• 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!

Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

Please explain exactly why this is wrong. I hope it's wrong. But you haven't shown that it's wrong yet:

Read the previous post.
 
It seems that the ACLU was not wrong when they issued this statement but is wrong now. For those unaware, bills migrate through many different wordings and forms while they are before Congress. This particular bill changed specifically regarding this section when it became known that there was no protection for U.S. citizens.

The final bill as signed into law by the president is located at the GPO here. The section pertinent to this discussion is 1022 entitled Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.

That language refers only to that section. There were two sections at issue. That may very well have changed, but this doesn't establish that.

It also doesn't account for Obama's stated reluctance.

I'll look for myself.
 
That language refers only to that section. There were two sections at issue. ... I'll look for myself.

Of course I heartily encourage you to read the language for yourself, but as I mentioned above the sections were changed around during debate and they finalized it as the above. As I also said a number of pages back in this thread I am no lawyer and am not fully familiar with legalese but it seems to me that the "loophole" was closed. Regardless, I'd like to hear your thoughts once you complete your research.
 
I checked the final version of the law (in searchable HTML) and found two sections authorizing the holding of suspects, and both sections now contain prohibitions against holding US citizens, etc. without trial. But those are just the two sections I found, there could be more. But it seems the law was fixed.

The sections are 1021 and 1021. The bill was HR 1540.
 
Of course I heartily encourage you to read the language for yourself, but as I mentioned above the sections were changed around during debate and they finalized it as the above. As I also said a number of pages back in this thread I am no lawyer and am not fully familiar with legalese but it seems to me that the "loophole" was closed. Regardless, I'd like to hear your thoughts once you complete your research.

Yep, looking directly at the final law, both loopholes now seem to be closed. But that's assuming I found all the loopholes in the first place.
 
Yep, looking directly at the final law, both loopholes now seem to be closed. But that's assuming I found all the loopholes in the first place.

Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

As I said in the other thread. The president (whoever it might be) will interpret this however they please a the time. It should have been absolutely clear that NO citizen can be detained under any circumstance without being afforded due process.

(The above quote is from Obama's signing statement.)
 
Thus you have hit the nail on the head, law means virtually nothing if it can be executed and interpreted as desired.
 
As I said in the other thread. The president (whoever it might be) will interpret this however they please a the time.

Of course they will. All Presidents interpret the law. They have to in order to implement it. That's not news. But it's a stretch to say they'll interpret it "however they please." They will likely interpret it in a way our society and legal system expects them to. If they don't, they'll face opposition from Congress, the courts, or the people.
 
Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

As I said in the other thread. The president (whoever it might be) will interpret this however they please a the time. It should have been absolutely clear that NO citizen can be detained under any circumstance without being afforded due process.

(The above quote is from Obama's signing statement.)
Yes it is. Here is the rest of that quote:

Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 [Section 1031 in the passed Senate bill, which has already been quoted here, exact same text] affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House
 
Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

As I said in the other thread. The president (whoever it might be) will interpret this however they please a the time. It should have been absolutely clear that NO citizen can be detained under any circumstance without being afforded due process.

(The above quote is from Obama's signing statement.)

Actually, that's not true at all. Here's the thing, this bill does not grant the President any new powers, rather, it solidifies and codifies old ones into law. Under the Patriot Act people were detained indefinitely (Imprisoned by the Patriot Act -- In These Times) (GrepLaw | Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act") and the 2006 Military Commissions Act gives the President the power to label protesters unlawful enemy combatants (JURIST - Hotline: Challenging the Military Commissions Act). The definition of unlawful enemy combatants is so vague to the point where it can include US citizens.
 
Actually, that's not true at all. Here's the thing, this bill does not grant the President any new powers, rather, it solidifies and codifies old ones into law. Under the Patriot Act people were detained indefinitely (Imprisoned by the Patriot Act -- In These Times) (GrepLaw | Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act") and the 2006 Military Commissions Act gives the President the power to label protesters unlawful enemy combatants (JURIST - Hotline: Challenging the Military Commissions Act). The definition of unlawful enemy combatants is so vague to the point where it can include US citizens.

Be it new or continued, it's a bad idea either way. A real bad idea.
 
Of course they will. All Presidents interpret the law. They have to in order to implement it. That's not news. But it's a stretch to say they'll interpret it "however they please." They will likely interpret it in a way our society and legal system expects them to. If they don't, they'll face opposition from Congress, the courts, or the people.

I've seen little opposition to Obama ordering the death of an American citizen without due process. Sadly.
 
Actually, that's not true at all. Here's the thing, this bill does not grant the President any new powers, rather, it solidifies and codifies old ones into law. Under the Patriot Act people were detained indefinitely (Imprisoned by the Patriot Act -- In These Times) (GrepLaw | Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act") and the 2006 Military Commissions Act gives the President the power to label protesters unlawful enemy combatants (JURIST - Hotline: Challenging the Military Commissions Act). The definition of unlawful enemy combatants is so vague to the point where it can include US citizens.

Hence the problem. Were you trying to argue something else?
 
I've seen little opposition to Obama ordering the death of an American citizen without due process. Sadly.

I find the lengths some people go to in order to defend these actions truly appalling and rather frightening. It really makes you wonder how far people would let the government go...
 
I've seen little opposition to Obama ordering the death of an American citizen without due process. Sadly.

Did you oppose it?

(I give you the benefit of the doubt - I know you're one of the few people who stick with his principles no matter what around here).
 
Did you oppose it?

(I give you the benefit of the doubt - I know you're one of the few people who stick with his principles no matter what around here).

Absolutely. ...
 
Actually, that's not true at all. Here's the thing, this bill does not grant the President any new powers, rather, it solidifies and codifies old ones into law. Under the Patriot Act people were detained indefinitely (Imprisoned by the Patriot Act -- In These Times) (GrepLaw | Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act") and the 2006 Military Commissions Act gives the President the power to label protesters unlawful enemy combatants (JURIST - Hotline: Challenging the Military Commissions Act). The definition of unlawful enemy combatants is so vague to the point where it can include US citizens.

Then take into consideration they are already targeting/targeted Americans for execution that have zero combat power in other countries. I bet they would go crazy nutts with laws like this.
 
Then take into consideration they are already targeting/targeted Americans for execution that have zero combat power in other countries. I bet they would go crazy nutts with laws like this.

Definitely. To finally close this argument about whether the bill allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens, Obama 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.
 
Definitely. To finally close this argument about whether the bill allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens, Obama 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.
But if he had not stated that, then the bill would not have allowed for the indefinite detention of US citizens, correct?

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 . . . . .
 
Karl said:
But more importantly, using the same logic, the bill also allows ...

Your logic is flawed.

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.
 
Your logic is flawed.

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.
My logic is pristine:

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 :2razz:
 
How could those law makers propose to abandon our basic rights?

Aren't these the same politicians that was screaming "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."?
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?:peace
 
Karl said:
Fact: The NDAA does not prohibit indefinite detention.
Fact: The NDAA does not prohibit the indefinite confiscation of chocolate ice cream.

Your logic is still flawed. Let me walk you through this step-by-step.

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.)

NDAA (Early version) said:
SEC. 1034.
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

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.

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:

NDAA Section 1022(b)(1) said:
UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
 
Back
Top Bottom