• 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

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.

Are you serious? You asked me to get a second opinion. I got more than that, and now you're accusing me of letting others do my arguing for me?

This isn't moving the goal-posts, it's resetting the score-board, kicking a field-goal and declaring victory. :lol:
 
Are you serious? You asked me to get a second opinion. I got more than that, and now you're accusing me of letting others do my arguing for me[...]
I advised you to get a 2nd opinion on your errors in logic and terminology.

I am distinctly un-interested in your opinion on the NDAA, nor the opinion of anyone else. I'm interested in your logical argument that will prove your point. However, I've seen it, found it lacking, noted that well, assume others have reached their own conclusion about it, and am ready to move on... unless you can come up with something that is not a repetition of what was posted back on page 2 (which is about all I've seen since then).
 
I advised you to get a 2nd opinion on your errors in logic and terminology.

I am distinctly un-interested in your opinion on the NDAA, nor the opinion of anyone else. I'm interested in your logical argument that will prove your point. However, I've seen it, found it lacking, noted that well, assume others have reached their own conclusion about it, and am ready to move on... unless you can come up with something that is not a repetition of what was posted back on page 2 (which is about all I've seen since then).

You've redefined the terms until you felt like you won, and then you stated pretty clearly that you don't actually care about the issue at hand. You ever consider a career in public relations? :lol:
 
If, in your opinion Obama is the best we can do, then we are truly lost. I no longer live in America, nor do my closest relatives. Still, if opinions like yours turn out to hold sway then I have done myself and my son a favor. I just hope that the dumbing down of Obama's America does not spread to few areas of the western world not yet affected.

The dumbing down is bad, but the really troubling trend is the rising inherent distrust of an intellectual "elite." of course educated people have no such fear, and those who do specifically pursue personal courses that disenfranchise themselves from higher power structures (e.g. political and financial). And that's your growing voter base. It's why G.W. Bush, who had access to the best institutions and education money could buy, reinvented himself as an ignorant cowboy.
 
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.
..




bare in mind if this law somehow changed existing law, to now allow for the indefinite detention without trial/charge, of any legal residents of the USA, I too would be yelling bloody murder and probably call for a popular uprising.

but the fact is, this law changes nothing. No citizens of the USA nor legal residents of the USA, shall be detained indefinitely without charge/trial, due to this law or due to any current law.

Unless they call you a terrorist - which they can basically do now for any reason - then your rights as a citizen go out the window.
 
Exactly how is it that a bill that says citizens cannot be held indefinitely is being construed as a bill that gives that power? Yeah, and the JFK was assassinated by the mob and 9/11 was caused by Bush. WTF kind of site am I on right now?

Unless they call you a terrorist - which they can basically do now for any reason - then your rights as a citizen go out the window.

It does not say "does not extend to citizens of the United States unless they are terrorists" as far as I am aware. It seems that statement #1 is finite from my perspective.
 
Last edited:
Folks should be reminded, that the OP is totally untrue.

The NDAA of 2012 does not authorize the indefinite detention without trial/charge of ANY legal residents of the USA.
 
Folks should be reminded, that the OP is totally untrue.

The NDAA of 2012 does not authorize the indefinite detention without trial/charge of ANY legal residents of the USA.

Are we back to the part where I asked you to provide the language restricting the government from indefinitely detaining citizens, and all you could provide was the language that excluded citizens from mandatory military detention?
 
Are we back to the part where I asked you to provide the language restricting the government from indefinitely detaining citizens, and all you could provide was the language that excluded citizens from mandatory military detention?


You know it only matters which President is signing these sorts of things.


j-mac
 
I'm not an Obama fan, but if I was, I'd be angrier at him for doing it, as a pose to someone I voted against.

I guess I'm just a freak.


No, not at all...I wish I could say the same....See I thought that some of these things were ok when Bush was in, retrospectively though, and now that Obama is abusing the power, not so clear cut.


j-mac
 
Well, it's a useful exercise for you to keep in mind in the future -- would you mind if the other guy had this kind of power? If so, your guy probably shouldn't have it either.
 
Well, it's a useful exercise for you to keep in mind in the future -- would you mind if the other guy had this kind of power? If so, your guy probably shouldn't have it either.

At what point does it say that being declared a "terrorist" voids the citizenship aspect of the bill?
 
It's not a matter of a change in classification stripping you of your rights -- it's the fact that those rights vanish if they can say that they suspect you of certain kinds of behavior.

Ultimately, as I think I've said before, this law will be used to justify (to agents and law enforcement) the making of arrests, and it won't be until someone manages to get the attention of a judge that the law will even be challenged.
 
It's not a matter of a change in classification stripping you of your rights -- it's the fact that those rights vanish if they can say that they suspect you of certain kinds of behavior.

Ultimately, as I think I've said before, this law will be used to justify (to agents and law enforcement) the making of arrests, and it won't be until someone manages to get the attention of a judge that the law will even be challenged.

I just asked you to prove that. It says in plain text that the right to detain indefinitely does not apply to citizens, and I am asking you to show that a classification of terrorist overrules that clearly written regulation.
 
I just asked you to prove that. It says in plain text that the right to detain indefinitely does not apply to citizens, and I am asking you to show that a classification of terrorist overrules that clearly written regulation.

It doesn't say that at all. It claims that it doesn't modify existing law or the existing authority of the President with respect to American citizens -- but if you look at the law, any time they can fit an American citizen into a number of vaguely described categories (none of which are explicitly labeled "terrorist"), that citizen is hosed. The Secretary of Defense will (in theory) regularly report on how they apply those vaguely described categories, but that's it for the oversight.
 
It doesn't say that at all. It claims that it doesn't modify existing law or the existing authority of the President with respect to American citizens -- but if you look at the law, any time they can fit an American citizen into a number of vaguely described categories (none of which are explicitly labeled "terrorist"), that citizen is hosed. The Secretary of Defense will (in theory) regularly report on how they apply those vaguely described categories, but that's it for the oversight.

Again, I'll ask again:

The bill clearly spells out that it is not legal to detain any citizen indefinitely. What basis do you have for assuming that labeling a citizen a "terrorist" nulls that regulation? I know you know what I mean.
 
There have been several threads about this bill already. I started this one.

It was my understanding from the discussion and from quotes of the bill that the language exempting US citizens was in, then out, and it was out at the insistence of the president.

Now, in the final bill, does it specifically exempt US citizens and legal residents, or was that wording taken out?

It the final bill allows indefinite detention of American citizens without trial on any pretext whatsoever, this has to be challenged, even if it means a march on Washington. It is an outrageous curtailment of basic freedoms.

and if not one cares, then we might as well pack it in. Our 200 + year experiment in liberty is over.
 
Again, I'll ask again:

The bill clearly spells out that it is not legal to detain any citizen indefinitely.

There's really no point in discussing the rest of your post all over again because it does not say that. The fact that it does not say that is one of my biggest objections to the bill.
 
At what point does it say that being declared a "terrorist" voids the citizenship aspect of the bill?

It doesn't have to. Pre-existing laws like the PATRIOT Act serve as an adjunct to the latest legislation.

The military should not be involved in domestic U.S affairs. That's what the CIA, FBI, and state/local police are for. The military are for defense of this country from invasion, not for policing our soil.
 
The Bill does not allow the indefinite detention without trial/charge of any legal residents of the USA. This includes citizens, tourists, and folks with Green Cards & Permanent Residency status.

Why do liberals think that these people are exempt from American freedom?
 
There have been several threads about this bill already. I started this one.

It was my understanding from the discussion and from quotes of the bill that the language exempting US citizens was in, then out, and it was out at the insistence of the president.

Now, in the final bill, does it specifically exempt US citizens and legal residents, or was that wording taken out?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom