- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Thunder, you were half right... it is #1 and #2
Conversely, nothing in the law explicitly states that the Executive is empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.[...] Nothing in the law explicitly states that the Executive is not empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.
You have failed to acknowledge the possibility that our challengers are nutjobs.I think it's telling that the best you guys can do is quote passages that don't address the actual questions asked, insist they do when it is clearly illustrated that they don't, and write your challengers off as nutjobs. Apparently you're all out of material, and that's a shame.
You have failed to acknowledge the possibility that our challengers are nutjobs.
and yet, he repealed DADT and refuses to enforce the DOMA.
ironic huh?
Conversely, nothing in the law explicitly states that the Executive is empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.
So, your argument fails (at least with respect to the NDAA).
Congress, as well as the American populace, would not let him close Gitmo. I give him an E for effort on that one.In the face of warrantless wiretaps, not closing Guantanamo, and indefinite detention, I would argue that these are symbolic table scraps.
Nothing in the law (NDAA) explicitly states that the Executive is empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.It authorizes arrest and indefinite detention for individuals who meet any of a list of criteria, some of which are very vaguely worded. American citizens could very easily fit into a number of these criteria, and all it takes is an accusation and an arrest order. They didn't explicitly empower the executive to go after American citizens because they authorized the executive to go after a very broadly defined population.
Nothing in the law (NDAA) explicitly states that the Executive is empowered to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.
Taste better 2nd time around?
By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial.It doesn't have to because it authorizes the arrest and indefinite detention of a much broader group into which American citizens could be easily fit while failing to explicitly exclude the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens. [...]
By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial.
If this law did change "existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens" then it could not say that it does not.
Actually, the goal-posts are yours:Oh, I get it -- so you can't address any of the points I've made multiple times now, so you move the goal-posts. Have fun with that. [...]By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial. [...]
Having fun yet? :mrgreen:By all means, show me where it explicitly states that the Executive does not have the power to detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial. [...]
Actually, the goal-posts are yours:
Having fun yet? :mrgreen:
Circular arguments like this, well-sprinkled with conspiracy theory as it is, are what beget the winking whispers and sidelong glances amongst those who prefer to utilize logic and fact in their argument.[...] Except of course that once this became law, it became part of that "existing law or authorities." You're talking about the same government that has figured out how to re-interpret "knowingly" breaking the law to include a conscious act that someone "knowingly" took which happened to break the law.[...] If this law did change "existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens" then it could not say that it does not. [...]
No, it's called hoisting you on your own petard; alternatively, sauce for the gooseRight, and since you have utterly failed on the "does not," you want me to go after the "does." That's moving the goal-posts.
Circular arguments like this, well-sprinkled with conspiracy theory as it is, are what beget the winking whispers and sidelong glances amongst those who prefer to utilize logic and fact in their argument.
No, it's called hoisting you on your own petard; alternatively, sauce for the goose
Except of course that once this became law, it became part of that "existing law or authorities." [...]
I would suggest a 2nd opinion.That's not a circular argument. [...]
1. You demand explicit wording from your opponent in order to validate your agrument, and claim that they fail by not providing it.Which would be true only if you'd shown the language I requested, and then made your request. You didn't. You're trying to change the subject. It won't work.No, it's called hoisting you on your own petard; alternatively, sauce for the gooseRight, and since you have utterly failed on the "does not," you want me to go after the "does." That's moving the goal-posts.
1. You demand explicit wording from your opponent in order to validate your agrument, and claim that they fail by not providing it.
2. Your opponent demands explicit wording from you in order to validate your argument, and you claim they are changing the subject.
Again, I would suggest a 2nd opinion.
I know this is starting to sound like a broken record, but I'd suggest a 2nd opinionWhy would I need one? I'm right. :lol:
I know this is starting to sound like a broken record, but I'd suggest a 2nd opinion
Translation: since I'm unable to argue my point, I'll let others do it for me.Oh heck, just to humor you I'll consult a couple of retired generals, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/
some Congresscritters that opposed the NDAA, Lawmakers Submit Letter Opposing NDAA's Indefinite Detention Provisions
and some civil liberties experts. President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law | American Civil Liberties Union
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?