• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

I don't know if I am buying all of this nonsense, but it doesn't really matter since I am again detaining anyone indefinitely without trial.
 
I don't know if I am buying all of this nonsense, but it doesn't really matter since I am again detaining anyone indefinitely without trial.


Well, we do have to beg the question if there is a case to date where this has been implemented as those whom are afraid of the implication imply. That ofcourse is no guarantee that it wouldn't in the future, up to this point it hasn't been.

The thing that bothers me, is that for the past six years or so, I argued adamantly that Bush employed executive powers all begging the safety of the American people. Liberals often made the argument that the power I argued was necessary wouldn't stop at Bush's end of term. They were right if this is true.

See, the problem won't come in a fell swoop of power grab, but much more in the stench of incrementalism.


j-mac
 
It does not specifically exempt US citizens. It plays word-games.
Nor does it specifically exempt chocolate ice cream. Oh, the humanity!


First they came for the chocolate ice cream,
but I did not speak out -- for I was a fan of vanilla ;)
 
so, when do you guys think the indefinite detention of American citizens will begin?
It has already begun, but since that is existing detention, new detention is incorporated into it because it cannot be shown to have specifically happened. There is therefore no explicit language that this post even exists in whatever multi-dimensional universe your synaptic functions may be occupying at this particular nanosecond.
 
Well, we do have to beg the question if there is a case to date where this has been implemented as those whom are afraid of the implication imply. That ofcourse is no guarantee that it wouldn't in the future, up to this point it hasn't been. [...]
It has already been implemented (with respect to American citizens), under the Bush administration (which is why this particular law provides no new authority).

The [U.S. Supreme] Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

There are at least three other cases that involve military detention of non-U.S. citizens, none of them favorable to the Bush administration.

Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rasul v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The final bill only says the REQUIREMENT of military detention does not apply to citizens/legal residents. It does not say that citizens are protected from the possibility of indefinite detention without trial.

The Military Commissions Act '09 defines "unprivileged enemy belligerent" broadly enough to include US citizens but then says persons subject to military commissions include "Any ALIEN unprivileged enemy belligerent" with alien meaning a person who is not a citizen of the US.

Oh, so they played word games with the issue, and now the door is open for future administrations to lock people up simply by labeling them with an invented phrase. "Unprivileged enemy belligerent" does have an interesting ring to it. I wonder just what it might mean? Could it apply to the OWS guys, to the tea party, to future protesters of yet another inadvisable war? The term seems broad enough to encompass any of the above and more.
 
this is a lie.

there are currently NO American citizens or legal residents of the USA, who are under indefinite detention without charge or trial.
I failed to clearly flag the post you responded to as sarcasm. My bad, but I thought "synaptic function in a multi-dimensional universe" would have been obvious ;)

Yaser Esam Hamdi is a U.S. citizen that was held by the military from 2001 - 9/2004 (until SCOTUS intervened).
 
I failed to clearly flag the post you responded to as sarcasm. My bad, but I thought "synaptic function in a multi-dimensional universe" would have been obvious ;)

Yaser Esam Hamdi is a U.S. citizen that was held by the military from 2001 - 9/2004 (until SCOTUS intervened).

oops...sorry about that.

Either way, I'll eat my hat if the President or the DOD starts indefinitely detaining legal residents of the USA, without charge or trial, due to this law.
 
Oh, so they played word games with the issue, and now the door is open for future administrations to lock people up simply by labeling them with an invented phrase. [...]
This particular law opens that door no farther than it was already open.
 
oops...sorry about that.

Either way, I'll eat my hat if the President or the DOD starts indefinitely detaining legal residents of the USA, without charge or trial, due to this law.

So you're saying it won't take advantage of such a power? When it has already done so even without it?
 
So you're saying it won't take advantage of such a power? When it has already done so even without it?

I'm saying that no such power exists, and even if it did..the second a legal resident of the USA is held without chage or trial, the govt. would face lawsuits up the wazoo and be forced to back down, as they did with Jose Padilla.
 
I'm saying that no such power exists, and even if it did..the second a legal resident of the USA is held without chage or trial, the govt. would face lawsuits up the wazoo and be forced to back down, as they did with Jose Padilla.

But only if people care enough. if they don't, if they're really ready to trade freedom for security, then our whole experiment in liberty is over. Are you ready to count on the populace and its willingness to be vigilant and challenge authority when it becomes necessary?
 
I'm saying that no such power exists

The law that Obama just signed wasn't just signed?

and even if it did..the second a legal resident of the USA is held without chage or trial, the govt. would face lawsuits up the wazoo and be forced to back down, as they did with Jose Padilla.

I certainly hope so. But you can't be certain of that, and it would involve many years of detention waiting for the case to be decided.
 
But only if people care enough. if they don't, if they're really ready to trade freedom for security, then our whole experiment in liberty is over. Are you ready to count on the populace and its willingness to be vigilant and challenge authority when it becomes necessary?

Ditto my man, the experiment died a long long time ago. Now we are just dealing with the obvious stuff that can't be argued for.
 
nice evasion.

now, did YOU read the bill and especially the offending sections?

Yes. Did you? It seems pretty plain. Why do you say it doesn't say what it seems to say?
 
Yes. Did you? It seems pretty plain. Why do you say it doesn't say what it seems to say?

I read it many times. I posted it many times.

It clearly says that our current status of NOT arresting/detaining legal residents of the USA without charge or trial, has not changed.

It clearly says that American citizens & legal residents of the USA shall not be held indefinitely without charge or trial.

what more does one need? a Youtube video?
 
I'm saying that no such power exists, and even if it did..the second a legal resident of the USA is held without chage or trial, the govt. would face lawsuits up the wazoo and be forced to back down, as they did with Jose Padilla.

Jose Padilla was the one publicized instance of abuse. He was not the one time an American was illegally detained with anti-terrorism measures. Here's a few I found pretty quickly.

Pre 911 Warning Results In Arrest Under Patriot Act For Susan Lindauer - Mad Mad World
Imprisoned by the Patriot Act -- In These Times
GrepLaw | Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act"
Using The Patriot Act To Target Patriots
Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process :: WRAL.com

Since the moment it was passed, the Patriot Act was used to arrest and imprison American citizens and legal aliens without due process or affording them their basic constitutional rights. Every subsequent measure has also been abused left and right. If you think this one is any different, then you are sadly mistaken.

"The second a legal resident of the USA is held without charge of trial" was ten years ago (and that's just under the war on terror). And it hasn't showed any signs of slowing yet.
 
I read it many times. I posted it many times.

It clearly says that our current status of NOT arresting/detaining legal residents of the USA without charge or trial, has not changed.

It clearly says that American citizens & legal residents of the USA shall not be held indefinitely without charge or trial.

what more does one need? a Youtube video?

No, but posting that language verbatim would help. Perhaps you're confused about what language applies to what section.

EDIT: Never mind, I found the previous post on another thread that was posted for your benefit, which you simply claimed was wrong but didn't explain why you think it's wrong. It contained the language too - right in front of your face and pretty clear. Here it is again:

“Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
 
Last edited:
If this bill doesn't allow for that, then how come every single Congressman who has defended it, the President and all the President's men have utterly failed to explicitly state that it doesn't? Why does the bill itself not state that? Why do they keep using the round-about language I cited in the OP?

The bill does state that. Thunder already posted that for us.
 
The bill does state that. Thunder already posted that for us.

Thunder posted this:


APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident
..
e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


If one reads carefully it clearly states that "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

This means that they are not obligated to detain you, however it does not mean that they don't have the option of detaining you.
 
Back
Top Bottom