Obama the constitutional law scholar.

[1480]

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

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch

Yes, both the idiot houses voted on this bill.

Why is the crap allowed to continue???

[Dowly]

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 )

[Rockstar]

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

[mookiemookie]

"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."

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

More faux sensationalism brought to you by those who havent read the measure and/or don't have command of the english language.

So please enlighten us, Mr. Commander of the English language: what does Sec. 1031 c 1 in subtitle D mean:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

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?

[Penguin]

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.

[August]

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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

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

Oh, the irony.

[flatsixes]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Notice I highlighted parts of sec 1031 where it states who are 'covered persons', so unless you are al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces of al-Qaeda, the Taliban you have nothing to fear.

...Also note detention does NOT apply to U.S. Citizens under sec 1032 even IF you are al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces of al-Qaeda, or the Taliban.

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.

[MH]

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

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 1480

Why is the crap allowed to continue???

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.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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.

Precisely.

August

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

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 1480

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

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

[1480]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

Well, do you blame them sometimes?