Comment: Its a very good argument and

(See in situ)


Its a very good argument and

Its a very good argument and its correct that Ron Paul's bill(as well as Rand's original bill not the one he co-sponsored) were a lot better. However, it makes one big flaw(from the first link):

"According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government can detain U.S. Citizens and permanent
residents without charge or trial because Congress has already authorized it in the 2001 AUMF.”

This isn't true. In Hamdi, the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge. So it said NDAA(indefinite detention without habeas) is unconstitutional. Furthermore, NDAA 2013 actually provides clear Congressional intent(which was relied on in Hamdi under AUMF) that the AUMF does NOT mean the denial of a right to a trial. Also, the definition of the AUMF as an "explicit" authorization is not the holding of the court. The opinion was a plurality opinion so the holding is just on the narrowest grounds: that detainees deserve some due process and appellate/habeas relief in Article 3 courts.

Ventura 2012