Reply With Quote
Obama is coming for your horses....booogy..boogy...
Business first...I got back to you in eight minutes. You've been keeping me waiting a day.
Do some research...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...scal_Year_2012Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "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." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.[21].
This is readily available out there Whinehole...do some research...
Obama is coming for your horses....booogy..boogy...
Further....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...scal_Year_2012On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...] My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Cons ution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law. [...] As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost
This needs to be decided by the courts, but I gotta tell ya, the courts have been very friendly when it comes to the Bush claim under AUMF...
WTFU:
Even Liberals are W'ingTFU:
Legislative Intent:
All this fuss is a sideshow to take away from the fact that the bill effectively destroys the "Posse Comitatus Act." Notice how the media isn't focusing on that?
except there was no existing law on indefinite detention, leaving aside the US cons ution.. a promise to interpret the law a certain way is hardly comforting and does not bind future presidents. i'm not even sure it binds this one.
existing law allowed the detention of Jose Padilla, so presumably that's still allowed, right?
the insistenxce that nothing in the law expands the authority of the president is another strawman -- I never alleged it anyway. my complaint is that is gives authorization in the gray area left by Hamdan.
so much for the new law not going beyond existing law. making certain powers construed in the AUMF perpetual, and the battlefield global, is bad enough.
he can still be reciprocal. if he asks for verification he can expect to be asked for it.
at this point I hardly know what to say. Nbadan is megaphoning the White House line unashamedly...
Because that's what he's here for. You can't expect intellectual honesty from Nbadan and Yonivore. They don't even believe the things they write. They're basically willing propagandists.
it's not that they're propagandists that bothers me. it's the willful blindness and weaselly jailbreaks.
admittedly, the political cant, non-denial denial, evasion, egregiously twisted misrepresentation, attempted derailing, fibbing, prevarication and bald lying bug me too.
bein a opinionated jackass is fine. not a thing in the world wrong with it.
it's being a dedicated liar that grates.
How is that?
If anything, the Posse Comitatus Act was temporarily destroyed under Bush Jr between 2006 and 2008...
Big deal. It was under the AUMF, at least, according to the courts....why do you have your panties in a wad now? Oh, that's right, congress Codified it.
That's because the WH, in this case, is telling the truth...perhaps you would like me to reiterate some lies from Krauthhammer or Will?
The next time Sperminator posts something significant will be the first...
Yep....Dubya was arresting American citizens left and right, and Congress and the courts snubbed their nose at this and went around their business....Obama has not arrested one American citizen under the AUMF, or under NAAD, although he could have, nor does he plan to in the future, but libertarians like Whinehole aren't interested in these facts....
I quote NDAA subsection e...
Subsection 1021 subsection e) reads:
Party Spin(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
15 construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to
16 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
17 aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are
18 captured or arrested in the United States.
Sperminator
not cited here.
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained“If words have meaning,” he insists, “that is about as clear as English can get.”
Words have meaning, but they can also be taken out of context. The provision that Thornberry cites only exempts American citizens from being covered by section 1022 of the new law, which creates a new presumption of military detention for certain terrorist suspects. Notably, section 1022(b)(1) does not exempt American citizens from the more important provisions in section 1021, which allow the military detention of broad categories of terrorist suspects. It does not, therefore, improve on the status quo by extending any new protections to Americans.
Moreover, the specific exemption for American citizens in section 1022 could be understood as suggesting, by negative implication, that American citizens are covered by section 1021. Potentially reinforcing this view is the fact that an effort to amend section 1021 to exempt citizens failed in the Senate. If, in the future, judges decide to refer to the statute’s legislative history to help ascertain its scope, the lack of such an exemption may be determinative.
Another provision that Thornberry cites is equally unhelpful to his claim. Subsection 1021(e) says that section 1021 does not change existing law “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.”
On its face, it should be obvious that this provision does not specifically protect citizens; in fact, the reference to citizens is entirely superfluous. (The provision might just as well have specified “redheads, AARP members, and any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” If it had not been written with future political maneuvering in mind, it would simply have referred to “the detention of persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”)
One way in which the language of the provision is meaningful, however, is in its specific reference to captures and arrests that occur “in the United States.” To whatever extent the provision serves to curb the law’s scope, it clearly does not stop the law from strengthening and expanding the government’s legal authority to detain indefinitely persons arrested outside of the United States—whether US citizens or non-citizens, and whether the arrests take place in Pakistan or in Paris. In short, the relevant line is not one of citizenship, but of location.
Moreover, the provision’s reference to “existing law” begs far too many questions. It is precisely the scope of existing law that is subject to vociferous debate and continuing litigation. Under the Bush administration, the law was interpreted to allow the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens arrested anywhere in the world, including the United States.
While the Supreme Court upheld the military detention of an American citizen captured as part of the armed conflict in Afghanistan, it has yet to hear an indefinite detention case involving anyone—citizen or non-citizen—picked up in the United States. Nor has it handled a case involving a terrorist suspect, as opposed to a participant in a traditional armed conflict. With these fundamental questions still in play, it is disingenuous to say that the law could not be used to detain Americans deemed to be involved in terrorism.
So what does existing law currently state, since Jose Padilla was arrested in the US? Can the President still use the AUMF to arrest any US citizen associated with AQ?
Courts never ruled because Padilla was transferred to military custody....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions