• 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 said:
good thing this new NDAA doesn't give our government any additional powers. nothing has changed folks.
Click to expand...

Then you should have no trouble whatsoever with this:

TacticalEvilDan said:
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. Don't show me the where it talks about excluding American citizens from mandatory military detention indefinitely, that's not what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Of course, you and I both know you won't bother trying to tackle this. Any time you're the target of a direct question you can't answer without admitting you're wrong, you simply ignore it.
 
No, you didn't. You quoted sections dealing with situations where indefinite military detention was required. You in no way quoted anything that explicitly states that the Executive does not have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial.

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


Hope and Change. Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. A New Beginning. Vote for Change. Help Me Take Back America. Our Time for Change.

Mr. President, either you're lying about why you signed this bill, or you're a coward. Either you're happy the Presidency has a new tool to put in the chest, or you didn't have the guts to tell Congress to send you an authorization bill without that junk attached. Either Congress sent it to you knowing you'd be pleased to sign it despite all of your public bellyaching, or they knew they had you outgunned.

Either way, you're an embarrassment to the office and to the country. You sold us out. Go **** yourself.
Click to expand...

Obama has lost my vote. I cannot support this and its a big enough issue that I can't ignore it.

Freedom and liberty does matter.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, you didn't. You quoted sections dealing with situations where indefinite military detention was required. You in no way quoted anything that explicitly states that the Executive does not have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial.

Try again.
Click to expand...

here ya go:

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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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. Don't show me the where it talks about excluding American citizens from mandatory military detention indefinitely, that's not what I'm talking about. [...]
Click to expand...

Sec. 1031 (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President [...]​


The "authority of the President" does not include "the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial".


Sec. 1031 (d) [...] or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.​


The "scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force" may or may not include "the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial" (one would have to check, but if it does not, the then such power would effectively be 'explicitly' excluded).


Sec. 1031 (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.​


"Existing law or authorities" includes the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits "detain[ing] American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial".

If that is insufficiently explicit, then you are applying an unreasonable standard (which is not unusual for so-called 'constitutionalists' {not saying that you are one}).



Edited to add: It seems that great minds think alike, and on the same timeline no less ;)
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
... If that is insufficiently explicit, then you are applying an unreasonable standard (which is not unusual for so-called 'constitutionalists' {not saying that you are one})....
Click to expand...

two possible things are going on here:

1. they want the law to specifically name President Obama, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the NSA, etc etc..and specifically says that they have no authority to arrest & indefinitely detain any legal resident of the USA without charge or trial. Such a request is kinda silly.

2. they are conspiracy theorists, and believe that regardless of what the law says or how it is amended, Obama and the DOD or whomever else will use it or abuse it to detain indefinitely anyone in the USA, without charge or trial. This goes for suspected terrorists, Teabaggers, OWSers, or anyone else that has a view that slightly oppose the govt.

personally, I believe most of what we are seeing here is #2, and you can't argue with such paranoia.
 
Instructions_to_japanese.png


Maybe if this new law specifically rounded up only Muslims or people from the middle east it would be ok.
 
Thunder said:
here ya go:

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.
Click to expand...

But what are those existing laws? The Patriot Act is still in force as it was extended just last year (Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension | Fox News) and the 2006 Military Commisions Act, which allows for the President to declare protesters unlawful enemy combatants (Rounding Up U.S. Citizens » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names) and lock them up indefinitely.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
But what are those existing laws? The Patriot Act is still in force as it was extended just last year (Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension | Fox News) and the 2006 Military Commisions Act, which allows for the President to declare protesters unlawful enemy combatants....
Click to expand...

no, the President does not have the authority to declare peaceful protesters, even violent protesters, enemy combatants.

please save such hyperbole & fear-mongering for the CT section.
 
Thunder said:
no, the President does not have the authority to declare peaceful protesters, even violent protesters, enemy combatants.

please save such hyperbole & fear-mongering for the CT section.
Click to expand...

Actually he does and I provided evidence.
 
Thunder said:
here ya go:

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.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you succeeded in quoting one of the passages I cited in post #7 when I complained that neither the bill nor its proponents specifically enjoined the Executive from detaining American citizens on American soil indefinitely.

To begin with, a passage like that is meaningless because once the bill is passed it becomes part of the existing law or authority on the subject. Additionally, it would still mean nothing if the bill explicitly stated that nothing in it is to be construed as contradicting the Constitution (and this bill makes no such explicit statement, btw), because that is a determination ultimately made in a court of law after this abomination gets challenged in court.

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.
 
Thunder said:
1. they want the law to specifically name President Obama, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the NSA, etc etc..and specifically says that they have no authority to arrest & indefinitely detain any legal resident of the USA without charge or trial. Such a request is kinda silly.
Click to expand...

It's good to know that you perceive a request for explicit language protecting the civil liberties of American citizens as kinda silly. It's not as if the government has a history of interpreting the law in whatever way grants it the broadest authority, right? Oh, wait. It does.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Congratulations, you succeeded in quoting one of the passages I cited in post #7 when I complained that neither the bill nor its proponents specifically enjoined the Executive from detaining American citizens on American soil indefinitely.....
Click to expand...

ah, so you want us to prove a negative?

no thanks, I don't play such silly games.
 
Thunder said:
please link to & quote the law that gives Obama the power to declare peaceful & even violent protesters, enemy combatants.

thanks.
Click to expand...

Sure. Here is the law (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf) and here is the quote

948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful
enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant
Click to expand...

This view that the 2006 Military Commissions Act allows the President to declare almost anyone an enemy combatant (due to the broad definition of enemy combatant) is highly supported (JURIST - Hotline: Challenging the Military Commissions Act) (FindLaw's Writ - Mariner: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 A Short Primer)
 
Thunder said:
alright, well let us know when Obama starts indefinitely detaining American citizens or legal aliens on American soil, without charge or trial.
Click to expand...

The real problem with that is we will not know. There is no requirement that the public will be informed. People can be disappeared. They could end up in one of the FEMA camps already set up and running.
 
Thank you, Mr. Invisible. That answers the question of why American citizens on American soil weren't specifically excluded in the NDAA.
 
Risky Thicket said:
The real problem with that is we will not know. There is no requirement that the public will be informed. People can be disappeared. They could end up in one of the FEMA camps already set up and running.
Click to expand...

Yep. All you need are enforcement officers with no oversight who are certain they are obeying lawful orders.
 
Thunder said:
two possible things are going on here:

1. they want the law to specifically name President Obama, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the NSA, etc etc..and specifically says that they have no authority to arrest & indefinitely detain any legal resident of the USA without charge or trial. Such a request is kinda silly.

2. they are conspiracy theorists, and believe that regardless of what the law says or how it is amended, Obama and the DOD or whomever else will use it or abuse it to detain indefinitely anyone in the USA, without charge or trial. This goes for suspected terrorists, Teabaggers, OWSers, or anyone else that has a view that slightly oppose the govt.

personally, I believe most of what we are seeing here is #2, and you can't argue with such paranoia.
Click to expand...

TacticalEvilDan said:
Congratulations, you succeeded in quoting one of the passages I cited in post #7 when I complained that neither the bill nor its proponents specifically enjoined the Executive from detaining American citizens on American soil indefinitely.

To begin with, a passage like that is meaningless because once the bill is passed it becomes part of the existing law or authority on the subject. Additionally, it would still mean nothing if the bill explicitly stated that nothing in it is to be construed as contradicting the Constitution (and this bill makes no such explicit statement, btw), because that is a determination ultimately made in a court of law after this abomination gets challenged in court.

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.
Click to expand...

Thunder, you were half right... it is #1 and #2 ;)
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yep. All you need are enforcement officers with no oversight who are certain they are obeying lawful orders.
Click to expand...

Indeed, when I was in the USAF Security (MP) we would get a "pick up order" to arrest. Sometimes we didn't know why and sometimes we would. If it is a lawful order from your chain of command you do as you are ordered. I don't remember but I'm sure at times we might have asked about a particular guy and the flight sergeant or the desk sergeant would have to told us what they knew or they would have said, "that's all we have" or "What? You want a biography and ****ing map?" If it is a lawful order, you just do it. That'll happen under the new law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom