"Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage
Is society was made of coral our world would be floral.
stated when he signed the bill that his "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." Thus, he does acknowledge that the bill allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens.
"And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."
But more importantly, using the same logic, the bill also allows for the the indefinite confiscation of chocolate ice cream. U.S. chocolate ice cream, on U.S. soil no less. Frankly I'm surprised at the lack of outrage, and have begun to wonder if that is evidence of vanilla bias in the media . . . . .
Your logic is flawed.Originally Posted by Karl
Claim: The NDAA allows for indefinite detention.
Evidence 1: Sections 1021 and 1022 contained no exclusion of U.S. citizens (in early versions).
Evidence 2: Obama specified that he would not allow U.S. citizens to be detained.
Logic flow (positive): If the NDAA did allow for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens then Evidence #2 is the executive treatment to the contrary of the specified law (e.g. "my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention...")
Logic flow (negative): If the NDAA did not allow for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens then Evidence #2 is superfluous and unnecessary since he would be stating something which was already the case.
Fact: The NDAA does not prohibit indefinite detention.
Fact: The NDAA does not prohibit the indefinite confiscation of chocolate ice cream.
Right Wing Conclusion: Therefore both are allowed.
Your logic 'flow' affirms the negative in order to prove a positive. This is not the Comedy Forum
That was during the pre-invasion of Iraq.
Now their saying "America is part of the battlefield"?
Well , Hell they.ve declared war on everything else from abortion to drugs to poverty, to terrorist.
I guess they run out of things to declare war on.
Although I have to wander if this law has anything to do with the protestors that's been in the streets lately?
Tiki bar regular.
My code, never take anything for granted always expect the unexpexted.
Never take anything you don't need ,never want anything you can't have
Your logic is still flawed. Let me walk you through this step-by-step.Originally Posted by Karl
As I pointed out in post #29, the early version of the bill allowed the indefinite detention of certain defined persons. (Notice they do not all the indefinite confiscation of chocolate ice cream cone, thus blowing your ridiculous attempt at trivializing this debate out of the water.)
Notice that it 1) does not say that U.S. citizens are not included in the description and 2) the term of detention is until the termination of hostilities, which in realistic terms means indefinite.Originally Posted by NDAA (Early version)
Then, as I pointed out in post #74, there was a lot of publicity about this and they changed the text of the bill. The final text as implemented into Public Law 112-81 includes a new subpart as follows:
Originally Posted by NDAA Section 1022(b)(1)