• 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

Thunder, you were half right... it is #1 and #2 ;)

I think it's telling that the best you guys can do is quote passages that don't address the actual questions asked, insist they do when it is clearly illustrated that they don't, and write your challengers off as nutjobs. Apparently you're all out of material, and that's a shame.
 
[...] Nothing in the law explicitly states that the Executive is not empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.
Conversely, nothing in the law explicitly states that the Executive is empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.

So, your argument fails (at least with respect to the NDAA).
 
Last edited:
I think it's telling that the best you guys can do is quote passages that don't address the actual questions asked, insist they do when it is clearly illustrated that they don't, and write your challengers off as nutjobs. Apparently you're all out of material, and that's a shame.
You have failed to acknowledge the possibility that our challengers are nutjobs.
 
and yet, he repealed DADT and refuses to enforce the DOMA.

ironic huh?

In the face of warrantless wiretaps, not closing Guantanamo, and indefinite detention, I would argue that these are symbolic table scraps.
 
Conversely, nothing in the law explicitly states that the Executive is empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.

So, your argument fails (at least with respect to the NDAA).

It authorizes arrest and indefinite detention for individuals who meet any of a list of criteria, some of which are very vaguely worded. American citizens could very easily fit into a number of these criteria, and all it takes is an accusation and an arrest order. They didn't explicitly empower the executive to go after American citizens because they authorized the executive to go after a very broadly defined population.
 
In the face of warrantless wiretaps, not closing Guantanamo, and indefinite detention, I would argue that these are symbolic table scraps.
Congress, as well as the American populace, would not let him close Gitmo. I give him an E for effort on that one.
 
It authorizes arrest and indefinite detention for individuals who meet any of a list of criteria, some of which are very vaguely worded. American citizens could very easily fit into a number of these criteria, and all it takes is an accusation and an arrest order. They didn't explicitly empower the executive to go after American citizens because they authorized the executive to go after a very broadly defined population.
Nothing in the law (NDAA) explicitly states that the Executive is empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.

Taste better 2nd time around? ;)
 
I think that this needs to be put into greater context. We have seen the rise of legislation and actions that have curbed our civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror ever since 9/11. First it was the Patriot Act, then the 2006 Military Commissions Act, then the establishment of "free speech zones," the militarization of the police, finally, we had the viscous attacks on Occupy chapters nationwide where people's First Amendment rights were ignored and trampled upon. We are seeing the rollback of the freedoms we once had and the concentration of power in the hands of the Executive Branch. This is extremely dangerous, not only for citizens, but for the democratic experiment we call the United States of America.
 
Nothing in the law (NDAA) explicitly states that the Executive is empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.

Taste better 2nd time around? ;)

It doesn't have to because it authorizes the arrest and indefinite detention of a much broader group into which American citizens could be easily fit while failing to explicitly exclude the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens.

Taste better the Nth time around?
 
It doesn't have to because it authorizes the arrest and indefinite detention of a much broader group into which American citizens could be easily fit while failing to explicitly exclude the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens. [...]
By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial.

Otherwise you'll have to show some other law that allows "the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens", since this law explicitly does not "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens".

If this law did change "existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens" then it could not say that it does not.

So, in what prior law does the Executive does have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial?
 
By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial.

Oh, I get it -- so you can't address any of the points I've made multiple times now, so you move the goal-posts.

Have fun with that.

If this law did change "existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens" then it could not say that it does not.

Except of course that once this became law, it became part of that "existing law or authorities." You're talking about the same government that has figured out how to re-interpret "knowingly" breaking the law to include a conscious act that someone "knowingly" took which happened to break the law.
 
By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial. [...]
Oh, I get it -- so you can't address any of the points I've made multiple times now, so you move the goal-posts. Have fun with that. [...]
Actually, the goal-posts are yours:

By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does not have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial. [...]
Having fun yet? :mrgreen:
 
[...] If this law did change "existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens" then it could not say that it does not. [...]
[...] Except of course that once this became law, it became part of that "existing law or authorities." You're talking about the same government that has figured out how to re-interpret "knowingly" breaking the law to include a conscious act that someone "knowingly" took which happened to break the law.
Circular arguments like this, well-sprinkled with conspiracy theory as it is, are what beget the winking whispers and sidelong glances amongst those who prefer to utilize logic and fact in their argument.
 
Right, and since you have utterly failed on the "does not," you want me to go after the "does." That's moving the goal-posts.
No, it's called hoisting you on your own petard; alternatively, sauce for the goose :)
 
Circular arguments like this, well-sprinkled with conspiracy theory as it is, are what beget the winking whispers and sidelong glances amongst those who prefer to utilize logic and fact in their argument.

That's not a circular argument. That's a well-informed argument born of a lot of reading, study and consideration over a number of years. The fact that you are ill-informed and thus prone to wink and whisper doesn't say anything about me, and a lot about you.
 
No, it's called hoisting you on your own petard; alternatively, sauce for the goose :)

Which would be true only if you'd shown the language I requested, and then made your request. You didn't. You're trying to change the subject. It won't work.
 
Right, and since you have utterly failed on the "does not," you want me to go after the "does." That's moving the goal-posts.
No, it's called hoisting you on your own petard; alternatively, sauce for the goose
Which would be true only if you'd shown the language I requested, and then made your request. You didn't. You're trying to change the subject. It won't work.
1. You demand explicit wording from your opponent in order to validate your agrument, and claim that they fail by not providing it.

2. Your opponent demands explicit wording from you in order to validate your argument, and you claim they are changing the subject (or moving the goal-posts).

Again, I would suggest a 2nd opinion. ;)
 
Last edited:
1. You demand explicit wording from your opponent in order to validate your agrument, and claim that they fail by not providing it.

2. Your opponent demands explicit wording from you in order to validate your argument, and you claim they are changing the subject.

Again, I would suggest a 2nd opinion. ;)

Why would I need one? I'm right. :lol:
 
I know this is starting to sound like a broken record, but I'd suggest a 2nd opinion ;)

Oh heck, just to humor you I'll consult a couple of retired generals,

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

some Congresscritters that opposed the NDAA,

Lawmakers Submit Letter Opposing NDAA's Indefinite Detention Provisions

and some civil liberties experts.

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law | American Civil Liberties Union

I think that all qualifies as more than a second opinion and supports my argument quite nicely.

So. What was that about sauce for the goose, or did that apply to only me? Put up or shut up.
 
Last edited:
Translation: since I'm unable to argue my point, I'll let others do it for me.

When your 'ringers' sign up for a Debate Politics account and can be debated directly, do let me know.
 
Back
Top Bottom