Skip to main content

View Diary: When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife, Mr. President? (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  PS: To me the really bad thing about the bill (4+ / 0-)

    is that it creates a "presumption" of military powers that we didn't have before even though they can be waived. A future president may not choose to exercise those waivers.

    Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

    by RhodaA on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:00:27 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinazina, Johnny Q, sloopydrew

      ...what can be waived are the constitutional protections of US citizens.  In other words, indefinite military detention of US citizens is not manditory as it is with non-citizens because the the congress has given the executive branch the option to waive the exclusion of US citizens as it sees fit.

      The danger isn't that future presidents will choose NOT to exercise the waivers in the bill, it's that he or she WILL choose to exercise said waivers.

      •  *sigh* (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RhodaA

        And you know this how?

        "Math is a theory, so it's not taught in the Bible."

        by lcj98 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:13:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  *sigh* (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sloopydrew

          Because I know how to read.

          I realize that words like manditory and optional and waiver have a meaning.  

          Bills are worded in a very particular way.  Just because something isn't manditory doesn't mean it isn't optional UNLESS the option is specifically enjoined.  That is why the executive is granted the power of a waiver to exempt American suspects from the usual constitutional protections and have them detained indefinitely by the military.

          Tell me, why did the administration lobby Levin to remove specific language which exempted Americans from indefinite military detention?  Why?  Why did the president threaten a veto if that language was INCLUDED in the bill?  Why?  Because the administration AGREES with the previous administration insofar as it BELIEVES it already has that authority under the AUMF and it didn't want Congress to explicitly STRIP it of that power.

        •  Because he's not blinded by partisan BS (0+ / 0-)

          I hate the Republicans as much as anyone. But I despise the Democrats who were a part of this -- because I expect them to know better. The law is written in a confusing manner, but constitutional law scholar after scholar has said this ABSOLUTELY "codifies" the right to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens WITHOUT right to a lawyer or a trial. It just doesn't "require" it. PLEASE understand, on this issue, you are WRONG, lcj98.

          I will not touch Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid - Barack Obama

          by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:10:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The waiver is of military detention. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Reepicheep

        The President wanted to be able to divert people to FBI jurisdiction and civilian court jurisdiction.  He got that.  It was essentially a jurisdictional battle between the FBI and the military.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (58)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Elections (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Environment (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site