Reply With Quote
National Defense Authorization Act*
It's early
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...mericans-face/
I can't believe there's not more outrage about this. The government has successfully used 9/11 to fear monger Americans into thinking they need to give up all of their freedoms to fight "terrorism".
National Defense Authorization Act*
It's early
From another thread:
House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1540:
Propaganda Dan...
You should really research your facts before believing what some lying liberal rag says. From the section that authorized detainment until hostilities end:
Now if there is something I'm wrong about, please point it out. Here is the most current form of the pending legislation:(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.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Fail.
Hmmm..48 ammendments... none dealing with anything mentioned in this thread
WC - Fail.
Ha...liked this comment
Court: So what evidence do you have that would support this man’s detention?
Government: It’s a secret!
Court: Oh, well then, carry on!
See? You get your appearance in court and due process is served. Nothing to worry about!
The world is coming to an end. Any day now....
First comment:
I think it is a bit facile for the statute to say it doesn’t expand the Executive’s authority, because an explicit authorization by Congress necessarily carries weight when it comes time for the courts to determine the Executive’s authority.
The Jose Padilla scenario, as you acknowledge, is unclear. Indeed, it is unclear precisely because the government refused to allow a final adjudication of the issue. After years of refusing to put Padilla into the civilian justice system, the government suddenly relented and procured an indictment just in time to cut off Supreme Court review of the detention issue, which remains unsettled as a result.
By passing an express authorization, Congress takes this simmering controversy and moves it from Justice Jackson’s second category to the first: “When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum.” The courts might still rule against the President, but it is less likely.
My view is that the Jose Padilla scenario (a US citizen arrested on US soil as a claimed adherent of al-Qaeda) is so rare, and looks so much like any other civilian arrest for terrorist crimes, that we don’t have to pick a divisive fight over that scenario. In 10 years following 9/11, Jose Padilla is the one and only US citizen that we’ve felt obligated to handle in this way, so why is it so important to establish the legal authority? The critics have a valid point that we’re creating a new category of crime (plotting terrorism on behalf of al-Qaeda) where you aren’t en led to ordinary notions of due process if you’re accused of it, even if you’re a US citizen arrested on US soil. Do we really need to go that far?
Says you?
Entropy
Any day now...
from the comments:
It seems that the issue of detention of U.S. citizens, captured on U.S. soil, on the basis of an administration allegation of terrorism links is still an open question. I have no problem with detention non-citizens, or even of citizens, captured on the battlefield, or otherwise overseas in acts or conspiracies to act against the United States. The notion that people could even consider that a U.S. citizen could be arrested/detained by the U.S. military within the boundaries of the United States, and held in detention indefinitely is frightening; it is chilling; it is frankly terrifying that we would even consider putting this power in the hands of those who have in the past used the I.R.S. to “audit” their “enemies”. Our Consitution is there as much protect us from our goverment as any other reason for its existence.
Anyway, I agree with the analysis that this is basically maintaining the status quo, which, imo, is a disappointment because it would be nice to restrain this power. What they did do is remove from the debate whether this falls under inherent executive power (if you think of Justice Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown, this case has now moved from either category three or two to category one).
I don't understand why they would add such language to the law when it's going to be so vague. If the law "doesn't change anything from previous law", then why the it's part of a law to begin with????
Then again, this is the Congress we have these days...
What are you babbling about? If you are referring to the quote I extracted, that dealt with that section only. It specifically states existing law for legal residents on US soil does not change.
Are you high? I quoted a section of the legislation.
I'm talking about the Feinstein(sp?) amendment that was approved.
Based on the comments from the volk site WH posted. I dont really read your posts when it comes to law.
LOL...
The link WH offered talks about section 1031 and 1032. 1031 is the one that says it cannot be construed outside of existing law. 1032 uses the definitions of 1031. I see you take the word of the link instead of reading it yourself.
Open this link and read pages 418 to 423.
reading and commenting on the comments is permitted. feel free to join the conversation.
the president it at the height of his power when he acts under the express authorization of Congress
Also in this was the repeal of the ban on sodomy and bestiality for military. Hoooray!
bestiality? weak.
...but he quoted it.....
...
I did read that before reading the legal commentary on volk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
