Reply With Quote
cat got you tongue, Dan? still busy at work, are ye?
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.
cat got you tongue, Dan? still busy at work, are ye?
yeah, that's right. Congress codified it. Do you have a problem with that?
If not, why not?
I note with amusement that now you take for granted what you were at pains to deny previously
Panties in a wad much? Congress codified it, Obama denounced it....
Who has been a tragedy to civil rights again?
anyone who reads can see the inconsistency
Bush and Obama, Mr. Continuity.
denounced it, then signed it
you could at least acknowledge your factual error about Padilla. you couldn't have been more wrong about that.
So if you said the bill reads as:
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?(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.
That law deals with military authority over US citizens. Not what Homeland security does. President Bush did not breach it.
Not a thing in the world. the (e) part of 1021 is a bull disclaimer. indefinite detention of Americans accused of association with al qaeda appears to be permitted under existing law, indeed, the NDAA explicitly authorizes it.
Nbadan cribbing from WC?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187341
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.
Nope. The Supreme Court never ruled on Padilla. Are you referring to Hamdan, or some other case?
This part you got right.
(You're welcome.)
historical context:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Am...#ixzz1jNWIJG6SThis 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.”
ibid.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.
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?
no thoughts about the historical context just invoked?
face it: we're all wusses.
the goddam 1970's were more dangerous.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ork-judge.htmlA 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 today ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued officials including President 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 “su ion 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 (Manhattan).
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/fede...daa/singleton/
http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2...bama-in-court/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), 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). 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 cons utional rights. As set forth above, this court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their cons utional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s cons utional rights are protected.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
