Skip to main content

View Diary: Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Via AMERICANS AGAINST TEA PARTY: "Everybody calm.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    Via AMERICANS AGAINST TEA PARTY: "Everybody calm down. Sen. Feinstein changed the language in the NDAA.
    Sec. 1031 (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."
    Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)  http://thomas.loc.gov/...
    thomas.loc.gov
    ‎(bb) in the Annex on Chemicals to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, done at Paris January 13, 1993, and entered into force April 29, 1997 (commonly known as the `Chemical Weapons Convention');

    •  Disinfo artists working hard (0+ / 0-)

      "existing law" was described by Sen. Lindsey Graham, key supporter of the law, as Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Fourth Circuit's decision to uphold Bush claim of authority to hold an American arrested on American soil indefinitely.  Graham called this "the law of the land" which NDAA merely codifies, rather than a decision that was supposed to go to the Supreme Court until Bush pulled Padilla from the Navy brig after   3 1/2 years of "getting his mind right" to avoid SCOTUS review.

      What you have to ask yourself is why the operatives, who are intelligent and know better, are working so hard at lying about this and trying to make you think the NDAA does everything but what it actually does: target American citizens.

      Graham on the Senate floor:
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/...

      "Judge Luttig Slams Bush Administration in Padilla Case" the Post (reposted in the Legal Reader):

           

       The appeals court opinion reflected a tone of anger that is rare for a federal court addressing the United States government, particularly in a matter of presidential authority.

      A Stanford Law School website notes:

      Luttig said the government's actions created the appearance "that the government may be attempting to avoid" Supreme Court review in a matter of "especial national importance."

      For the full range of tactics see "Why is the Media Lying About New NDAA Power for Indefinite Military Detention of Americans?"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site