tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post714426762918109276..comments2024-03-18T14:34:31.684-05:00Comments on Horizons: More Obama derangement syndrome about "indefinite detention"Nancy LeTourneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-91478854539189909802012-01-06T08:43:10.374-06:002012-01-06T08:43:10.374-06:00The fact that something is being done as you claim...The fact that something is being done as you claim (the practice of sex offenders being indefinitely detained) doesn't mean it's codified in law. When something is codified in law it's given the weight of statutory authority. What law was passed authorizing the indefinite detention of sex offenders? What? Oh, right, there isn't one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-83235927977258799912012-01-05T10:40:58.216-06:002012-01-05T10:40:58.216-06:00One issue: those sex offenders were convicted and ...One issue: those sex offenders were convicted and given a sentence. Much different than never being tried in the court of law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-70559135849279595632011-12-20T06:02:12.390-06:002011-12-20T06:02:12.390-06:00Gotta love the poster who calls it "Obama'...Gotta love the poster who calls it "Obama's" bill ... and then "your" bill. Freedom Works is back on patrol I see.<br /><br />(The sex crimes references... Uh ...?? What the ... ???) <br />Poor choice of subject matter in my opinion Ms. Pants. I know you can do better than that!<br /><br />The hysteria over this bill is obviously (obvious to me anyway) the work of Karl Rove & company ... America's premier fear & anxiety merchants! This is what Rove and his groups do best. They decide upon which direction everyone's attention will be newly focused and then steer everyone's dialogue that way, and away from whatever it is that they feel needs some relief. And they have an outstanding record of success in doing so. If you think back for a moment to 2000 ... and again to 2004, you'll realize that we've seen this act before.<br /><br />To me it's all quite simple. The bill of rights is what they call the first 10 amendments to the constitution. NOTHING short of another constitutional amendment can usurp any part of our bill of rights. Since this NDAA bill is not a constitutional amendment, that's pretty much the end of the story as far as I can tell. <br /><br />Plus ...one of the other posters nailed something else. The language that THE REPUBS .... (NOT Obama, and NOT Ms.Pants) wanted the bill to contain has been scrubbed thanks to Feinstein and a few other diligent Dems. <br /><br />The NDAA scourge is over folks. Please go back to focusing on the real enemy. The 1% club. And quit letting Rove and his fright specialists lead you around by the nose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-13169739968433310892011-12-18T09:44:17.356-06:002011-12-18T09:44:17.356-06:00Mornin' Blackman - and thanks...hangin in ther...Mornin' Blackman - and thanks...hangin in there. <br /><br />I'm not much into the kinds of conversations so many want to have about this kind of thing. Being focused on whether or not you "won" an argument and/or needing to pin someone down as for/against this bill just doesn't interest me. It is what it is and, as you said, has now been improved from worse to bad. Its also been passed with a veto-proof majority. So there you have it.<br /><br />My interest in writing this piece was that much of the commentary on this kind of thing tends to miss so much of our history as well as the breadth of these issues. As I said, the result of doing that most often becomes an excuse to pile on President Obama. So my conclusion is that its likely related to ODS rather than a real interest in the issues.Nancy LeTourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-37357500825381528662011-12-18T09:23:40.031-06:002011-12-18T09:23:40.031-06:00Mo'nin', Ms. Pants
As LAC said up above, ...Mo'nin', Ms. Pants<br /><br />As LAC said up above, I see you've been discovered. :-) Fortitude, girl.<br /><br />Re: this matter, some of my thoughts are that, firstly, PBO knows more about law, being the Constitutional scholar that he is, than just any number of people who believe they know more. Therein, this being a Defense Bill with, additionally, people depending on it to get paid, he said he'd veto it unless some language was taken out. It was. So...<br /><br />For this and, probably, any number of matters, it would really be nice if there was such a thing as the line item veto. There isn't.<br /><br />As I've pieced it together, this would appear to be a bad Bill. HowEVer, it was a HORRIBLE Bill initially. I also, as I would see it, don't believe that U.S. citizens are just going to be rounded up and indefinitely detained. There is no evidence of this based on what PBO consistently attempts to do (of course, there is the minor aside that it's written into the Bill that that can't happen).<br /><br />Consider, those of you that, yet again, feel that Obama doesn't know what he's doing, or that he caved again or whatever the disappointment of the moment would be that, back in '10 something did NOT happen. Because of that we have a LOT of Republicans doin' that voodoo that THEY do. So...<br /><br />Nov. '12. BE there. VOTE for him and a Congress that will work with him.<br /><br />Less of this mess will happen.Blackmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-62153998648352630752011-12-17T21:34:56.114-06:002011-12-17T21:34:56.114-06:00Alright so you are against the bill then? But the ...Alright so you are against the bill then? But the President, who you do support is going to sign the bill into law. And still you can't give me a case law that agrees with this bills indefinite detention without due process. So what was the purpose of your blog post here? I have asked you this since 7:14PM. Two hours and twenty minutes I am asking the same question. What case law states or ever stated that indefinite detention is legal without due process?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-53731898156631841672011-12-17T21:24:45.967-06:002011-12-17T21:24:45.967-06:00My bill?????? WTH are you smoking?
Nowhere in the...My bill?????? WTH are you smoking?<br /><br />Nowhere in the post I wrote or in any comment I've made have I defended this bill - or any practice of indefinite detention for that matter. <br /><br />Its ridiculous to try to discuss things with people who come loaded with that kind of baggage. <br /><br />And actually 6 Republican Senators and 43 House Republicans voted against it. A total of 47 Democratic Senators voted for it.Nancy LeTourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-67099011579576488612011-12-17T21:12:05.146-06:002011-12-17T21:12:05.146-06:00Excuse me one Republican apparently didn't lik...Excuse me one Republican apparently didn't like the smell of this turn and voted against it. Can you guess who?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-81022219396981915492011-12-17T21:03:53.167-06:002011-12-17T21:03:53.167-06:00Doesn't it give you pains at all that every Re...Doesn't it give you pains at all that every Republican voted for your bill. Every Republican. Wow that is awfully great company there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-79266766588888916572011-12-17T20:51:27.546-06:002011-12-17T20:51:27.546-06:00The bill that passed on Thursday included several ...The bill that passed on Thursday included several problematic provisions, the worst of which could allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, without charge or trial, even if they're captured in the U.S.<br />Al Franken who voted against the bill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-70999017883051837742011-12-17T20:42:31.309-06:002011-12-17T20:42:31.309-06:00Nice attempt at hyperbole. But what you're sug...Nice attempt at hyperbole. But what you're suggesting as an analogy has absolutely no bearing on what is in NDAA.<br /><br />http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/adam-smiths-dear-colleague-letter-on-the-ndaas-detention-provisions/Nancy LeTourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-64701630996863624252011-12-17T20:12:45.354-06:002011-12-17T20:12:45.354-06:00Okay, you can't take a one sentence and state ...Okay, you can't take a one sentence and state that is the full position. You know this but still do it. GG, as you call him, is refering to indefinite detention without due process. Because someone or team in the White House declare someone a terrorist or associating with terrorist can be detained indefinitely without due process. So you equating this with MN would mean a mayor in a MN city would have to pick out a person and describe him as a person who might commit a 'sex crime', being delicate now, and have him detained without due process. Is that the way MN law is? Nope and you know it. So please, one more time, give me case law that states that the executive branch on its own action or knowledge can detain indefinitely? No where in the bill does it declare that someone must be first intitled to due process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-28337414249581850162011-12-17T19:59:57.654-06:002011-12-17T19:59:57.654-06:00If you'd bothered to read the article I linked...If you'd bothered to read the article I linked to, you'd find that what I'm talking about is people who have been tried, convicted and served their sentence. After that, they are committed to indefinite detention on the grounds that they might offend again. <br /><br />So let me review what GG said:<br /><br />"But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute."<br /><br />As I said, that statement is not true.Nancy LeTourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-34327955946482279312011-12-17T19:47:20.962-06:002011-12-17T19:47:20.962-06:00Whatever. What do you want to use? Still you use a...Whatever. What do you want to use? Still you use an example that is clearly not even close to Obama and his indefinite detention. So whatever you want to call them is fine with me. Still give an example of prior case law which is what Mr Greenwald stated that there is none. Once again, indefinite detention with 'no due process'. I am waiting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-38640297879812754652011-12-17T19:25:05.720-06:002011-12-17T19:25:05.720-06:00Anonymous @ 7:14
Please notice that you are label...Anonymous @ 7:14<br /><br />Please notice that you are labeling someone a "sexual deviant" who was in possession of pornography as a juvenile (from the article cited above). If that is how you see the world, I'd suggest that there are an awful lot more people who should be indefinitely detained. <br /><br />Folks like you throw around "sexual deviant" in the same way the right uses the "terrorist" label. There's not much rationality in either case.Nancy LeTourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-24588959400909824672011-12-17T19:14:42.531-06:002011-12-17T19:14:42.531-06:00MN 'indefinitely' interns supposed sexual ...MN 'indefinitely' interns supposed sexual deviants and you people or at least the blogger thinks that equates with the US indefinitely interns citizens or any other deemed threat without due process. There is no other example to be found in US law. Find one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-62872017671600107542011-12-17T15:47:52.352-06:002011-12-17T15:47:52.352-06:00...and the hours roll by........and the hours roll by.....Jim in St Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028577920540521692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-33984513206697187622011-12-17T14:33:22.976-06:002011-12-17T14:33:22.976-06:00Raspberries!
Every time you get challenged in t...Raspberries! <br /><br />Every time you get challenged in the comments you say that the person 'misunderstood' what you were tying to say. Or that they 'missed the point' Its not just me, but anyone who doesn't reply with Amen. <br /><br />Maybe it is because you are a poor communicator. <br /><br />I'm asking you to actually state your opinion as gleaned from that tortuously convoluted post above. <br /><br />Do you think that dangerous pervert/predators should be kept in jail or not? <br /><br />My opinion is that if they are deemed a threat then they should remain locked up.Jim in St Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028577920540521692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-60049742508397667592011-12-17T14:22:26.954-06:002011-12-17T14:22:26.954-06:00Jim - I'm still here.
When you ask a question...Jim - I'm still here.<br /><br />When you ask a question or state an opinion that is in any way related to what I've written, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise...not so much.Nancy LeTourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-26096285164900857892011-12-17T14:12:51.561-06:002011-12-17T14:12:51.561-06:00Jim in St Louis
You know people always say don'...Jim in St Louis<br />You know people always say don't feed trolls<br />but i don't mind LOLandryce74https://www.blogger.com/profile/12898012196184218139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-22796041127089341102011-12-17T14:06:43.667-06:002011-12-17T14:06:43.667-06:00Smarty? You still there? Still trying to think u...Smarty? You still there? Still trying to think up a way to spin an answer? C'mon just spit it out (you should excuse the expression) <br /><br />Do you think that dangerous pervert/predators should be kept in jail or not?Jim in St Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028577920540521692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-62483740418135388952011-12-17T14:04:04.049-06:002011-12-17T14:04:04.049-06:00andryce-
Speak for yourself, not for others.andryce-<br />Speak for yourself, not for others.Jim in St Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028577920540521692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-42023608457020813852011-12-17T13:41:11.299-06:002011-12-17T13:41:11.299-06:00Jim in St Louis;
When you don't agree with a b...Jim in St Louis;<br />When you don't agree with a blogger or anything on <br />that blogger's site you go to another site.<br />where people have like minded views.andryce74https://www.blogger.com/profile/12898012196184218139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-84830083855647298332011-12-17T13:14:41.468-06:002011-12-17T13:14:41.468-06:00But you don't you call people names in every p...But you don't you call people names in every post? You label people as bigots, and you call people racist, you name-call all day long. <br /><br />Name calling is alright if the name in question is correct- sort of a "if the shoe fits"Jim in St Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028577920540521692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-76902525681423394672011-12-17T13:06:59.551-06:002011-12-17T13:06:59.551-06:00No Jim, you missed the whole point.
If you want ...No Jim, you missed the whole point. <br /><br />If you want to come here to name-call and be disrespectful - your comment will be deleted. And if you take that as some kind of victory...so be it.Nancy LeTourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.com