Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  His insistence will soon be law (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55, Agathena, ozsea1

    He wrote the bill, thus his interpretation is paramount. If he interprets his own language this way, what is to stop the Executive branch from relying on that language to assert such powers?

    You are aware, I assume, that interpretations of the U.S, Constitution often rely on expressed intent of the founders as found in their other writings?

    He and all those privy to the congressional debate understand that this is the meaning and intent of the act. You're acting as if this isn't well understood by the lawmakers who have voted for this bill.

    •  He wrote the bill, and we can read the bill. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And the bill doesn't say what he says it does, anymore than the Constitution says what he and his Party say it does.

      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 06:12:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is willful obtuseness on your part (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        frandor55, praenomen

        Of course the writer of the bill has a large influence in how it is interpreted. Why do you think he was asked about the intent?

        Why do you think Udall tried to eliminate the provision with his amendment?

        But that aside, constitutional scholars are weighing in with the same interpretation.

        In other words, if there is any possibility at all for the bill to be interpreted in exactly the way its authors have intended, then that will be the way the executive branch will interpret the bill, since it provides more power to the executive.

        Even if Obama changes his mind and becomes more concerned about constitutional rights than he is about being reelected, future presidents may not have such misgivings, although from all accounts Obama wants these powers, and in fact has already used them.

      •  Troubadour, I posted this comment in another (0+ / 0-)

        diary, but I think it might help you:

        Dianne Feinstein has just introduced a bill to correct any ambiguity in the bill.  As it is written now, it will give the president power to have American citizens arrested and held without due process.

        From Feinstein:

           “We must clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens inside this country without trial or charge. I strongly believe that Constitutional due process requires U.S. citizens apprehended in the U.S. should never be held in indefinite detention. And that is what this new legislation would accomplish.”

        There it is in black and white.  It would have been ludicrous to introduce this bill if the NDAA didn't give the president the power to have American citizens arrested and detained without due process.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site