Obama the constitutional law scholar.
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama


Yes, both the idiot houses voted on this bill.

Why is the crap allowed to continue??? :nope:

Oh hey, that's a good idea! Fight fear with more fear!

(Seriously, call Queen Elizabeth II, apologize for the whole revolution thing and ask if UK would take you guys back :O:)

What? Cable Beach is nice, good marina, airport, lots of goats and iguanas.

"You need to let us do this because of the threat of terrorism."

"Yeah, but isn't this against the Const..."

"TERRORISM! Don't you want to be safer? Don't you want to be a patriot? TERRORISM!"

"But how is taking away our rights going to make us...any..."

"NINE ELEVEN! NINE ELEVEN! NINE ELEVEN! TERRORISM" *fingers in ears* "LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOOOOOOOU TERRORISM TERRORIST SHOE BOMB SAFER YES SAFER NINE ELEVEN."

More like: "They want to destroy our freedom! We won't let this happen, so we'll destroy our freedom by ourselves!" :nope:

So please enlighten us, Mr. Commander of the English language: what does Sec. 1031 c 1 in subtitle D mean:
source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:6:./temp/~c112k6Dbex:e578148:

What part of "detention without trial" do the sensationalists fail to understand?

That's really strange coming from Obama:hmmm:
It doesn't seem populist too.

Hey Maddog, you're harshing their anti-government buzzes... :DL

Oh, the irony.

Yes, the bill changed over the course and excludes now US citizens, which wasn't specified in previous drafts.
There is still the "detention without trial" included.
Check out Boumediene v. Bush for an example how this is seen by the US Supreme Court.

Another point: if an individual "substantially supported/"directly supported" hostilities, it should be easy to prove at a trial.

Funny how things change after a good solid briefing of what is really going on. :hmmm:

Almost. But as long as we're discussing plain English, Sec. 1032 only exempts U.S. citizens (and lawful foreign nationals) from Sec. 1031's requirement that "covered persons" be kept in military detention. It does not prohibit such detention of U.S. citizens (or lawful foreign nationals). So it looks like President Bush... I mean President Obama, still gets to make the call.

Because Congress is a law unto itself - literally. It has to be to function. The only way to stop it is to elect new fools, and you already know that won't work. If the President and Congress agree on something, it will happen, no matter what you or I think.

True. It's only Raison d'être is to write laws..... (you know what I mean)

flatsixes
Precisely.

August
Weren't we really worried that a certain US citizen ate a hellfire missile rather than getting due process?

Whats to say that the POTUS cannot use this in conjunction with revocation of citizenship to take away a person's 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th amendment rights.

I thought our founding fathers did not want to be subjected to tyranny.

The potential for abuse is way too great for this.

They also didn't want us involved in any kind of foreign policy at all, outside of trade agreements and peace treaties.