Obama Signs Bill To Jail Americans Indefinitely Without Charge

[CavsSuperFan]

Obama Signs Bill To Jail Americans Indefinitely Without Charge

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

[CavsSuperFan]

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SCANTHOPE.png

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SCANTHOPE.png
:lmao

[Spurminator]

Another example of political gamesmanship at the expense of basic American rights. Fuck all of these clowns.

[Stringer_Bell]

I thought it was already settled that the whole "terrorist threat" was a lie designed to invade the Middle East, it makes no sense why Obama would still be running with this gag if he wasn't afraid that white people still believed in Al Qaeda and will think he's soft of terrorism.

[boutons_deux]

The MIC cancer metastaizes, militarization of US justice system.

MIC and right-wingers screams "national security threat" and the politicians fold and cower like limp dicks, unwilling and unable to "get up" any resistance to the false, money-grubbing paranoia.

Panetta today is supposed to announce $100Bs cuts in MIC funds, so MIC is hustling around screaming new threats to keep the corporate welfare flowing.

[JoeChalupa]

:bang More fodder for Romney and the GOP.

[Vici]

and here is why I would vote for Paul

[boutons_deux]

Paul can't do shit to undo the MIC cancer, and he won't be President or even the nominee.

[Bill_Brasky]

What a fucking clown man.

The indefinite detention shit was tied into a bill that gives veterans and wounded soldiers benefits, plus a lot of necessary defense spending. A president with a spine woulda vetoed the bill with the demand that the unconstitutional horse shit be left out.

Fuck the president and fuck congress. It's pathetic that the incumbency rate is so high because the average dipshit American never votes this trash out of office. They blame congress, but not their congressman because :cry "he's looking out for me" :cry

[greyforest]

:bang More fodder for Romney and the GOP.


truth hurts doesnt it u god damn liberal

hey jackasses, this passed the senate with like 90% votes from both of your "teams".

[JoeChalupa]

hey jackasses, this passed the senate with like 90% votes from both of your "teams".

No shit asshat. But it still contained parts that hey could have removed had Obama the "line" veto.

[CosmicCowboy]

No shit asshat. But it still contained parts that hey could have removed had Obama the "line" veto.

It was my understanding that Obama REQUESTED that they specifically add US citizens to the detention. The original language EXCLUDED US citizens.

[boutons_deux]

Constitutional attorney: Guantanamo ‘nearly impossible to close’ thanks to NDAA

“It has no real geographical limitation, it has no temporal limitation,” he said, summarizing key provisions in the NDAA. “It basically puts into law, into permanent law, the ability to indefinitely detain, outside of a constitutional justice system, individuals the president picks up anywhere in the world that the president thinks might have some connection to terrorism. The United States Congress, with the support of the president, has now put into law the possibility of indefinite detention, where the entire world, including the United States, is a battlefield.”

But more than just giving the presidency more power to imprison terror suspects, the NDAA also strikes at Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo by limiting the executive’s authority to transfer prisoners.

“[There are] really dangerous provisions here that would make it nearly impossible to close Guantanamo,” Azmy explained. “Congress has forbidden from transfering or releasing any detainees from Guantanamo to their home countries or third countries willing to take them as refugees unless the Defense Department can meet this exceedingly onerous certification requirement. Basically, before anyone can be released, the Defense Department has to certify that the individual will not engage in any hostile acts when they are returned — something that the Defense Department cannot certify, which is why the FBI and [Defense Secretary] Leon Panetta vigorously opposed these provisions.

“The effect of that will make it virtually impossible to move people out of Guantanamo. Congress is basically shutting all of the detainees in.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/03/constitutional-attorney-guantanamo-nearly-impossible-to-close-thanks-to-ndaa/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

======

OBL screwing all those virgins and laughing his ass off as his cheapo attack on WTC leads to US destroying its own civil liberties, kangaroo-court militarization of local police and the judicial system.

[JoeChalupa]

It was my understanding that Obama REQUESTED that they specifically add US citizens to the detention. The original language EXCLUDED US citizens.

I have not heard that.

[CosmicCowboy]

======

OBL screwing all those virgins and laughing his ass off as his cheapo attack on WTC leads to US destroying its own civil liberties, kangaroo-court militarization of local police and the judicial system.


Somehow I don't think OBL is laughing his ass off...

[CosmicCowboy]

I have not heard that.

jHaJrnlqCgo#!

Will you believe the Democrat Chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee?

[Wild Cobra]

jHaJrnlqCgo#!

Will you believe the Democrat Chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee?
People just will not believe me.

Obama is an authoritarian Marxist. If he could be dictator of the free world, he would love it.

[Winehole23]

idle speculation as to state of mind

ho hum

look at his big contributors, WC. Obama is an establishmentarian. authoritarian in some respects, arguably, but hardly Marxist in any ordinary sense. the 1% pre-positioned Obama to be president and he rewarded them with massive bailouts and lax regulatory enforcement in the wake an epochal financial panic.

what's so Marxist about that? Marxism socializes the means of production, Bush and Obama after him socialized private financial risk.

on top of that Obama has regulated the health care insurance market in striking and novel ways. it's not exactly cradle to grave care, but it might be a halfway measure, so you might actually have a point there.





but on the whole, calling Obama a Marxist is so 2008.

[z0sa]

authoritarianism, enter

[JoeChalupa]

jHaJrnlqCgo#!

Will you believe the Democrat Chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee?

I didn't say I didn't believe it, just hadn't heard it.

[Winehole23]

authoritarianism, enterthe entrance casts its shadow upon us, perhaps

[Spurminator]

idle speculation as to state of mind

ho hum

look at his big contributors, WC. Obama is an establishmentarian. authoritarian in some respects, arguably, but hardly Marxist in any ordinary sense. the 1% pre-positioned Obama to be president and he rewarded them with massive bailouts and lax regulatory enforcement in the wake an epochal financial panic.

what's so Marxist about that? Marxism socializes the means of production, Bush and Obama after him socialized private financial risk.

on top of that Obama has regulated the health care insurance market in striking and novel ways. it's not exactly cradle to grave care, but it might be a halfway measure, so you might actually have a point there.

but on the whole, calling Obama a Marxist is so 2008.

Bulls eye.

[SA210]

Obama, the fraud I didn't vote for

[fraga]

Come on Ron Paul...

[4>0rings]

Repukes - Patriot Act is necessary, NDAA 1031 is Marxist!

[JoeChalupa]

This sucks. I do not suppor this at all.

[mavs>spurs]

Well Ron Paul wanted to get rid of this but since he won't get in office let's all move to Canada YEAH.

[Nbadan]

jHaJrnlqCgo#!

Will you believe the Democrat Chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee?

Fake.....I've already proven this this was another 'creative editing' job by hack wingnuts in another thread..

Unfortunately (and perhaps unsurprisingly), it passed with 93% support in the Senate and 86% support in the House. So vetoing it would merely be symbolic. It would also leave the military unfunded and troops unpaid at least temporarily until Congress overrides the veto.

I believe that would be worth it if it meant keeping that unconstitutional and un-American amendment out of the NDAA if the veto actually mattered. It didn't though. Instead, it would be political suicide, giving "proof" to the nutbag right and uninformed middle that Obama simply doesn't care about our military or troops, leaving him vulnerable in 2012 and basically giving the White House, and thus a nutbag judiciary that would uphold that provision, and making the indefinite detention of Americans more likely.

Obama made the smart decision signing it here, giving us at least a year, hopefully five, to pressure Congress to get this provision out of next year's NDAA (if there's no funding for it, it won't happen.)

[Nbadan]

To many so-called 'independents' are getting caught in the wing-nut spin over NDAA


"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill_n_1177836.html

This ugly shit bill has to be authorized every year...lets hope that people lean on their representatives to not authorize this provision of the bill next year...

[Wild Cobra]

Fake.....I've already proven this this was another 'creative editing' job by hack wingnuts in another thread..

Propaganda Dan...

Spewing other people's lies again.

Tell me this is creatively edited:

C-Span Video Archives: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600839442)

Which thread was that anyway?

[Jacob1983]

Isn't Obama a lawyer? How can he honestly think this is legal and ethical?

[Wild Cobra]

To many so-called 'independents' are getting caught in the wing-nut spin over NDAA



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill_n_1177836.html

This ugly shit bill has to be authorized every year...lets hope that people lean on their representatives to not authorize this provision of the bill next year...
Do you really believe the words of Obama?

Who's the wing nut?

[Sportcamper]

Just makes you wonder when the Radical Left starts to water-board American Citizens for being Pro Life…

[leemajors]

sign on, NDAA reversal bill pertaining to indefinite detention:

http://act.demandprogress.org/act/ndaa_reversal/?referring_akid=1107.702218.ShJ0Nk&source=typ-tw

[leemajors]

sign on, NDAA reversal bill pertaining to indefinite detention:

http://act.demandprogress.org/act/ndaa_reversal/?referring_akid=1107.702218.ShJ0Nk&source=typ-tw

[Winehole23]

Well Ron Paul wanted to get rid of this but since he won't get in office let's all move to Canada YEAH.you first

[Winehole23]

Obama made the smart decision signing it here, giving us at least a year, hopefully five, to pressure Congress to get this provision out of next year's NDAA (if there's no funding for it, it won't happen.)wishful thinking, tbh.

[Winehole23]

I'd like to see the source on your suggestion that the detention provision will lapse automatically...

[4>0rings]

Why sign it if he's never going to use it?

[Nbadan]

Propaganda Dan...

Spewing other people's lies again.

Tell me this is creatively edited:

C-Span Video Archives: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600839442)

Which thread was that anyway?

your a wing-nut idiot...here is what Carl Levin, the speaker in your video is saying about NDAA and Obama today...

Sen. Levin Statement on Passage of Defense Authorization Bill

Thursday, December 15, 2011


WASHINGTON – Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., today hailed Senate passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year. The Senate approved the bill by a vote 86-13, and the president has announced that he will sign the bill into law.

“The enactment of this conference report will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform,” Levin said. “It will give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and deeply appreciate their service.

Levin continued: “Probably the most discussed provision in the conference report is the provision relative to military detention for foreign al Qaeda terrorists. This provision has been written to be doubly sure that there is no interference with civilian interrogations and other law enforcement activities and to ensure that the President has the flexibility he needs to use the most appropriate tools in each case. Those who say that we have written into law a new authority to detain American citizens until the end of hostilities are wrong. Neither the Senate bill nor the conference report establishes new authority to detain American citizens – or anybody else.

“The bill includes important new sanctions against the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, that will increase pressure on Iran to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It includes provisions addressing the problem of counterfeit parts that can undermine the performance of military weapon systems and endanger our men and women in uniform. And it extends the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program for an additional six years, continuing a program vital to our small businesses and to national security.”

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/sen-levin-statement-on-passage-of-defense-authorization-bill

Like i said, creative editing...

[Nbadan]

Isn't Obama a lawyer? How can he honestly think this is legal and ethical?

the NDAA does not give the President any new authority to detain American citizens..he's had that all along.....that's how..

[Nbadan]

I'd like to see the source on your suggestion that the detention provision will lapse automatically...

Never said it would lapse automatically, just that it would have to be authorized again next year...

[Nbadan]

Why sign it if he's never going to use it?

Politics....the GOP was going to use this as a political weapon to support the wing-nut talking point that Obama does not support the troops...without an emergency bill from Congress, troops could have gone without pay for weeks...

Plus, Congress had a veto proof majority....so what's the point...

[Nbadan]

Propaganda Dan...

Spewing other people's lies again.

Tell me this is creatively edited:

C-Span Video Archives: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600839442)

Which thread was that anyway?

Exposed: A Spammer Fooled MSM & America with Edited NDAA Video
December 20, 2011
By Sarah Jones


It turns out that the edited NDAA video of Carl Levin that was inaccurately cited in the mainstream media as proof that Obama wanted to detain US citizens was originally posted by a spammer. As we know, the President did not ask for language giving him the right to detain US citizens, he asked for the opposite. But that story wouldn’t get very many clicks for a spammer…..

Thanks to the hard work of several writers, we now know the truth behind the tin foil hat insanity trip of the edited Levin NDAA video that went viral. Congratulations, mainstream media – you got PWNED by a spammer.

Matt Osborne of Osborne Ink uncovered that spammers were behind the edited video:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/edited-ndaa-video

Just last week, “Bon Jovi is dead!” was making the rounds. The spammer’s edited Levin video is on par with that hoax, only it also served the confirmation bias of certain political agendas and hence was used in order to deliberately stoke fires and incite rage.

[fraga]

Alright now I'm just fucking confused...is this real life...

http://millennialmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/davidafterdentist1.png

[Nbadan]

Alright now I'm just fucking confused...is this real life...

http://millennialmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/davidafterdentist1.png

Ask those who think that the NDAA gives Obama new provisions to arrest American citizens to show you the proof.....10-1 they can't.....they are just spewing talking points....lies...

[Nbadan]

How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA

How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA
December 18, 2011
By Jason Easley and Sarah Jones
100digg
Share3047
73


An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA caused outrage among many Americans, but the full Levin video reveals the opposite.

The YouTube video claimed to be proof that Obama is going to sign a citizen imprisonment law:

However, in the first 30 minutes of the debate Sen. Levin stated that the NDAA provisions do not apply to US citizens:

Hours prior to the YouTube proof video Sen. Levin stated on the Senate floor that the Obama administration requested that the provision be changed so that it does not apply to American citizens, but he explained the provision wasn’t changed because it already didn’t apply to American citizens, “The administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision the day before our markup and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the administration request that the provision apply only to detainees who are captured overseas. There is a good reason for that. But even here, the difference is relatively modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes all lawful residents of the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or who arrive as tourists or on some other short-term basis, and that is a small remaining category, but an important one, because it includes the terrorists who clandestinely arrive in the United States with the objective of attacking military or other targets here.”

http://www.politicususa.com/en/ndaa-breitbarted

:lmao

[Winehole23]

Like i said, creative editing...Artful phrasing, more like.

It's not been argued that the NDAA creates any new authority. Indeed, the gist of the complaint against it is that it authorizes certain practices undertaken by Mr. Obama's predecessor, but not blessed by law since the MCA of 2006 was overturned (in part) in Hamdan.

Levin tackles a scarecrow and you try to prop yourself up on it.




:lol:toast

[Winehole23]

btw, Levin's interpretation of the law doesn't mean shit. I don't care what he said on the Senate floor. The president's interpretation is the only one that matters functionally until the Supreme Court intervenes.

[Winehole23]

Obama, the fraud I didn't vote forThat other jackass would've been worse imho.

[Wild Cobra]

your a wing-nut idiot...here is what Carl Levin, the speaker in your video is saying about NDAA and Obama today...

Sen. Levin Statement on Passage of Defense Authorization Bill

Thursday, December 15, 2011



http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/sen-levin-statement-on-passage-of-defense-authorization-bill

Like i said, creative editing...
I see...

Someone hacked into C-Span's archives, and edited their video. That's OK, I understand how you can believe that since you are a conspiracy nut.

[boutons_deux]

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ndaa_reversal/?akid=1116.1779201.qQmG0p&rd=1&t=4

[boutons_deux]

Why You Can Be Branded a Terrorist for Fighting Animal Abuse

Five longtime activists are challenging a federal law that defines a wide spectrum of peaceful – and in some cases, otherwise lawful – animal rights activism as acts of terrorism. They say that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) violates their First Amendment right to free speech and has had a chilling effect on activists who are refraining from participating in what should be constitutionally protected activity out of fear of being labeled a terrorist.

They have good reason to worry. In 2009, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested and indicted four California protesters for terrorism, each of whom faced 10 years in prison. Their crimes? They “marched, chanted, and chalked” sidewalk slogans outside the homes of animal researchers and distributed fliers about their campaign.

In 2010, federal judge Ronald M. Whyte dismissed the indictments, agreeing with the defense that the charges were too vague because the “behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest.” Nevertheless, AETA continues to pose a threat to those participating in animal rights advocacy.

AETA, a 2006 upgrade to the weaker Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) of 1992, was a bipartisan effort cosponsored by Senators James Inhofe. R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to, in the words of Inhofe, “combat radical animal rights extremists who commit violent acts against innocent people because they work with animals.”

But the vague language in AETA categorizes as terrorism any activity carried out “for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise,” or which causes “the loss of any real or personal property,” including “economic damage” such as a loss of profits. This may apply to peaceful acts committed against “a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise” -- essentially criminalizing boycotts of people or institutions invested in an animal enterprise.

AETA defines an “animal enterprise” as any institution “that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing.” So vague and broad is this definition that it could apply to businesses ranging from megacorporations like Wal-Mart, big agribusiness or even your local turkey-serving school cafeteria.

Stifling Dissent

According to Coalition to Abolish the AETA, corporate front-groups like the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition (AEPC), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) lobbied heavily for the act's passage. It’s no accident that the chilling effect of AETA on the free speech of animal rights activists helps biomedical and agribusiness companies avoid exposure.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/153650/why_you_can_be_branded_a_terrorist_for_fighting_an imal_abuse?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

=======

ALEC/UCA gonna fuck Human-Americans at every opportunity, and the miliarized police goons, aka "Good Germans", gonna do their dirty work "just following orders".

[Winehole23]

roundup of relevant threads

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188564
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188008
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186853
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188147
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188120
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187345
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187341

[Nbadan]

I see...

Someone hacked into C-Span's archives, and edited their video. That's OK, I understand how you can believe that since you are a conspiracy nut.

The hackers only released part of the video idiot...gee..imagine that....wing-nuts cherry-picking videos.....who would have thought?

[Jacob1983]

Are liberals and democrats hypocrites on this issue? When Bush did shit like this, people bitched and moaned about it. However, when Barry does it, it's okay and no one has a problem with it.

[Winehole23]

Are liberals and democrats hypocrites on this issue? When Bush did shit like this, people bitched and moaned about it. However, when Barry does it, it's okay and no one has a problem with it.http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5553938&postcount=57

[Winehole23]

also read:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188936

[Winehole23]

spurstalkers are people too. just sayin.

[Winehole23]

are some liberals hypocrites? undoubtedly.

but there's plenty of evidence here not all of them are, if you're willing to read through.

[Spurminator]

Are liberals and democrats hypocrites on this issue? When Bush did shit like this, people bitched and moaned about it. However, when Barry does it, it's okay and no one has a problem with it.

No one has a problem with it? Do you read the internet?

[Nbadan]

Where exactly does the NDAA codify illegal detention of Americans again?

[Spurminator]

If you'd like daily emails from liberals who have a problem with the NDAA, just sign up for the ACLU's email list.

[Winehole23]

Where exactly does the NDAA codify illegal detention of Americans again?indefinite detention


Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zVvpYWaHrVw/Tus6PTpgKfI/AAAAAAAAAec/KmA68wsYsd0/s400/bill.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zVvpYWaHrVw/Tus6PTpgKfI/AAAAAAAAAec/KmA68wsYsd0/s1600/bill.png)
It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

[Winehole23]

If you'd like daily emails from liberals who have a problem with the NDAA, just sign up for the ACLU's email list.Why find out the answer to your own rhetorical question when you can just take it for granted?

[Winehole23]

you there, Dan?

[Winehole23]

surely the White House has responded to Greenwald's gloss by now. are you taking dictation?

[Winehole23]

Nbadan's last activity, 1:19AM.

I look forward to your regurgitation of the party line later on. :lol:toast

[Jacob1983]

Liberals always making excuses for their leader Barry. What about his support of the Patriot Act?

[Winehole23]

roundly denounced by notorious board libs. apparently you just like to pop off without reading anything.

[Wild Cobra]

The hackers only released part of the video idiot...gee..imagine that....wing-nuts cherry-picking videos.....who would have thought?
You said edited.

Did he or did he not say that the administration asked for the additional protections to be removed?

The fact he is a flip-flopper and saying something else later just makes him look more like the ass he is.

[Wild Cobra]

No one has a problem with it? Do you read the internet?

This is bad in that it does away with the Posse Comitatus Act. It is the first step for Obama to make this a police state when our banks collapes and the paper gold is useless.

[Spurminator]

It is the first step for Obama to make this a police state when our banks collapes and the paper gold is useless.

Yes and I'm sure the next Republican President will do everything in his power to reverse that step.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes and I'm sure the next Republican President will do everything in his power to reverse that step.
Only if Paul is elected.

[boutons_deux]

Paul won't be the candidate, never mind elected

If Paul were elected, he wouldn't be able to implement his extreme radicalism because it would be blocked by Congress.

[Wild Cobra]

Paul won't be the candidate, never mind elected

If Paul were elected, he wouldn't be able to implement his extreme radicalism because it would be blocked by Congress.
He would shame them to tears over it. At least he wouldn't use the military against US citizens.

[Nbadan]

indefinite detention

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

Greenwald

:lol

Glenn Greenwald made a choice to defend Matthew Hale in a series of civil lawsuits that Hale faced after he encouraged shooter Benjamin Smith to go on a two-state shooting rampage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Nathaniel_Smith

If you don't know who Hale is, well, he's a pretty famous white supremacist who is currently serving 40 years for soliciting the murder of a federal judge who ruled against him in a trademark case. Who put him away? Patrick Fitzgerald. (Yes. And Mr. Greenwald got an FBI visit regarding the passing of coded messages by Hale while under SAMS restrictions.)

[Nbadan]

Greenwald's latest masterpiece...


Much of the reaction to the article I wrote last Saturday regarding progressives, the Obama presidency and Ron Paul (as well as reaction to this essay by Matt Stoller and even this tweet from Katrina vanden Heuvel) relied on exactly the sort of blatant distortions that I began that article by anticipating and renouncing: that I was endorsing Paul as the best presidential candidate, that I was urging progressives to sacrifice reproductive rights in order to vote for him over Obama, that I “pretend that the differences between Obama and Paul on economics are marginal”; that Paul’s bad positions negate the argument I made; that Ron Paul is my “hero,” etc. etc. So self-evidently petty and slimy are those kinds of distortions that (other than to note their falsehoods for the record) they warrant no discussion; indeed, as I wrote: “So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists” and would thus “proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.”

That said, it’s hard to believe that these distortions are anything but deliberate — deterrence-driven punishment for the ultimate Election Year crime of partisan heresy: i.e., suggesting that someone is uniquely advocating important ideas even though they lack a “D” after their name – given that (a) I expressly renounced in advance the beliefs now being attributed to me and, more important (b) the point I was actually making was clear and not all that complex.


http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

What a liberal-baiting poser....Greenwald better stop while he's ahead...

[Nbadan]

Greenwald jumps the shark...


The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

Now he wants to go back and say "I was just kidding around"

What an asshat...

[Winehole23]

chapter and verse cited. notice you've got no response other than to slag Greenwald. weak.

[Nbadan]

chapter and verse cited. notice you've got no response other than to slag Greenwald. weak.

...slagging Greenwald.....and I'll get to your verse later....

....Most times, Greenwald is a competent writer, but he isn't enduring himself to the left or right right now....

[Winehole23]

it's not a journalist's job to please political constituencies, but to tell the truth.

[Nbadan]

How about standing by his convictions?


"It is little known that Greenwald supported the Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan before it. He does not mention it in writing anymore and rarely speaks of it. He supported the war for the same reason I did: he believed that Iraq possessed WMD and that the potential consequences of that possession could not be risked."

http://sadredearth.com/christopher-hitchens-glenn-greenwald-and-the-war-of-ideas/

Obama did not support the Iraq war. Obama - plus, Greenwald - minus

Obama is pro civil liberties, against executive power.

Obama is not anti-war, but against wars that are stupid.

Obama is not for media corruption.

[Winehole23]

Greenwald was a Bush-baiter before he was a progressive-baiter. unlike you, his values don't blow with the political winds, but have been consistent.

[Winehole23]

How about standing by his convictions?



http://sadredearth.com/christopher-hitchens-glenn-greenwald-and-the-war-of-ideas/

Obama did not support the Iraq war. Obama - plus, Greenwald - minus

Obama is pro civil liberties, against executive power.

Obama is not anti-war, but against wars that are stupid.

Obama is not for media corruption.that you disagree with Greenwald's views is no argument against them

[Winehole23]

Obama is pro civil liberties, against executive power.hard to believe said this with a straight face.

what are Obama's civil liberties accomplishments?

how has he been against executive power?

please be specific.

[Nbadan]

that you disagree with Greenwald's views is no argument against them

Yeah, we all saw how the M$M hysteria over Iraq WMD's worked out for all of us.....there was more than enough evidence to show that Saddam destroyed his stockpiles of WMD after the first Iraq war.....Greenwald was not part of any solution then...just as he is not being now...

[Winehole23]

section 1021. you're ignoring it.

just because Greenwald was mistaken about something else doesn't mean he's mistaken about this.

[Winehole23]

basically you got nothing, so you're just throwing crap on the wall.

[Nbadan]

hard to believe said this with a straight face.

what are Obama's civil liberties accomplishments?

how has he been against executive power?

please be specific.

If Congress wants to relinquish it's oversight responsibility that's on them...Obama never asked for any new authorization which wasn't already part of the AUMF...

[Winehole23]

judging from this thread, that appears to be your MO

[Winehole23]

If Congress wants to relinquish it's oversight responsibility that's on them...Obama never asked for any new authorization which wasn't already part of the AUMF...I've already responded to this point twice. it's a fucking strawman. NO ONE HAS ARGUED THE NDAA CREATES NEW AUTHORITY.

[Winehole23]

the president is at the high ebb of his power when he acts under the express authorization of Congress. the NDAA furnishes that authorization, in what was a grey area.

[Nbadan]

You believe what you want to believe...

NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed
by Benjamin Wittes


<...>

Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?

No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched–that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question.

<...>

So if it doesn’t significantly expand the government’s detention authority, doesn’t authorize detention of citizens, doesn’t really mandate the military detention of other terrorist suspects, and doesn’t do more to prevent the closure of Gitmo than does current law, what’s all the fuss about? Is it even important?

The final bill is, indeed, far less consequential than earlier versions would have been. Much of the fuss is overblown. That said, the bill has several important elements:

The codification of detention authority in statute is a significant development, not because it enables anything that Congress had previously forbidden but because it puts the legislature squarely behind a set of policies on which it had always retained a kind of strategic ambiguity–a tolerance for detention without a clear endorsement of it of the sort that would make members accountable. Congress has now given that endorsement, and that is no small thing.

The transfer restrictions will continue to have negative effects on administration management of detainee affairs, reducing flexibility and agility and compelling the continued detention of people the administration does not want to detain, in a status the administration does not wish to use, and at a facility it would prefer to vacate. That this is no change from current law–indeed, that the NDAA offers slightly more flexibility than does current law–does not make these restrictions any less troublesome.

The rump mandatory detention provision remains a bit of a wild card that could have mischievous effects in practice. Though it ends up requiring very little, it does impose–as we have described–a default option of military detention for certain categories of cases. And this option might prove politically difficult to jettison.

Is there anything in the NDAA about which human rights groups and civil libertarians ought to be pleased?

Yes, actually, there is. Section 1024 of the bill, as we’ve noted, requires that people subject to long-term military detention in circumstances not already subject to habeas corpus review–think the Detention Facility in Parwan, Afghanistan–henceforth shall have the right to a military lawyer and a proceeding before a military judge in order to contest the government’s factual basis for believing them to be subject to detention. This is an extraordinary and novel development. Detainees in Afghanistan currently have access to the Detainee Review Board process, which as described in this article already provide a relatively robust screening mechanism, particularly compared to years past. The DRB process does not include lawyers and judges, however, and human rights advocacy groups have criticized them on this ground. Requiring lawyers and judges to staff out the screening process is a pretty remarkable shift in the direction of accomodating those concerns.

- more -

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

[Nbadan]

Close GITMO....oh we can't...


Sections 1026 and 1027 prevent the use of federal funds for building detention facilities in the United States or transferring Guantanamo detainees to domestic facilities or releasing them into the United States. It effectively continues a congressional policy of preventing more Article III criminal trials of Guantanamo detainees and preventing the construction of alternative facilities that would enable President Obama to fulfill his promise to shutter Guantanamo.


ection 1028 prevents overseas transfers of Guantanamo detainees in the absence of a rigorous certification by the Secretary of Defense that they will not pose a danger. Such a requirement under current law has effectively ground to a halt efforts to resettle certain Guantanamo detainees. This version’s certification requirement allows slightly more flexibility, though it’s not clear whether that difference will be meaningful in practice.

[Nbadan]

Further..


Meanwhile, the government had arrested a suspected al Qaeda member–and U.S. citizen–named Jose Padilla, taking him into custody at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. He eventually ended up in military custody, and he too brought a habeas proceeding. To make a long story very short, his case first proceeded through the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of which concluded that detention authority under the AUMF did not apply to a citizen suspected of being an al Qaeda member and captured in the U.S. After the Supreme Court required the petition to be refiled and relitigated in the Fourth Circuit (because that is where Padilla actually was held), a district court judge took the same position, but on appeal a Fourth Circuit panel held that Padilla could lawfully be detained after all–though in so holding, the panel focused on the factual assumption that Padilla had, like Hamdi, been on the battlefield in Afghanistan previously. The case was then set to go before the Supreme Court, but before it could weigh in on the merits, Padilla was shifted into civilian custody for a criminal trial (he was convicted, and is now in prison).

The government has not asserted authority to detain a citizen under the AUMF since this time, so the question of citizen detention has remained unsettled ever since. Which brings us at last to the NDAA.

An earlier version of the NDAA in the Senate contained language that strongly implied, without quite saying it, that citizens were included within the general grant of detention authority discussed above (see Bobby’s contemporaneous assessment here). This generated much debate and criticism, and eventually a group of senators offered an amendment to state explicitly that citizens could not be detained under the NDAA’s restatement of detention authority. That amendment was rejected, and at that point, Senator Feinstein offered a compromise, fall-back amendment stating simply that nothing in the NDAA should be taken to address this issue one way or the other. The explicit idea was to preserve the unsettled status quo described above, leaving it to the courts to determine if detention authority extends to citizens should the government ever again attempt to assert it (see here and here). That is the position on which the NDAA has now settled (here).

A final note: As Steve points out here, the courts may in the end adopt a “clear statement” requirement in relation to the citizen detention question. That is, they may hold that Congress must explicitly grant such authority before a statute like the AUMF or the NDAA can be read to grant it. If that occurs, of course, that likely will be the end of the matter, particularly in light of the explicit effort in the NDAA to remain agnostic rather than take sides on the question.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/


and a statement from the White House


The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.

Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition. Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.

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

Like I said, all this is political spin to hurt Obama...

[LnGrrrR]

Greenwald jumps the shark...



http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

Now he wants to go back and say "I was just kidding around"

What an asshat...

Where did he say he was kidding around?

In which of the above bolded sentences do you disagree with Greenwald?

[LnGrrrR]

Obama is pro civil liberties, against executive power.

He certainly has a funny way of showing it. GTMO is still open, he's continued the "state secrets" thing... etc etc


Obama is not for media corruption.

How do we know this?

[Nbadan]

Where did he say he was kidding around?

In which of the above bolded sentences do you disagree with Greenwald?

I was referring to Greenwald's article...

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies


he parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

That right there is a complete lie. Many progressives oppose many of the things that Greenwald mentions about Obama in this article.....Greenwald's assertion that progressives would not be talking about these issues without Paul in the race is a complete lie....Progressives don't need Paul to bring light to these issue, many progressives already openly oppose Obama ...if Greenwald had done more homework he would know this ...hasn't he learned anything from the Occupy movement?

[Jacob1983]

Why doesn't Obama end the Patriot Act?

[Nbadan]

Why doesn't Obama end the Patriot Act?

The President cannot just end a law...that's up to Congress and the Supreme Court.....Obama was politically forced to extended certain provisions of the law four more years because there was no political will in Congress to end it...that's the way things are done...

[Nbadan]

Ron Paul's useful idiots on the left


This is the man who, to trumpet his pro-life agenda in Iowa to social conservatives, released an ad that questions whether repealing Roe v Wade would eliminate women's abortion rights in enough states, since it would create "abortion tourism" (a situation with which the Irish and the British are already familiar). He opposed the Obama administration's decision to declare birth control a preventative medicine, which pressures insurance companies to cover it without co-pays. He has said he would allow states to decide same-sex marriage rights for their citizens but keep the Defense of Marriage Act intact – which restricts federal rights, including immigration and social security survivor benefits (among others) to opposite-sex married couples. He also opposes the US supreme court decision in Lawrence v Texas that decriminalised consensual sodomy in the United States. He opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He wants to restrict birthright citizenship, denying the children of immigrants legal status in the United States if they are born here, voted to force doctors and hospitals to report undocumented immigrants who seek medical treatment, and sponsored bills to declare English the official language of the United States and restrict government communications to English. And that's just for starters.

Nonetheless, there have been calls by progressives, most notably Glenn Greenwald, to ignore all of that and more, and focus instead on Obama's policy failings to have "an actual debate on issues of America's imperialism". He went on to argue that there are no policy priorities more imperative than those – certainly not abortion, immigration rights, LGBT equality, racial justice or any other aspect of the US's extensive foreign policy. (Greenwald, who is gay, was in the relatively privileged position of being able to travel to Brazil to circumvent Doma.) And so people whose lives, safety, livelihoods and health depend on them should accept that they are trading their concerns for, say, the lives of Muslim children killed by bombs in Afghanistan.

In fact, many of Ron Paul's newest supporters on the left look strikingly like the majority of the ones on the right who have been following him for years: the kinds of people whose lives won't be directly affected by all those pesky social conservative policies Paul would seek to enact as president, either due to their race, class, gender or sexual orientation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left

[Nbadan]

The Nation: Progressive (i.e. Greenwald's) Man-Crushes On Ron Paul


It's a little strange to see people who inveigh against Obama's healthcare compromises wave away, as a detail, Paul's opposition to any government involvement in healthcare. In Ron Paul's America, if you weren't prudent enough or wealthy enough to buy private insurance — and the exact policy that covers what's ailing you now — you find a charity or die. And if civil liberties are so important, how can Paul's progressive fans overlook his opposition to abortion and his signing of the personhood pledge, which could ban many birth control methods? Last time I checked, women were half the population (the less important half, apparently). Technically, Paul would overturn Roe and let states make their own laws regulating women's bodies, up to and including prosecuting abortion as murder. Add in his opposition to basic civil rights law — he maintains his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposes restrictions on the "freedom" of business owners to refuse service to blacks — and his hostility to the federal government starts looking more and more like old-fashioned Southern-style states' rights. No wonder they love him over at Stormfront, a white-supremacist website with neo-Nazi tendencies. In a multiple-choice poll of possible effects of a Paul presidency, the most popular answer by far was "Paul will implement reforms that increase liberty which will indirectly benefit White Nationalists." And let's not forget his other unsavory fan base, Christian extremists who want to execute gays, adulterers and "insubordinate children." Paul's many connections with the Reconstructionist movement, going back decades, are laid out on AlterNet by Adele Stan, who sees him as a faux libertarian whose real agenda is not individualism but to prevent the federal government from restraining the darker impulses at work at the state and local levels.

It's all pretty incoherent for a man often praised as principled and consistent and profound — if states could turn themselves into a Christian theocracy, could they also turn themselves into socialist mini-republics? If they can ban contraception, can they also compel contraception? For people who see Paul as an antiwar candidate who will restore the Bill of Rights, it's almost bad manners to bring up his opposition to just about every piece of progressive legislation passed in the last 200 years, from the Occupational Safety and Health Act and membership in the UN to Federal Deposit Insurance and requirements that undocumented immigrants be permitted treatment in ERs. But come on! This man has been a stone reactionary his entire life. Consistent? Not to harp on abortion, but an effective ban would require a level of policing that would make the war on drugs look feeble.

If Ron Paul was interested in peace, he wouldn't be a Republican — that party has even more enthusiasm for the military-industrial complex than the Democrats. For decades the GOP has turned every election into a contest over who is more macho, more nationalistic, more willing to do exactly the things lefty Paul fans excoriate Obama for doing. Paul doesn't get re-elected in his Texas district because of boutique positions like thinking Osama bin Laden should have been arrested, not assassinated.

Supporting Ralph Nader in 2000 was at least a vote for one's actual politics. Supporting Ron Paul is just a gesture of frivolity — or despair.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144783916/the-nation-progressive-man-crushes-on-ron-paul

[Jacob1983]

Someone used force on Obama? Damn, the secret service must suck if politicians are forcing him to defend and support the Patriot Act.

[Winehole23]

Further..



http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/the distinctly neocon lawfareblog verifies that the NDAA codifies detention authority. pwned yourself, didn't you?



and a statement from the White House



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdftaking dictation from the white house, as predicted. I notice that the WH objected to section 1032 because it restrains the executive unduly.

what was that you said again about Obama not asking for or wanting more power?


Like I said, all this is political spin to hurt Obama...your contributions in this thread have been political spin and nothing but.

[Winehole23]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3166&tab=summary

[Winehole23]

...and I'll get to your verse later....you ran away and hid, apparently.

smart move. it wasn't going well for you.

[Winehole23]

Greenwald responds here to the various bullshit you copied and pasted, Dan:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/

[Winehole23]

Through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and acquiescence in repeated executive usurpations, Congress has empowered President Obama to kill any person anywhere in the world who is secretly listed as an enemy on a list that’s reminiscent of the Lord High Executioner’s “Little List” in The Mikado. The putative “battlefield” is boundless. The standards for listing are secret. The evidence justifying a listing is secret. The legal justification for the assassinations is secret. The secrecy persists after the alleged enemy target is vaporized. No proof is proffered that the corpse had conspired or attempted or had actually engaged in hostilities against the United States; or, that capturing the victim for criminal prosecution or detention would have been unfeasible. Instead, the White House summons into being as its defense a counter-constitutional divine doctrine of presidential infallibility when it comes to killing suspected enemies. Due process is buried in the detritus of “collateral damage.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/05/god-is-alive-due-process-is-dead/#ixzz1ishEmXTJ

[Nbadan]

you ran away and hid, apparently.

smart move. it wasn't going well for you.

Who's running? I think we have established that Congress, the House and Senate, not the Obama administration, codified something which has only been done once, ever, and which the President signed a signing statement which established which he would not follow..

So blame the House members and Senators who voted for this veto-proof bill..

[Winehole23]

Obama signed it. He shares responsibility.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who's running? I think we have established that Congress, the House and Senate, not the Obama administration, codified something which has only been done once, ever, and which the President signed a signing statement which established which he would not follow..

So blame the House members and Senators who voted for this veto-proof bill..

LOL that was just Obama trying to have his cake and eat it too while posturing to gullible idiots like you.

[Nbadan]

We already know your no fan of Obama, but your suppressing that this bill had a veto-proof majority in both houses and it specifically prohibits the illegal detention of American citizens who are not arrested in foreign battle-fields...

[Nbadan]

LOL that was just Obama trying to have his cake and eat it too while posturing to gullible idiots like you.

Obama is coming for your women....boogy-boogy....

[Winehole23]

and it specifically prohibits the illegal detention of American citizens who are not arrested in foreign battle-fields...chapter and verse, please

[Winehole23]

pretty please?

[Wild Cobra]

Obama signed it. He shares responsibility.
Absolutely. he should have vetoed it. Then anyone voting in a veto override would own the blame, and he would be clear. It would stop enough members from passing it I bet.

[Winehole23]

Last Activity: Today 06:01 PM
Current Activity: Viewing Thread Obama Signs Bill To Jail Americans Indefinitely Without Charge (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188936)
hello, Dan

[Nbadan]

Obama Signing Statement: The NDAA Doesn’t Apply To US Citizens
By Jason Easley


In his signing statement attached to the NDAA, President Obama made it clear that the language about detentions does not apply to US citizens.

*snip*

In summary and for the millionth time, the detention provisions do not apply to the NDAA. The law itself states that it does not apply to American citizens. Some people will still continue to feed their mistrust of government, but it is in black and white. It was written in the revised legislation.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement

[Winehole23]

why is a signing statement necessary if the law is clear? that makes no sense at all Dan.

[Winehole23]

I notice you've still not pointed out where the statutory language is so clear on the subject.

I backed up my bs when you asked for a citation. Where's yours?

[Winehole23]

I got back to you in eight minutes. You've been keeping me waiting a day.

:lol:toast

[Winehole23]

should read, all day

[CosmicCowboy]

WH, you're giving Dan way too much credit.

[Nbadan]

I got back to you in eight minutes. You've been keeping me waiting a day.

:lol:toast

Business first...

Do some research...


Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "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." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.[21].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2012

This is readily available out there Whinehole...do some research...

[Nbadan]

WH, you're giving Dan way too much credit.

Obama is coming for your horses....booogy..boogy...

[Nbadan]

Further....


On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...] 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. [...] As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2012

This needs to be decided by the courts, but I gotta tell ya, the courts have been very friendly when it comes to the Bush claim under AUMF...

[Parker2112]

WTFU:
pR7aIzII5LU

Even Liberals are W'ingTFU:
XBdPEK5pNtE

[Parker2112]

Legislative Intent:
GsNEOXQ4RZw

[Wild Cobra]

why is a signing statement necessary if the law is clear? that makes no sense at all Dan.
All this fuss is a sideshow to take away from the fact that the bill effectively destroys the "Posse Comitatus Act." Notice how the media isn't focusing on that?

[Winehole23]

Business first...

Do some research...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2012

This is readily available out there Whinehole...do some research...except there was no existing law on indefinite detention, leaving aside the US constitution.. a promise to interpret the law a certain way is hardly comforting and does not bind future presidents. i'm not even sure it binds this one.

[Winehole23]

existing law allowed the detention of Jose Padilla, so presumably that's still allowed, right?

[Winehole23]

the insistenxce that nothing in the law expands the authority of the president is another strawman -- I never alleged it anyway. my complaint is that is gives authorization in the gray area left by Hamdan.

[Winehole23]

so much for the new law not going beyond existing law. making certain powers construed in the AUMF perpetual, and the battlefield global, is bad enough.

[Winehole23]

WH, you're giving Dan way too much credit.he can still be reciprocal. if he asks for verification he can expect to be asked for it.

at this point I hardly know what to say. Nbadan is megaphoning the White House line unashamedly...

[Spurminator]

Because that's what he's here for. You can't expect intellectual honesty from Nbadan and Yonivore. They don't even believe the things they write. They're basically willing propagandists.

[Winehole23]

it's not that they're propagandists that bothers me. it's the willful blindness and weaselly jailbreaks.

[Winehole23]

admittedly, the political cant, non-denial denial, evasion, egregiously twisted misrepresentation, attempted derailing, fibbing, prevarication and bald lying bug me too.

[Winehole23]

bein a opinionated jackass is fine. not a thing in the world wrong with it.

it's being a dedicated liar that grates.

[ElNono]

All this fuss is a sideshow to take away from the fact that the bill effectively destroys the "Posse Comitatus Act." Notice how the media isn't focusing on that?

How is that?

If anything, the Posse Comitatus Act was temporarily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act#Amendments_of_2006) destroyed under Bush Jr between 2006 and 2008...

[Nbadan]

existing law allowed the detention of Jose Padilla, so presumably that's still allowed, right?

Big deal. It was under the AUMF, at least, according to the courts....why do you have your panties in a wad now? Oh, that's right, congress Codified it.

[Nbadan]

he can still be reciprocal. if he asks for verification he can expect to be asked for it.

at this point I hardly know what to say. Nbadan is megaphoning the White House line unashamedly...

That's because the WH, in this case, is telling the truth...perhaps you would like me to reiterate some lies from Krauthhammer or Will?

[Nbadan]

Because that's what he's here for. You can't expect intellectual honesty from Nbadan and Yonivore. They don't even believe the things they write. They're basically willing propagandists.

The next time Sperminator posts something significant will be the first...

[Nbadan]

How is that?

If anything, the Posse Comitatus Act was temporarily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act#Amendments_of_2006) destroyed under Bush Jr between 2006 and 2008...

Yep....Dubya was arresting American citizens left and right, and Congress and the courts snubbed their nose at this and went around their business....Obama has not arrested one American citizen under the AUMF, or under NAAD, although he could have, nor does he plan to in the future, but libertarians like Whinehole aren't interested in these facts....

[Nbadan]

I quote NDAA subsection e...

Subsection 1021 subsection e) reads:


(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
15 construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to
16 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
17 aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are
18 captured or arrested in the United States.

Party Spin

:lol Sperminator

[Winehole23]

That's because the WH, in this case, is telling the truth...perhaps you would like me to reiterate some lies from Krauthhammer or Will?not cited here.

[Winehole23]

“If words have meaning,” he insists, “that is about as clear as English can get.”


Words have meaning, but they can also be taken out of context. The provision that Thornberry cites only exempts American citizens from being covered by section 1022 of the new law, which creates a new presumption of military detention for certain terrorist suspects. Notably, section 1022(b)(1) does not exempt American citizens from the more important provisions in section 1021, which allow the military detention of broad categories of terrorist suspects. It does not, therefore, improve on the status quo by extending any new protections to Americans.


Moreover, the specific exemption for American citizens in section 1022 could be understood as suggesting, by negative implication, that American citizens are covered by section 1021. Potentially reinforcing this view is the fact that an effort to amend section 1021 to exempt citizens failed in the Senate. If, in the future, judges decide to refer to the statute’s legislative history to help ascertain its scope, the lack of such an exemption may be determinative.


Another provision that Thornberry cites is equally unhelpful to his claim. Subsection 1021(e) says that section 1021 does not change existing law “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.”
On its face, it should be obvious that this provision does not specifically protect citizens; in fact, the reference to citizens is entirely superfluous. (The provision might just as well have specified “redheads, AARP members, and any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” If it had not been written with future political maneuvering in mind, it would simply have referred to “the detention of persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”)


One way in which the language of the provision is meaningful, however, is in its specific reference to captures and arrests that occur “in the United States.” To whatever extent the provision serves to curb the law’s scope, it clearly does not stop the law from strengthening and expanding the government’s legal authority to detain indefinitely persons arrested outside of the United States—whether US citizens or non-citizens, and whether the arrests take place in Pakistan or in Paris. In short, the relevant line is not one of citizenship, but of location.


Moreover, the provision’s reference to “existing law” begs far too many questions. It is precisely the scope of existing law that is subject to vociferous debate and continuing litigation. Under the Bush administration, the law was interpreted to allow the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens arrested anywhere in the world, including the United States.


While the Supreme Court upheld the military detention of an American citizen captured as part of the armed conflict in Afghanistan, it has yet to hear an indefinite detention case involving anyone—citizen or non-citizen—picked up in the United States. Nor has it handled a case involving a terrorist suspect, as opposed to a participant in a traditional armed conflict. With these fundamental questions still in play, it is disingenuous to say that the law could not be used to detain Americans deemed to be involved in terrorism.


http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained

[LnGrrrR]

So what does existing law currently state, since Jose Padilla was arrested in the US? Can the President still use the AUMF to arrest any US citizen associated with AQ?

[Nbadan]

So what does existing law currently state, since Jose Padilla was arrested in the US? Can the President still use the AUMF to arrest any US citizen associated with AQ?

Courts never ruled because Padilla was transferred to military custody....

[Winehole23]

wrong. he was transferred to civilian custody when criminal charges were lodged to render moot his irregular detention. which was never ruled on. many of the most serious charges were later dropped without explanation.

[Winehole23]

cat got you tongue, Dan? still busy at work, are ye?

[Winehole23]

Big deal. It was under the AUMF, at least, according to the courts....why do you have your panties in a wad now? Oh, that's right, congress Codified it.yeah, that's right. Congress codified it. Do you have a problem with that?

If not, why not?

[Winehole23]

I note with amusement that now you take for granted what you were at pains to deny previously

[Nbadan]

Panties in a wad much? Congress codified it, Obama denounced it....

Who has been a tragedy to civil rights again?

[Winehole23]

anyone who reads can see the inconsistency

[Winehole23]

Panties in a wad much? Congress codified it, Obama denounced it....

Who has been a tragedy to civil rights again?Bush and Obama, Mr. Continuity.

[Winehole23]

denounced it, then signed it

[Winehole23]

you could at least acknowledge your factual error about Padilla. you couldn't have been more wrong about that.

[LnGrrrR]

Courts never ruled because Padilla was transferred to military custody....

So if you said the bill reads as:


(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
15 construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to
16 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
17 aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are
18 captured or arrested in the United States.


And if authorities were able to arrest Jose Padilla and detain him, and this bill won't affect existing law/authorities, what's to prevent them from arresting and detaining citizens in the same way they did Jose Padilla?

[Wild Cobra]

Yep....Dubya was arresting American citizens left and right, and Congress and the courts snubbed their nose at this and went around their business....Obama has not arrested one American citizen under the AUMF, or under NAAD, although he could have, nor does he plan to in the future, but libertarians like Whinehole aren't interested in these facts....
That law deals with military authority over US citizens. Not what Homeland security does. President Bush did not breach it.

[Winehole23]

And if authorities were able to arrest Jose Padilla and detain him, and this bill won't affect existing law/authorities, what's to prevent them from arresting and detaining citizens in the same way they did Jose Padilla?Not a thing in the world. the (e) part of 1021 is a bullshit disclaimer. indefinite detention of Americans accused of association with al qaeda appears to be permitted under existing law, indeed, the NDAA explicitly authorizes it.

[Winehole23]

Nbadan cribbing from WC?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187341

[Nbadan]

That law deals with military authority over US citizens. Not what Homeland security does. President Bush did not breach it.

Your clueless...Gonzales, in his defense of Bush's warrant-less surveillance, cited the Authorization for Use of Military Force as the basis for Bush's authority to bypass the law. Gonzales went on to suggest that the AUMF give Bush the power to do just about anything, lawful or not, so long as he insists that the target or subject of his action was a threat related to his 'war on terror'.

The Supreme gave deference to Bush, deciding that had had the right to detain Americans under the authority Congress gave him in the Authorization to Use Military Force for the 'war on terror'. Bush decision to move Padilla to civilian court came only two business days before Padilla's appeal was scheduled to be filed with the Supreme Court.

[Winehole23]

The Supreme gave deference to Bush, deciding that had had the right to detain Americans under the authority Congress gave him in the Authorization to Use Military Force for the 'war on terror'.Nope. The Supreme Court never ruled on Padilla. Are you referring to Hamdan, or some other case?

Bush decision to move Padilla to civilian court came only two business days before Padilla's appeal was scheduled to be filed with the Supreme Court.This part you got right.

(You're welcome.)

[Winehole23]

historical context:


This record is particularly striking in comparison with the recent past. “Measured by the number of terrorist attacks, the volume of domestic terrorist activity was much greater in the 1970s,” noted RAND Corporation analyst Brian Jenkins. “That tumultuous decade saw 60 to 70 terrorist incidents, mostly bombings, on U.S. soil every year — a level of terrorist activity 15 to 20 times that seen in the years since 9/11, even when foiled plots are counted as incidents. And in the nine-year period from 1970 to 1978, 72 people died in terrorist incidents, more than five times the number killed by jihadist terrorists in the United States in the almost nine years since 9/11.”


Added Mueller: “In the 1970s, terrorists, on behalf of a variety of causes, hijacked airliners; held hostages in Washington, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco; bombed embassies, corporate headquarters, and government buildings; robbed banks; murdered diplomats; and blew up power transformers, causing widespread blackouts. These were not one-off attacks but sustained campaigns by terrorist gangs that were able to avoid capture for years.”
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/America+decade+terrorism+1970s/5985818/story.html#ixzz1jNWIJG6S

[Winehole23]

In the United States, the last decade wasn’t an era of mega-terrorism. Or even ordinary terrorism. It was an era of remarkably little terrorism — even as politicians and the media shrieked about the supposedly unprecedented danger.ibid. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/In%20the%20United%20States,%20the%20last%20decade% 20wasn%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99t%20an%20era%20of%20mega-terrorism.%20Or%20even%20ordinary%20terrorism.%20I t%20was%20an%20era%20of%20remarkably%20little%20te rrorism%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%94%20even%20as%20politic ians%20and%20the%20media%20shrieked%20about%20the% 20supposedly%20unprecedented%20danger.%20%20Read%2 0more:%20http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/America+decade+terrorism+1970s/5985818/story.html#ixzz1jNaxkd5i)

[Wild Cobra]

Your clueless...Gonzales, in his defense of Bush's warrant-less surveillance, cited the Authorization for Use of Military Force as the basis for Bush's authority to bypass the law. Gonzales went on to suggest that the AUMF give Bush the power to do just about anything, lawful or not, so long as he insists that the target or subject of his action was a threat related to his 'war on terror'.

The Supreme gave deference to Bush, deciding that had had the right to detain Americans under the authority Congress gave him in the Authorization to Use Military Force for the 'war on terror'. Bush decision to move Padilla to civilian court came only two business days before Padilla's appeal was scheduled to be filed with the Supreme Court.
I went and looked things up. There was a point where president Bush's use of the military was increased. Public Law 109-364 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007) gave him that right, and was passed 10/17/06. The next one removed that right. It must have been quietly sneaked in by someone and removed for being improper. The next Defense act, Public Law 110-181, signed January 28, 08, removed it. A little over a year, he had the power to mobilize the Army and Air Force against US civilians without getting specific authorization from congress.

So why does president Obama want it in again?

[Winehole23]

no thoughts about the historical context just invoked?

[Winehole23]

face it: we're all wusses.

the goddam 1970's were more dangerous.

[Winehole23]

A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a section of the National Defense Authorization Act that opponents claim allows for indefinite military detention.


U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan (http://topics.bloomberg.com/manhattan/) today ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued officials including President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/), claiming the act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.



The complaint was filed by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.



Hedges said he could be held in custody by federal authorities just for interviewing such individuals, according to court filings. Forrest’s order prevents enforcement of the provision of the statute pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by Congress.



The case is Hedges v. Obama, 12-CV-00331, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/) (Manhattan).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/military-detention-law-blocked-by-new-york-judge.html

[Winehole23]

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/some-thoughts-on-the-new-ndaa-and-the-smith-amash-amendment/

[Winehole23]

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-05-16-RML-letter-on-NDAA-2013.pdf

[Winehole23]

Significantly, the court here repeatedly told the DOJ that it could preclude standing for the plaintiffs if they were willing to state clearly that none of the journalistic and free speech conduct that the plaintiffs engage in could subject them to indefinite detention. But the Government refused to make any such representation. Thus, concluded the court, “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/singleton/

[Winehole23]

Katherine B. Forrest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_B._Forrest), the U.S. District Judge in Manhattan presiding over the case, appeared to agree with the plaintiffs about the vagueness of the language and its potential consequences, and in May ordered a temporary injunction over Section 1021 (b)(2).


“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote in the 68-page temporary injunction (.pdf), (http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12-Civ.-00331-2012.05.16-Opinion-Granting-PI.pdf) which rejected key arguments by the defendants, mainly that the plaintiffs had no standing because none of them had yet been indefinitely detained, and that the so-called “homeland battlefield” section in the NDAA was no different than the existing detention provisions in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), established by the Bush Administration after 9/11.



Forrest did not buy this, expressing incredulity in previous hearings that Congress would have created new language under the NDAA if these detention powers already existed in the AUMF (in fact, experts point out that Section 1021 is much more expansive in terms of “who” can be targeted than even the AUMF (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/)). She also argued that in not defining what “associated forces” and “substantial support” even mean, the government has given weight to the plaintiffs’ fears and has already put a chill on their work preemptively.



“Hedges, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir have changed certain associational conduct, and O’Brien and Jonsdottir have avoided certain expressive conduct, because of their concerns about § 1021. Moreover, since plaintiffs continue to have their associational and expressive conduct chilled, there is both actual and continued threatened irreparable harm,” she wrote.



Some more quotes from Forrest’s temporary injunction:

Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.
There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.



This court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution. … However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights. As set forth above, this court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected.
http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2012/08/13/the-freedom-7-are-beating-obama-in-court/

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks for the update WH23. I'm afraid it's a lost cause for this presidential cycle... maybe the next will care about, ya know, acting as we proclaim to be, guardians of liberty, freedom, justice and all that jazz...

[Winehole23]

that'd be nice. not holding my breath, tho.

[Winehole23]

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan today ruled that the law, passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, is unconstitutional. Forrest made permanent the preliminary injunction against the law that she had ordered in May. The government is appealing her May order.



“The Constitution places affirmative limits on the power of the Executive to act, and these limits apply in times of peace as well as times of war,” Forrest wrote in a 112-page opinion today. “Heedlessly to refuse to hear constitutional challenges to the Executive’s conduct in the name of deference would be to abdicate this court’s responsibility to safeguard the rights it has sworn to uphold.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-12/military-detention-law-blocked-by-new-york-judge

[TeyshaBlue]

Good. At least she gets it.

[coyotes_geek]

Hope. Change. Yes we can..........

[SA210]

Congrats to Judge Forrest for doing what's right and upholding the Constitution :toast

[SA210]

Nh98Fx53cMQ

[Clipper Nation]

Judge Forrest is one of the only people in government who actually represents the people.... kudos to her, tbh....

[boutons_deux]

good for her.

If it goes to SCOTUS, NDAA will win.

[SA210]

good for her.

If it goes to SCOTUS, NDAA will win.

Sadly this is true.

[Winehole23]

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/sabin-willett-and-david-remes-on-adnan-latif/

[SA210]

And Democrats still want to vote for this lying fake piece of shit President.

The bastard appealed the decision already within 24 hours. :rollin


The prick signs the Bill first of all on New Years Eve because he's a pussy, and of course the mainstream media isn't showing much of what just happened with Judge Forrest overturning this.

But people think he gave a nice speech at the rigged DNC, so I guess that's all that matters.

QWRZpESh3z0

[SA210]

ceobsac7LE8

PZjXHjkzMD4

[ChumpDumper]

The good people at RT are true patriots!

[SA210]

NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue

http://share.banoosh.com/2012/09/16/ndaa-case-indefinite-detention-injunction-does-irreparable-harm-obama-admin-lawyers-argue/


WASHINGTON — Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge’s ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

The lawyers made the argument on Friday in seeking a stay of the ruling, issued earlier this week (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/indefinite-detention-national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa_n_1880315.html) by Judge Katherine Forrest in the Southern District of New York.

Forrest had ruled (http://1.usa.gov/RRTLX9) on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who said they feared the government could grab them under section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. That section affirms the administration’s right to detain any “person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces,” including U.S. citizens.

Forrest found that the definitions of “substantially supported” and “associated forces” were so vague that a reporter or activist could not be sure they would not be covered under the provision if they worked with a group deemed to be associated with terrorists, or perhaps circulated the message of an associated individual by printing an interview.

The judged ruled that such a circumstance violated the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the Fifth Amendment right to due process that holds that a person must be able to understand what actions would break the law.

Forrest also argued that in passing the law, Congress had dramatically expanded the categories of people that can be detained, although the legislation itself and the administration asserted that the provision was doing nothing more than reasserting the White House’s authority originally granted under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that lawmakers passed after the 9/11 attacks.

Friday, in a stay request signed by New York’s Southern District U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery and Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson, the government argued that the injunction was an “unprecedented” trespass on power of the president and the legislature that by its very nature was doing irreparable harm.

The request also argued that the injuction places an undue burden on military commanders in a time of war while the plaintiffs — among them pulitzer-prize-winning reporter Chris Hedges and noted left-wing academic Noam Chomsky — had no reasonable fear of ever being detained “in the foreseeable future.”

“The Court’s injunction against application of section 1021 ‘in any manner, as to any person,’ … combined with its mistaken view that section 1021 goes beyond reaffirming the authority contained in the AUMF, could impose entirely unjustified burdens on military officials worldwide, complicating the ability to carry out an armed conflict authorized by Congress in the public interest,” the stay request says.

“Given the absence of any risk of impending harm to plaintiffs, the serious injury to the government and the public interest in the invalidation of a statute enacted by public representatives, and the possible effect on an ongoing armed conflict and the Executive’s prerogatives in military affairs, a stay is necessary,” it concludes.

The request is seeking both an immediate temporary stay so that the matter can be argued, and a permanent one lasting until higher courts resolve the case, which the administration announced Thursday it would appeal. A hearing was set for Wednesday next week. Forrest denied the short-term stay, so the law cannot currently be used.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Bruce Afran, noted that the government’s lawyers told Judge Forrest during arguments after she issued her first temporary injunction in May (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/homeland-battlefield-act-unconstitutional_n_1522587.html) that they did not know if the administration was using the detention provision. If the government is now arguing that stopping the practice would cause irreparable harm, it shows the administration was indeed using the law and violating the injunction, Afran said.

“The only way they could be done irreparable harm is if they’ve been using this all along,” Afran said.
“It just shows the lawlessness of this, even under the Obama administration,” he added.

The group Demand Progress has been appealing to President Obama to stop defending the law, and said more than 60,000 have signed a petition (http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ndaa_lawsuit_win/) on the matter since Wednesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Obama_Constitution.jpg

[SA210]

Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA

A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

Last week, a federal judge ruled (http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/)that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked (http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-hedges-appeal-obama-339/)for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.

The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals court panel is expected to begin addressing the issue.
On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed (http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/)the NDAA into law, even though he insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540)explaining his hesitance to essentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” President Obama wrote. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

A lawsuit (http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-hedges-ndaa-sued-933/)against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed (http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/)with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justice’s decision has been destroyed.

With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until a poorly defined deadline described as merely “the end of the hostilities.” The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that the NDAA fails to “pass constitutional muster” and that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights”

Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.

"First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away," Judge Forrest wrote last week. "This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention."

Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama, said Monday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they are already employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly.

“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran told Hedges for a blogpost (http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-hedges-appeal-obama-339/)published this week. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”

Within only hours of Afran’s statement being made public, demonstrators in New York City waged a day of protests in order to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Although it is not believed that the NDAA was used to justify any arrests, more than 180 political protesters were detained by the NYPD over the course of the day’s actions. One week earlier, the results of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union confirmed that the FBI has been monitoring Occupy protests in at least one instance, but the bureau would not give further details, citing that decision is "in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."

Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, reported on the stay late Monday and acknowledged that both Forrest and Lohier were appointed to the court by President Obama.

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/419504_451032891606339_408275703_n.jpg

[Winehole23]

thanks for the update, SA210.

[Winehole23]

btw, do you read anything besides infowars? just curious . . .

[Winehole23]

Chris Hedges speculates on the significance of the USG's emergency plea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_HeAlJwtkw

[SA210]

Why do they hate freedom?

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/229914_424545867604399_1516082533_n.jpg

[Nbadan]

Exactly how many Americans have been jailed using NDAA by Obama?

Paranoid much?

[SA210]

Exactly how many Americans have been jailed using NDAA by Obama?



We don't know, he/his lawyers wouldn't tell the judge when she asked that very question. Not paranoid, just being real, it's a pretty stupid thing to do to the Constitution and to Americans. Is it no wonder to you that he signed it on New Years Eve so most Americans wouldn't know, isn't it telling that he then promised to never use it on Americans even though he signed it?

Isn't it quite telling that during trial and the temporary injunction that Barry couldn't tell the Judge if they were illegally using this already against her orders, and after her official final ruling he immediately appeals it and asks for an EMERGENCY overturn of this ruling? Why? And what's the urgency? Sounds like Barry is paranoid and might just already be using it, either way, he's fighting it aggressively for a reason..for what purpose? It's pretty obvious.

[Jacob1983]

I just laugh at this shit because no one rips Barry a new one for supporting this. Barry is suppose to not be Bush yet he supports shit like this and is okay with it. What a fuckin' hypocrite and tool. And his supporters are delusional.

[Winehole23]

I just laugh at this shit because no one rips Barry a new one for supporting this. Barry is suppose to not be Bush yet he supports shit like this and is okay with it. What a fuckin' hypocrite and tool. And his supporters are delusional.um, this thread, moron. I can link others if you like . . .

[Jacob1983]

I want someone in the national media to call Obama out on this shit.

[Winehole23]

a google search might satisfy that curiosity, but I doubt you're up to it

[Spurminator]

I want someone in the national media to call Obama out on this shit.

They did.

[Jacob1983]

I shouldn't have to do that. Everyone should have to have their fair share of doing a google search for me. Oh snap.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://pubsecrets.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/film-maker-arrested-thugocracy.jpg

It's all about National Security.

[TDMVPDPOY]

this law...only applies to teh common ppl, not the filthy rich...

[Winehole23]

I want someone in the national media to call Obama out on this shit.
“He’s gone beyond George W. Bush (http://www.politico.com/tag/george-w-bush) in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html#ixzz27atfxqmU

[SA210]

^^^ Much credit to Nader for speaking the truth. Honestly though this all really goes ignored. The way the media grills candidates on very unimportant things day and night, they hardly spend time on issues such as this. It gets swept under the rug as a whole and this is purposely done.

If they spent the same amount of time in the news about NDAA and murdered civilians on drone strikes as they do on Romney's airplane window comment and all the other nonsense they cover, the stupid public would probably actually speak up. I think murdering US Citizens without trial, and drone strikes without congressional approval (and the civilians killed in them) is way more important for the National media, tv and print to cover than a lot of the petty shit they cover. Especially when this President ran on the exact opposite 4 years ago.

I think Romney is an idiot, for his airplane remark, for his stupid tan, for not knowing shit about anything other than rich people, his avoiding of showing his taxes, the list goes on. Yes that's important to show he is a moron. But how does that take priority over our Constitutional rights, over murdering Americans and people abroad? All of which Romney would do as well. It's ridiculous. It should be all over the place more than all the other shit they cover.

They talk on MSNBC and all these stations about "Oh here is Romney again, flip flopping". Well yea, he does, he's an idiot. But yet they don't grill Obama on his promises he didn't keep, on all his contradictions. A few mentions here and there don't really count. We are talking about murder.

Turn to any station and see the crap they are covering. It isn't NDAA, or the truth about how Obama is a war monger. It's all about petty shit and soundbites and talking points that keep the public dumb and uninformed of the real facts until we vote and elect the frauds into office, all the while innocent kids are being bombed at no fault of their own.

And the stupid public is ok with this, because after all, they have football to watch this weekend. Mission accomplished.

[SA210]

New Reality Check: Actions Speak Louder Than Words With President

kOM85tx8OJE

[SA210]

New Reality Check: Actions Speak Louder Than Words With President

kOM85tx8OJE


0iqYjD7c_hU

[Nbadan]

I guess some people have a different interpretation of 'this does not extend to U.S. citizens"....some people just don't get it...


All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the option to have U.S. citizens detained by the armed forces but this requirement does not extend to them, as with foreign persons. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."[28][29]

During debate on the senate floor, Levin stated that "Administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the Administration request that the provision apply only to detainees captured overseas and there's a good reason for that. Even here, the difference is modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes lawful residents of U.S., except to extent permitted by the constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or on a tourists/short-term basis. Contrary to some press statements, the detainee provisions in our bill do not include new authority for the permanent detention of suspected terrorists. Rather, the bill uses language provided by the Administration to codify existing authority that has been upheld in federal courts."[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2012

[Nbadan]

The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[12] arguing in an executive statement on 17 November 2011 that while "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."

The statement furthermore objected to the mandate for "military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects," which it called inconsistent with "the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."[12] The White House may now waive the requirement for military custody for some detainees following a review by appointed officials including the Attorney General, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.[31]

During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment interpreted by the ACLU[16] and some news sources[32] as an effort to limit military detention of American citizens indefinitely and without trial. The amendment proposed to strike the section "Detainee Matters" from the bill, and replace section 1021 (then titled 1031) with a provision requiring the Administration to clarify the Executive's authority to detain suspects on the basis of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.[33] The amendment was rejected by a vote of 60-38 (with 2 abstaining).[34] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of Congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible." [32]

The Senate later adopted by a 98 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States.[35] After a Senate-House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, but also removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[36]

In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: “"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." [37]

yeah, Just like Bush :rolleyes

[Nbadan]

On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it addressing "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects". In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF". The statement also maintains that the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "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". Referring to the applicability of civilian versus military detention, the statement argued that "the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost."[48]

What else does Obama have to do? And what about all the Senators and Congressmen who voted for NDAA....I wonder how many of them are being held accountable...Let's face it...this is a wing-nut witch hunt to hurt Obama...

[Jacob1983]

Wing nut witch hunt? Which wing? Left or right? I'm confused because didn't both Democrats and Republicans vote for the NDAA? Aren't Libertarians and true liberals the only ones that ever mention anything about the NDAA?

[Winehole23]

...Let's face it...this is a wing-nut witch hunt to hurt Obama...tell it to the ACLU

[Winehole23]

btw Dan, are signing statements binding on anyone?

[Winehole23]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/military-detention-law-blocked-by-new-york-judge.htmlinjunction stayed on appeal:

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/indefdetnappealscourtstay.pdf

[SA210]

injunction stayed on appeal:

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/indefdetnappealscourtstay.pdf

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/national_defense_authorization_act_meme4.jpg


:pctoss

[SA210]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/545493_427789743945444_2063225298_n.jpg

[boutons_deux]

The D of I isn't law, although many people assume it is, esp dumbfuck bubbas.