Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Fights to Retain NDAA Power to Detain US Citizens in Military Custody. (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well first of all I can read. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, aliasalias, dancewater
    •  Are you sure? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoGoGoEverton

      When this first came up, quite a few of us actually looked at the legislation as actually passed, and found that it did NOT allow "indefinite detention of American citizens residing within the U.S.".

      Though some still claim it did, to my knowledge, since that time the only change is that the administration made clear it felt that way, too, in a signing statement.

      So, I, for one, would like to see some evidence, in the form of the actual language of the NDAA (sorry, won't take links to Glenn Greenwald) that proves it.

      •  OMG BUT GREENWALD = TRUTH (0+ / 0-)

        YOU MAY CITE HIM AS IF HIS WORDS ARE PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.

        ALL HAIL.

      •  The best proof is that the govt refused to give (6+ / 0-)

        Chis Hedges the assurance that NDAA does not detain American citizens:

        The government lawyers, despite being asked five times by the judge to guarantee that we plaintiffs would not be charged under the law for our activities, refused to give any assurances. They did not provide assurances because under the law there were none. We could, even they tacitly admitted, be subject to these coercive measures.
        http://www.commondreams.org/....
      •  yea Obama said he would "not authorize.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dancewater

        "not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" just to hear himself talk.  

        Why promise you are not going to do something you don't have the power to do anyway?  

        You are about 3 iterations behind in this debate, you are playing catch-up ball.  Everyone knows it means American citizens.  If you want to read the language to to the Turley video.  You are wasting my time.

          •  Thanks for the link Ralph Lopez. I have read (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lujane, dancewater

            elsewhere that the Admin is doing what you say.

            However, saw this in the linked document:

            Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

            How did Supreme Court decision ACA help the 23 million still uncovered? Ask the 18,000 Doctors of PNHP -- they're not waiting, FORWARD now to pass H.R. 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act .

            by divineorder on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 02:15:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site