Skip to main content

View Diary: The Rest of What Levin Said on NDAA Provisions (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Excerpts and further analysis below. (0+ / 0-)

    I posted below in response as well, excerpting from that resource diary.  

    In addition to that 'somewhat' lenthy work, I've also  taken a fine tooth comb to the new language and found that it expands existing authority by its own terms, something that any supposedly limiting  'intent' statement would not overcome.  

    This is exactly why I put that monster together.

    I thought it might come in handy.

    Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

    by Into The Woods on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:29:52 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  it's a monster all right (0+ / 0-)

      with lots of statements from you and links and stuff, but nowhere did you lay out exactly how your links support your contentions.

      in what specific ways is existing authority expanded?

      because levin seems to think the opposite.  detainees now are guaranteed a habeas hearing.  with a lawyer.  detainees can be removed from military detention at any time for civilian trial or custody.  those detained are now entitled to an annual review of that decision and their status.  (c-span video, 1:35 ish)

      My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

      by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:20:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's still indefinite detention (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Into The Woods

        Those of us opposed to the legislation are not satisfied with these assurances (habeas corpus, legal representation, annual reviews).  These procedures still allow people to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial, potentially for life.

        That's what's happening at Guantanamo Bay. And the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is increasingly turning the habeas corpus right into a dead letter.

        We're opposed to indefinite detention without charge or trial for people merely believed to be terrorists or supporters of terrorism.  If they're accused of terrorism, they should receive a trial, as outlined in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the Constitution.

      •  It expands "who" can be a "covered person" (0+ / 0-)

        And if you had read the comments below, you'd know that.  

        The original resource diary did not include that additional analysis.  

        Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

        by Into The Woods on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:29:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site