Americans, kiss your liberty good bye

[Martinus]

If the legislators wanted to make sure that a US citizen cannot be detained under section 1022, they would have included the same language as under section 1021 instead (there is a presumption that if the legislators address two things differently, they were aiming at different meaning in each case):

(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.

Although admittedly the wording here is also quite ambiguous so that this could be interpreted that all of these cathegories of people are exempted only if captured or arrested in the United States (and not just "any other person").

[CountDeMoney]

I see the GPL team consistently misses this part--

who is captured in the course of hostilities

lulz.

[11B4V]

What he said

[Martinus]

I see the GPL team consistently misses this part--

who is captured in the course of hostilities

lulz.

So? Noone is arguing that indefinite dention of US citizens is allowed under any circumstances, just that it is allowed under certain circumstances.

[11B4V]

January 03, 2012

Obama Signs Defense Bill Allowing for Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Trial

President Barack Obama has signed into law a $662 billion military spending bill that authorizes the government to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. In a signing statement attached to the bill, Obama said he was signing the bill even though he had "serious reservations" with parts of the bill dealing with detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Sections of the bill were opposed by key members of the Obama administration including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Human rights groups assailed Obama for backing down on his initial threat to veto the legislation. Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch said, "President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law." Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union has also been a vocal critic of the legislation. He recently appeared on Democracy Now!
Chris Anders, American Civil Liberties Union: "This is so broadly written, it would become a permanent feature of United States law, so that 10 years, 20 years down the road, any president could still use this power to have the military pick up people and indefinitely detain them without charge or trial, potentially for years, potentially for life."

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/3/headlines/obama_signs_defense_bill_allowing_for_indefinite_detention_of_us_citizens_without_trial

Surprised this is not getting reported more widely. A lot of uproar surrounds all kinds of gun control laws, food regulations, even states rights over gay marriage, but this is the fucking biggest assault on liberty there can be - habeas corpus this effectively suspends is the most precious right people defend when fighting tyrannies.

[grumbler]

Pay for my time then.

Cop out

Not really.  Marti has always been willing to say stupid shit for free.  It should cost a lot of money to get him to say something even half-way intelligent; he will need to pay for several meals and at least one night's sleep before he will be able to come up with something to say.

[Valmy]

Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.

They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.

The military should be gutted.  But it is not like the President is dictator for four years.  A Ron Paul as President would be unable to either repeal the civil liberty threatening laws, pass his nutty gold standard law, or dramatically reduce military spending.  It would just be him fighting with Congress and the Executive Branch bureaucracy ineffectively for four years.  And there is the obvious issue that his winning the GOP nom would be a repeat of the Goldwater and McGovern candidacies.

[Valmy]

So why does the American Congress not have some rule on seperation of concerns? It shouldn't be possible to add completely unrelated stuff to a bill. Have a vote on each seperate measure. That increases transparency too.

No and for there to be one they would have to pass it.  And why would they do that?

[Octavian]

Pay for my time then.

How many ADHD kids does it take to change a light bulb?




























Wanna go bike riding?

Why bring Mongers into this?

[jimmy olsen]

Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.

They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.

The military should be gutted.  But it is not like the President is dictator for four years.  A Ron Paul as President would be unable to either repeal the civil liberty threatening laws, pass his nutty gold standard law, or dramatically reduce military spending.  It would just be him fighting with Congress and the Executive Branch bureaucracy ineffectively for four years.  And there is the obvious issue that his winning the GOP nom would be a repeat of the Goldwater and McGovern candidacies.

Mmm...I think he might able to do the 1st, at least in part.

[Valmy]

Mmm...I think he might able to do the 1st, at least in part.

Which is why I will probably hold my nose and caucus for him in April.  God forgive me.

But it will probably be entirely symbolic since Romney will have wrapped it up by then anyway.  The Democratic Primary in 2008 was unique in my lifetime as being a Primary that was not entirely a symbolic gesture by Texas voters.

[grumbler]

No and for there to be one they would have to pass it.  And why would they do that?

The only thing the Confederate constitution added to the US Constitution (other than incorporating all then-existing amendments) was to ban all legislation that involved more than one topic, and legislation which was not summarized by its title.

[Valmy]

The only thing the Confederate constitution added to the US Constitution (other than incorporating all then-existing amendments) was to ban all legislation that involved more than one topic, and legislation which was not summarized by its title.

Did they?  I thought what they did was give the Confederate President a line item veto (that and a longer term) which I guess is pretty similar in effect.  Ironic that the Confederate President was so much more powerful than the US President at least Constitutionally considering what the Confederacy was supposed to be about in the first place.

[Rasputin]

i have read this debate and after careful deliberation my judgment is for 11b4v. Marty has had his ass kicked by a drunk redneck who used to schlep a rifle for uncle sam for a living

in marty's defense i assume that english is his second language and he is a pollack (albeit a high priced one) so reading the united states code may be tough for him  as it is for many new american law students

additionally, my guess is marty reads the code like a lawyer from a napoleonic code jurisdiction and is clueless as to how an american lawyer would read the text given the federal constitution's applicability to all statutes and the body of common law jurisprudence that guides us in our interpretation of similar existing federal statutes... that is to say i suspect marty comes from a jurisdiction where the statute stands alone as a text (although he still loses -- likely because his english is poor) as opposed to reading the statute in the context of applicable extrinsic factors such as decisional law and the constitution

[Rasputin]

No and for there to be one they would have to pass it.  And why would they do that?

The only thing the Confederate constitution added to the US Constitution (other than incorporating all then-existing amendments) was to ban all legislation that involved more than one topic, and legislation which was not summarized by its title.

these are still parts of the florida constitution and i believe effective at curtailing legislative abuses