43 Dec 2011 #154
+1 andlor Dec 2011 #157
If you are going to make absurd assertions... LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #293
well said! fascisthunter Dec 2011 #394
"...this is not a fight Obama wants to have..." HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA panzerfaust Dec 2011 #177
Feel free to vote for Obama's opposition LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #294
repeat ad nauseum U4ikLefty Dec 2011 #309
I am serious LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #310
It's fine when the right party does it... Modern_Matthew Dec 2011 #104
But fascism is trending now! It's so tomorrow! Zorra Dec 2011 #106
So this is what my father gave his life for in world war two. WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2011 #112
Senator Merkley Explains How YOU Could Be Indefinitely Imprisoned With No Trial thanks to NDAA 2012 limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #115
On the contrary, it's hard to keep up. emcguffie Dec 2011 #117
You are mistaken about how the bill is applied to US Citizens. The Feinstein amendment specifically BzaDem Dec 2011 #118
Guantanamo? AllyCat Dec 2011 #169
Yes -- that Supreme Court decision specifically applies to detainees in Guantanamo. BzaDem Dec 2011 #176
And are they getting that? AllyCat Dec 2011 #242
the Feinstein amendment didn't make it to the final bill Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #189
Nothing Shocks Me Anymore. nt bananas Dec 2011 #123
SO AM I, MANNY... MrMickeysMom Dec 2011 #125
eh.. certainly not me but DU3 probaby PatrynXX Dec 2011 #130
Nope, I am not cool with it. Please tell me what we should do about, Manny? juajen Dec 2011 #131
I challenge you to link one post where a DUer, who believes Habeas Corpus is ending... joshcryer Dec 2011 #134
Yeah I second that. Rex Dec 2011 #145
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. joshcryer Dec 2011 #146
Well I won't hold my breath... Rex Dec 2011 #147
I have not seen a denial that Obama will eat all newborn babies. boppers Dec 2011 #148
Is that like something that is unseen? Rex Dec 2011 #149
Supporting this bill is supporting Habeas Corpus AllyCat Dec 2011 #168
Yes, I would like that too. emulatorloo Dec 2011 #188
I second that. AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #210
anyone supporting this Bill is doing just that fascisthunter Dec 2011 #396
No, they don't believe the bill does that. joshcryer Dec 2011 #399
Weren't you saying this very same thing ever since Obama came into office? Whisp Dec 2011 #137
No - but feel free to present refuting evidence. nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #172
I think folks would need to be mental to support the ending of Habeas Corpus MichaelMcGuire Dec 2011 #150
I was astonished so many were fine nineteen50 Dec 2011 #151
I'm certainly not ok with it. bowens43 Dec 2011 #152
Obama = Hitler comparisons. jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #155
Manny, from reading the responses to your O.P. dotymed Dec 2011 #161
For those thinking some of us are interpreting NDAA wrong, please look at justiceischeap Dec 2011 #162
+1 n/t Laelth Dec 2011 #166
All the posts from people saying "If he just had his magic wand" and "You whiners! Just because you AllyCat Dec 2011 #167
It all depends on whose inking the dotted line. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2011 #170
Republiscams and Birchers won't be able to vote from their detention facility L. Coyote Dec 2011 #173
I wouldn't think a single DUer is "cool" with that, Manny. I'm guessing everybody gateley Dec 2011 #175
There are some, who will defended the president, and their party, no matter what they do. got root Dec 2011 #181
I'm not astonished at all. Something pernicious is going on here (at DU).... truth2power Dec 2011 #183
The definition JEB Dec 2011 #185
Just another item on a growing list. 99Forever Dec 2011 #187
I'm Not.... Too Many Here live and breath "the end justifies the means" fascisthunter Dec 2011 #190
Unsupportable & inexcusable. DirkGently Dec 2011 #194
A fair number of "DUers" don't seem to care for the Constitution at all... saras Dec 2011 #197
Yeah sendero Dec 2011 #198
That's what it amounts do. Vinca Dec 2011 #199
It is like living in a surreal nightmare inhabited by brain dead pod people. Dragonfli Dec 2011 #200
How did that Habeus Corpus work for the American Citizens MineralMan Dec 2011 #203
Under Hamdi, a plurality of SCOTUS Justices said that Habeas Corpus can be suspended if MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #207
Plurality, not majority. Bucky Dec 2011 #215
OK, then the answer has to be to elect a Congress that won't OK it. MineralMan Dec 2011 #231
Aw c'mon. Using the Bill of Rights for toilet paper is OK if the person has a "D" after their name.. abq e streeter Dec 2011 #204
This is a good thing! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #208
win Bucky Dec 2011 #214
K&R (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #211
The 3rd Reich analogy is incorrect (and hysterical) but I recommend anyway. Bucky Dec 2011 #212
Amazing, isn't it? Javaman Dec 2011 #217
I'm disheartened but not surprised. I've been reading DU for a long time. /nt yardwork Dec 2011 #221
We are the NEW Democratic Party! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #222
I fear both parties in Congress love to have the power to keep the "little people" under control... spin Dec 2011 #236
I call it Phlem Dec 2011 #241
Not in favor of Habeas Corpus, but you have to have a CONGRESS who believes in DEMOCRACY CarmanK Dec 2011 #224
If the Leader of the Political Party currently in Power... bvar22 Dec 2011 #225
Well Phlem Dec 2011 #227
I've been astonished that DUer's have accepted the constant shift to the right ever since Obama took slay Dec 2011 #228
Let The Arrest Begin! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #232
Only the usual Obama-fellators RetroLounge Dec 2011 #234
Habeas Corpus papa3times Dec 2011 #235
MannyGoldstein Diclotican Dec 2011 #237
This whole issue was put to rest in Ex Part Milligan soryang Dec 2011 #243
Did you mean to link to your other post? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #246
Thanks Manny! soryang Dec 2011 #270
Links soryang Dec 2011 #273
Nicely Put colsohlibgal Dec 2011 #252
There is no emergency that justifies this kind of action Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #248
you really should post when habeas corpus ended and how many du'ers are cool with it spanone Dec 2011 #249
Yes, I would like to see that too. emulatorloo Dec 2011 #258
That's how the author rolls. great white snark Dec 2011 #262
Oh, hell . . . there's no unrec button any more. mistertrickster Dec 2011 #250
Count me out on this one too. Giving up our liberty for security is unacceptable. ScottLand Dec 2011 #259
I've seen many troubling things during this presidency - TBF Dec 2011 #269
We have won...now lets ROLL! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #272
oh Lord Broderick Dec 2011 #374
I'm astonished so many DUers think they know precisely what so many other DUers think. patrice Dec 2011 #275
I would be if that was happening Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #283
And who decides who is a member of, or is aiding, al Qaeda? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #315
Isn't mischaracterization of others THE tactic of propaganda? patrice Dec 2011 #287
Which Duers do you mean? What "so many"? Link or hyperbole? uppityperson Dec 2011 #288
IOKIYAD Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #290
Not just DU members...Americans in general.... Pachamama Dec 2011 #291
some will kiss obama's butt even as they are loaded on the trucks. consider roguevalley Dec 2011 #292
Not cool with it... AT ALL!! Lifelong Protester Dec 2011 #299
Obama has done the right thing for the nation donttazemebro Dec 2011 #302
During a Repub Admin will the law still be on our side? nt Taverner Dec 2011 #306
Welcome to DU Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #307
Me too - but I can understand defeatism at this point Taverner Dec 2011 #305
Do you really believe they see it as ending Habeas Corpus? ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #308
Rose colored glasses...get your rose colored glasses right here.... ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #311
I'm astonished anyone in this country is cool with it. nt Deep13 Dec 2011 #312
Unfortunately Manny.... DeSwiss Dec 2011 #313
Yet you couldn't name any if your reputation depended on it. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #316
I could, but that would be "calling out" which is against DU rules. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #319
Bullshit. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #322
If Obama doesn't want it, he can veto it. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #323
My PM box is open. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #325
Yes, if you apologize and delete your posts, I'd be happy to answer your questions. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #329
Oh goodness. I could never, ever erase my shame so readily. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #333
Yep, that's what I thought. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #359
k&r Liberal_in_LA Dec 2011 #318
This was so disappointing after the great speech of the previous week that I'm left speechless diane in sf Dec 2011 #320
Where's the link that shows many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus? Sounds fishy to me. nt valerief Dec 2011 #324
Ain't gonna see one. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #330
Anyone Supporting this Bill fascisthunter Dec 2011 #397
I was never a fan of miranda rights and all that crap so im ok with it...n/t IamK Dec 2011 #327
Uh-huh. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #331
But... But... We Have An Election To Win !!! WillyT Dec 2011 #332
I am astonished that someone would make such a claim without any evidence. yellowcanine Dec 2011 #334
Excellent explanation: zeljko Dec 2011 #336
Have you ever seen the president with his shirt off? n/t QC Dec 2011 #339
Agree 100%. REC. nt bertman Dec 2011 #348
see: patriot act shanti Dec 2011 #368
I support the ACLU on this Broderick Dec 2011 #376
I asked the students in my class about this Charlemagne Dec 2011 #385
Wanna know why the US is becoming a Police State fascisthunter Dec 2011 #398
You know the more I think about it nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #400
What's Habeas Corpus? Zorra Dec 2011 #416
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'm astonished so many DU...»Reply #115