Shutup, you don't get a lawyer

[Quantum Windbag]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN-6Bmw_UIA&feature=player_embedded]"Shut Up. You Don't Get a Lawyer!": The Defense Authorization Act Guts Civil Liberties - YouTube[/ame]

 

[George Costanza]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope it doesnt.

there is a line in the law that says it can not be used in any way that is extraconstitutional

 

[Truthmatters]

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Truthmatters]

1031
3

(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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope it doesnt.

there is a line in the law that says it can not be used in any way that is extraconstitutional

That makes me feel better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1031
3

(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.

The strangest thing about your assertion is that Obama himself disagrees with you. Does that mean you are secretly a Republican?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

Maybe you should rethink your support of a bill that Obama opposes. I am sure that, since I pointed out that your god hates this bill as written, you will now join me in denouncing it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

From QW's link:

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.

Public Law 107-40 was signed Sept 18th 2001. That was a Joint Resolution meant for going after the perps of the 9/11 attacks.

He went to war in Libya saying he didn't need Congressional approval. Was he thinking the joint resolution was good enough or that because he's the head of the UN Security Council (Impeachable Offense) he doesn't need it?

He talks about US GOV'T authority but I think he means HIS OWN authority. If this passes then it takes authority out of his hands and that's why he's threatening to veto it, I think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From QW's link:

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.

Public Law 107-40 was signed Sept 18th 2001. That was a Joint Resolution meant for going after the perps of the 9/11 attacks.

He went to war in Libya saying he didn't need Congressional approval. Was he thinking the joint resolution was good enough or that because he's the head of the UN Security Council (Impeachable Offense) he doesn't need it?

He talks about US GOV'T authority but I think he means HIS OWN authority. If this passes then it takes authority out of his hands and that's why he's threatening to veto it, I think.

Probably.

I just like making TM's head explode when her talking points conflict with those of Obama.

 

[Si modo]

Yeah, due process is for pussies!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Or in this case ignorance and fear.

 

[richstacy]

We do not now, nor have we ever given due process to foreign combatants who are waging war against us. Try to visualize "due process " for the Wehrmacht on D-Day, or the Japanese on Iwo, or Charlie in Vietnam. Due process has to do with domestic criminal law, not warfare.

Yeah, due process is for pussies!

 

[Si modo]

We do not now, nor have we ever given due process to foreign combatants who are waging war against us. Try to visualize "due process " for the Wehrmacht on D-Day, or the Japanese on Iwo, or Charlie in Vietnam. Due process has to do with domestic criminal law, not warfare.

Yeah, due process is for pussies!

And, we don't give due process to citizens. The Executive branch simply makes a unilateral decision that someone is a danger and they execute the citizen.

Due process is for pussies! (Apparently, so is the Bill of Rights.)

Checks and Balances is also for pussies.

 

[FA_Q2]

We do not now, nor have we ever given due process to foreign combatants who are waging war against us. Try to visualize "due process " for the Wehrmacht on D-Day, or the Japanese on Iwo, or Charlie in Vietnam. Due process has to do with domestic criminal law, not warfare.

Yeah, due process is for pussies!

Did you miss the part where this is applicable anywhere in the world rich!!! That means HERE in the US you can be declared an enemy combatant, placed in military custody after you were apprehended at your house by the local PD. Strike that, can is a misnomer as the bill requires it if you are SUSPECTED of terrorism!

Nope it doesnt.

there is a line in the law that says it can not be used in any way that is extraconstitutional

That is not helpful considering the law is unconstitutional in the first place. A line that states an unconstitutional law is not here to circumvent the constitution....

What a joke of a protection....

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Where are the good intentions? Did I miss them....


The scariest part was the vote. 93-7! Yikes, what the hell happened to congress? The provisions were well known and openly debated. Your video states they were created behind closed doors but they were on the senate floor for debate as there were several amendments added to the bill to rectify this situation. Amendments that failed!!!!!

I listened to the live debate on C-Span

 

[Jackson]

We do not now, nor have we ever given due process to foreign combatants who are waging war against us. Try to visualize "due process " for the Wehrmacht on D-Day, or the Japanese on Iwo, or Charlie in Vietnam. Due process has to do with domestic criminal law, not warfare.

Yeah, due process is for pussies!

Did you miss the part where this is applicable anywhere in the world rich!!! That means HERE in the US you can be declared an enemy combatant, placed in military custody after you were apprehended at your house by the local PD. Strike that, can is a misnomer as the bill requires it if you are SUSPECTED of terrorism!

Nope it doesnt.

there is a line in the law that says it can not be used in any way that is extraconstitutional

That is not helpful considering the law is unconstitutional in the first place. A line that states an unconstitutional law is not here to circumvent the constitution....

What a joke of a protection....

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Where are the good intentions? Did I miss them....


The scariest part was the vote. 93-7! Yikes, what the hell happened to congress? The provisions were well known and openly debated. Your video states they were created behind closed doors but they were on the senate floor for debate as there were several amendments added to the bill to rectify this situation. Amendments that failed!!!!!

I listened to the live debate on C-Span

Yes, but when debates happen, just how many are in the room to listen to the debates? Watch the camera span the room. Legislators don't bother to show up until it's time for their speech and then leave.

Listening to all debaters should be mandatory. It's their job to make an informed decision instead of being party puppets on either side.