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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)

9. Probably I looked at all the same materials you did but just came to a different conclusion.

Reply to SunsetDreams (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 02:12 AM

Dec 2011

I dunno I'm typing on my cell phone so I don't wanna get into a whole thing about having to prove something, I don't have copy and paste. It's a tiny tiny keyboard.

Anyways the burden of proof should be on the NDAA supporters to prove there is no problem with the bill (relating to indefinite detention for citizens). I don't think they have proved it.

For me its 1031e or 1021e where it says it does not effect existing authorities. To me that could mean that if the executive has already claimed and excercised the authority to detain without trial, Congress now explicitly consents to such authority in Law for the first time.

That's worse than just a claimed authority based on one possible interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling.

Can you honestly say that is not a valid concern?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Letter from Senator Ben Nelson Explaining NDAA [View all] SunsetDreams Dec 2011 OP

See? Al Franken, the ACLU and the other Chicken Little crowd MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #1

Maybe they should have considered both sides, or all of the sides, before treestar Dec 2011 #19

Of course our honorable colleague nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #3

That signing statement you posted is NOT for the NDAA bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #6

The link in your OP is for the Senate bill, NOT the final House bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #4

thanks SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #7

my understanding after researching the issue was that senator Nelson is wrong. nt limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #5

what research have you done that would prove Senator Nelson wrong? SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #8

Probably I looked at all the same materials you did but just came to a different conclusion. limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #9

The clause added due to the Feinstein amendment reads ... Tx4obama Dec 2011 #10

That's not what they mean by "existing law" Major Nikon Dec 2011 #13

I think that is why both of these things can simultaneously be true karynnj Dec 2011 #14

Except it did change the provisions of the AUMF Major Nikon Dec 2011 #17

I didn't see that in the language - though I am not disputing it karynnj Dec 2011 #24

You can read it here... Major Nikon Dec 2011 #25

Isn't the Patriot Act "existing law"? Bandit Dec 2011 #26

At least you've considered another side of the question treestar Dec 2011 #20

see all the other posts in this thread and watch this video limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #30

Thats the same crap he sent me newfie11 Dec 2011 #11

Ben Nelson is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate Major Nikon Dec 2011 #12

On this matter (and several others) he and the President seem to agree. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #15

I don't see the President putting this kind of spin on the bill Major Nikon Dec 2011 #16

So, that fact that the President and Ben Nelson agree on this matter is irrelevant? Romulox Dec 2011 #18

I never agreed with your "fact" in the first place Major Nikon Dec 2011 #28

Those are reasons (perhaps "excuses") for his agreement. Signing the bill signals the President's Romulox Dec 2011 #29

What spin? treestar Dec 2011 #21

That's a big "If" Major Nikon Dec 2011 #27

If it's already in place why again legislate it, and why then resist our demand to remove it? Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #22

Is there, like, a school in or near DC where they teach politicians how to speak fluent Weasel? Zorra Dec 2011 #23