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: "Obama Prepares to Authorize Indefinite Detention of US Citizens for First Time Since McCarthy Era" [View all]Remember Me
(1,532 posts)32. The beef is --
this creates a LAW authorizing it. Now no one subjected to this can object on legal grounds. Very big fucking deal, actually.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
158 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
"Obama Prepares to Authorize Indefinite Detention of US Citizens for First Time Since McCarthy Era" [View all]
Cali_Democrat
Dec 2011
OP
Actually it doesn't answer that, Where specifically again, does it state that..
SunsetDreams
Dec 2011
#28
Modification of Conditions On Status Of Retired Aircraft Carrier Ex-John F. Kenney?
SunsetDreams
Dec 2011
#40
And all of this on the heels of killing bin Laden with no new perceived threat.
ScottLand
Dec 2011
#94
The threat has always been the American people. Patriot act was ready to go long before they . .
Dutchmaster
Dec 2011
#121
For starters, you might look at Amendments V, VI and VII in the Bill of Rights
struggle4progress
Dec 2011
#119
Can you point me to a link where the 4th circuit opinion was vacated in its entirety?
justiceischeap
Dec 2011
#95
That says the current law needs to be fixed (something I agree with), not that the defense bill made
karynnj
Dec 2011
#100
six one and half a dozen the other. It says the same thing doesn't it. Thanks, Obama. You made Ann
roguevalley
Dec 2011
#73
That is false. Section 1021e specifically exempts US citizens, and section 1022b only applies to a
BzaDem
Dec 2011
#75
and the overall statement of intentions of the section, which would guide a court challenge:
bhikkhu
Dec 2011
#74
No it does NOT. The Feinstein amendment language added a line (clause 'e') to Section 1031
Tx4obama
Dec 2011
#88
Obama the candidate was for warrantless wiretaps. Signing the bill is entirely consistent with that.
McCamy Taylor
Dec 2011
#22
Graham cracker wants us to forgo this right.... He prefer we just "shut up"...
midnight
Dec 2011
#103
So, Jose Padilla was detained by Eisenhower? Silly me. I thought it was Bush.
McCamy Taylor
Dec 2011
#20
Precisely. And that was illegal. Not any more when this bill is signed into law.
EFerrari
Dec 2011
#35
What political currency does this gain. It makes him look horrible to the left. It also makes..
JVS
Dec 2011
#66
Senator Finestein said she is going to write another bill that will clarify her 2 amendments further
Major Hogwash
Dec 2011
#69
They are doing this to shut down protests like occupy wall street. And the right wingers on this
scentopine
Dec 2011
#60
No, US citizens in The USA are exempt from indefinite detention requirement.
blackspade
Dec 2011
#111
Do we enjoy too much freedom? What other civil liberties to you support destroying?
scentopine
Dec 2011
#152
So there is an underlying wrong, & a complementary wrong. Does that make one of them okay?
DirkGently
Dec 2011
#72
Greenwald correctly points out the bill endorses & codifies Bush's illegal interpretation. So, no.
DirkGently
Dec 2011
#99
And as I have said, it is all predicated on the AUMF, something Greenwald glosses over.
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#102
The section numbers are different because they are taken from the reconciliation
Luminous Animal
Dec 2011
#120
The "war on terror" IS the new McCarthyism. Same lie that it's to protect us. Same authoritarianism.
DirkGently
Dec 2011
#71
Which is precisely why the President of the United States has the power of the veto
green917
Dec 2011
#135
i thought this had been settled. why are we still reading made up fairy tales. n/t.
okieinpain
Dec 2011
#114
The bill does not require indefinite detention of American citizens, BUT DOES ALLOW IT.
Zhade
Dec 2011
#142
Exactly - military can and will lock you up, this is a war against dissent and free speech -nt
scentopine
Dec 2011
#153