Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Jesus fucking christ on a stick. Can Greenwald (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes, Troubadour

    fucking read?  It couldn't more clear. WTF is wrong with these people?

    No, it does not apply to American citizens or permanent residents. It has also numerous other limitations on who it applies to that make it so limited it is laughable.

    No, thank you for writing this.

    •  that's from the actual bill. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, Troubadour, SoCalSal

      It's an ugly bill, I won't deny that. I mean the whole thing is a give-away that we can't exactly afford, but no, the Occupy folks aren't going to get disappeared.

      And as for Gitmo, well, Congress has no interest in closing it (and it's their job.)

      [insert pithy sigline here]

      by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:35:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure he can read. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Southside, Troubadour, SoCalSal

      The problem is that he can also write. And keeps doing it even when what he reads doesn't matter to him.

      I support OWS. But that doesn't mean I support every dumb idea someone has about it.

      by kenlac on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:39:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, but it's so much more fun to demonize Obama. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Southside, Lying eyes, Troubadour

      WTF is wrong with these people? Seriously. Is it a medical condition or what?

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:42:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorta-kinda. It's actually a bit more muddled (5+ / 0-)

      than that: the section terrypinder bolded refers only to "the requirement for military custody", not to the question of indefinite detention, which is the one raised in the diary.  

      On the question of indefinite detention, the most pertinent section of the NDAA is actually this one:

      (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.

      In other words, Congress accepts the status quo. But the problem is that the existing law is muddled because the issue of potential indefinite detention of citizens has been handled on an ad hoc basis and bounced around the courts.  The NDAA basically says "We're not touching that, so we'll leave the existing system in place."  Which means that, yes, it is possible for someone holding U.S. citizenship to be detained indefinitely under certain circumstances.  

      This is what I meant above about the NDAA essentially codifying the status quo and clarifying nothing.   Still a bad bill, not the end of the world, but nothing to be complacent about either.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:03:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  this is already true in civillian courts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pico, Troubadour
        yes, it is possible for someone holding U.S. citizenship to be detained indefinitely under certain circumstances.

        material witnesses (sometimes), being held in contempt. I'm certainly not arguing that it's right, though.

        [insert pithy sigline here]

        by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:14:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think it's broader than that, though: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          terrypinder

          I think this is referring back to the whole package of practices that began under the GWOT legislation.  Point taken, though.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:31:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  PS thank you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pico

        yes you're right. I addressed the military portion, although you're still right, it's just the status quo, which is not what we want on this.

        But with this Congress? We're lucky there isn't a "lynch them thar terrists where they stand!" provision.

        [insert pithy sigline here]

        by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:25:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (120)
  • Community (56)
  • Elections (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Media (22)
  • Law (21)
  • Environment (21)
  • Culture (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Economy (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Bernie Sanders (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Health Care (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site