Skip to main content

View Diary: Enough with Hysteria on "Indefinite Detention" - Give Me Facts. (198 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But doesn't that preclude the conclusion? (4+ / 0-)
    Nothing in this section shall be
    20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
    21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
    22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
    23 captured or arrested in the United States.

    The paramount of the existing law being the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

    A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

    by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:31:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  "captured"? How many U.S. laws speak (12+ / 0-)

      of residents who have been "captured".

      The problem is the language is pretty ambiguous, and I think it's deliberately done this way.  This now shifts the burden of proof on the citizen who has been "captured" and declared an enemy combatant.  But when you're sitting in Cuba, it's going to be very hard to get a lawyer to take a case to the Supreme Court, and with the current Supreme Court, I have no doubt the law would be upheld and a new precedent would be set.

      This really turns innocent until proven guilty on it's head.  

      •  It is dangerous, I agree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MKSinSA

        But as far as I can see, from everything people are showing me, the danger is in what a future administration might use it to justify, not in what it actually means now or in the hands of any other administration with even a passing respect for law.

        A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

        by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:30:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Existing law (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, jlynne, frandor55, Agathena

      as spelled out in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

      What the new bill does is codify and clarify existing law. That's why it claims to not be changing existing law. Obama thinks existing law already allows him to detain without trial American citizens. In fact, not only has he done this, he has killed citizens under the law. If he "changed" the law, that would be admitting he lacked authority before. This new law acts as if its provisions have already been in existence.

      AUMF 2001 -Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

      (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

      (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

          (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

      As Greenwald says:

      First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have aggressively argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substantially supports” those groups and/or “associated forces” (whatever those terms mean). That’s why this bill states that it does not intend to change the 2001 AUMF (even as it codifies far broader language defining the scope of the war) or the detention powers of the President, and it’s why they purposely made the bill vague on whether it expressly authorizes military detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil: it’s because the bill’s proponents and the White House both believe that the President already possesses these broadened powers with or without this bill. With a couple of exceptions, this bill just “clarifies” — and codifies — the powers President Obama has already claimed, seized and exercised.
      •  Where has the President said (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MKSinSA

        he has the power to indefinitely detain Americans?  And do you have a link to stories about this administration actually doing so, as you claim?

        A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

        by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:24:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site