HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hey! Our side wins one fo...

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:32 PM

Hey! Our side wins one for once. Check it out:

Apparently there's a federal judge who thinks that endless imprisonment without charges, trial, or any judicial recourse whatsoever is NOT OK:

Permanent Injunction Against Indefinite Military Detention in NDAA Issued by Federal Judge

Permanent.

The Founders are smiling.

79 replies, 14181 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hey! Our side wins one for once. Check it out: (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 OP
rocktivity Sep 2012 #1
ashling Sep 2012 #12
Pab Sungenis Sep 2012 #21
rocktivity Sep 2012 #24
tabasco Sep 2012 #27
Canuckistanian Sep 2012 #35
HankyDub Sep 2012 #46
HankyDub Sep 2012 #47
TahitiNut Sep 2012 #64
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #65
proverbialwisdom Sep 2012 #18
Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2012 #2
patrice Sep 2012 #3
dixiegrrrrl Sep 2012 #4
proverbialwisdom Sep 2012 #20
Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2012 #38
Bohunk68 Sep 2012 #61
proverbialwisdom Sep 2012 #67
Chorophyll Sep 2012 #5
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #6
MNBrewer Sep 2012 #7
ProSense Sep 2012 #14
woo me with science Sep 2012 #16
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #22
ProSense Sep 2012 #23
CitizenPatriot Sep 2012 #26
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #51
Fuddnik Sep 2012 #29
proverbialwisdom Sep 2012 #66
proverbialwisdom Sep 2012 #79
woo me with science Sep 2012 #32
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #33
proverbialwisdom Sep 2012 #76
Solly Mack Sep 2012 #42
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #15
MNBrewer Sep 2012 #17
Egalitarian Thug Sep 2012 #8
barbtries Sep 2012 #9
Hubert Flottz Sep 2012 #10
Oilwellian Sep 2012 #11
Efilroft Sul Sep 2012 #13
woo me with science Sep 2012 #19
madrchsod Sep 2012 #25
Laelth Sep 2012 #28
idwiyo Sep 2012 #30
bvar22 Sep 2012 #31
Canuckistanian Sep 2012 #34
Stryder Sep 2012 #36
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #52
Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2012 #37
limpyhobbler Sep 2012 #39
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #40
joshcryer Sep 2012 #44
Zalatix Sep 2012 #59
pediatricmedic Sep 2012 #41
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #49
joshcryer Sep 2012 #43
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #50
joshcryer Sep 2012 #53
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #54
joshcryer Sep 2012 #55
steve2470 Sep 2012 #45
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #48
Duchess St.Rollins Sep 2012 #56
oldsarge54 Sep 2012 #57
Duchess St.Rollins Sep 2012 #58
oldsarge54 Sep 2012 #60
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #62
Vattel Sep 2012 #63
Duchess St.Rollins Sep 2012 #69
Vattel Sep 2012 #70
Duchess St.Rollins Sep 2012 #73
Vattel Sep 2012 #74
Duchess St.Rollins Sep 2012 #68
Zorra Sep 2012 #71
Duchess St.Rollins Sep 2012 #72
Zorra Sep 2012 #78
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #75
Odin2005 Sep 2012 #77

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:43 PM

1. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!

And it's not necessarily a defeat for Obama -- like "Don't Ask Don't Tell," all he can do is sigh, "I fought the law and the law won..."


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:33 PM

12. OK, I'll ask : what is this reference to the Vonage theme?

yes, I am old

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:44 PM

21. The Vonage theme goes

 

"Woo hoo... woo hoo hoo!" over and over.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:15 PM

24. Vonage picked up this song for their commericals

from a Japanese all-female trio who was also featured in a Kill Bill movie.



For me, it's just an efficient way of saying "Woo hoo!" when I get good news on DU.


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #24)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:07 PM

27. LOL!

Thanks for posting. Never seen that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #24)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 08:55 PM

35. Cool!

Japanese rock is so quirky, it always surprises me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #24)


Response to rocktivity (Reply #24)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:08 AM

47. it isn't actually efficient.

 

Just saying "woo hoo" involves less typing.

And that way you wouldn't be a walking commercial for a phone company.

Unless you just like using your brain as a billboard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #24)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:49 AM

64. Thanks for that. Reminds me of all the Asian cover bands that toured Nam "back in the day."

It tickles me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #24)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:27 PM

65. Yikes, after 2 min of that I started spilling state secrets.Fortunately my cat wasnt taking notes.nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:40 PM

18. A win via a loss...

Clever strategy. Alas, if so, I suspect those who know will never tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:44 PM

2. Fantastic news -

that most here are ignoring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:02 PM

3. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:09 PM

4. thanx to Chris Hedges and few others who walked the talk

in filing this suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #20)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:45 PM

38. Don't forget Jeremy Scahill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #38)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 08:12 AM

61. Ah, yes, Jeremy!!

He's been on Chris Hayes weekend programs besides being on Democracy Now for the last several years. He's always so on the mark with his observations, besides which, he is so damn easy on the eyes!! Woo hoo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #38)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:10 PM

67. Sorry for the unintentional oversight. I don't know enough about this case as I should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:11 PM

5. Wow, that *is* good news!

Too bad it's lost in the shuffle with everything else that's going on.

Hearty kick and DU rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:14 PM

6. The judges opinion was wonderful to read. Someone who actually believes in not giving up

rights in order to feel safe. I'm sure it will be appealed, but this decision was the final decision in this case and it would be even better news to hear that it will not be appealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:27 PM

7. Hope he doesn't travel in any small aircraft in the near future.

Things happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:37 PM

14. The judge is a she:

WASHINGTON -- Civil liberties groups are asking the Obama administration to stand down and give up defending America's law allowing the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects after a judge Wednesday issued a permanent injunction against it.

Federal Judge Katherine Forrest reaffirmed on Wednesday her May ruling that the provision was unconstitutional, and made the ruling permanent. She had previously found that the law could be used to imprison activists and journalists without trial, noting that it does not define what it means to substantially "support" Al Qaeda or "associated" forces.

<...>

The group Demand Progress, which backed the lawsuit, is launching a petition asking President Barack Obama not to appeal the ruling. They also want the Senate to stop the detention provision from being added to the NDAA for 2013, which has not yet been brought up for a vote.

"It's wonderful to see Judge Forrest -- a recent Obama appointee -- buck the administration and stand up for the Constitution," Demand Progress executive director David Segal said in a statement. "Our members urge Obama to stop defending this obscene abuse of executive authority, and ask our senators to oppose indefinite detention when they vote on the NDAA later this fall."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/indefinite-detention-national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa_n_1880315.html

The President has already rejected indefinite detention in his signing statement. This will likely force Congress to revisit the provision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:40 PM

16. "Our members urge Obama to stop defending this obscene abuse of executive authority,

and ask our senators to oppose indefinite detention when they vote on the NDAA later this fall."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:54 PM

22. Then why is the President fighting the court on this?

Puzzling evidence!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 04:06 PM

23. I don't think he is.

Federal Judge Blocks Indefinite Detention Provisions Of NDAA

A federal judge in Manhattan has blocked enforcement of provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which allow the government to place individuals they claim supported al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” in indefinite military detention.

“Before anyone should be subjected to the possibility ofindefinite military detention, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that individuals be able to understandwhat conduct might cause him or her to run afoul of ,” wrote District Judge Katherine Forrest. “Unfortunately, there are a number of terms that are sufficientlyvague that no ordinary citizen can reliably define such conduct.”

Forrest ruled that Congress “can add definitional language to the statute and resolve the issues the plaintiffs have raised” and “resolve the issues with the statute and proceed with enforcement activities it deems fit.” But for now, there are “a variety of other statutes which can be utilized to detain those engaged in various levels of support of terrorists,” so enjoining enforcement of the provisions “does not divest the Government of its many other tools.”

President Barack Obama signed the law in December despite his objections to the military detention provisions of the statute. The administration later issued guidelines in February which essentially made it nearly impossible for a terrorism suspect to end up in the hands of the military.

- more -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/federal-judge-blocks-indefinite-detention-provisions-of-ndaa

We've seen how the government can pursue cases (see DOMA) on technicalities when the administration's position is clear. The President does not support the provision.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:06 PM

26. Since the NDAA is the yearly funding

for the military, it's hardball politics. As law, the administration is supposed to defend it -- as you point out -- unless they can parse it (as you know they want to, given the signing statement and their earlier written objection to provisions w/i the NDAA) (like with DOMA). It's a frustrating process, but it is the way our laws are supposed to work.

I wish people would focus on the origins of the NDAA instead of thinking that any president can stop the neo con agenda of the SASC. Clean out the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:22 PM

29. Don't forget the two bi-partisan assholes who inserted it in the bill.

A certain John McCain and a certain Carl Levin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:08 PM

66. You've got to check out THE CONSPIRATOR (Redford) Special Features interview with Senator Levin.

He vigorously opposed actions taken after Lincoln's assassination which mirror recent efforts to mess with the Constitution. Very curious, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #29)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:49 AM

79. Senator Carl Levin: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0505566/

Step back from that condemnation, it appears to be only superficially justified. See: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0505566/


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/

Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)

Box Office
Budget: $1,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: $13,656 (USA) (20 January 2008) (2 Screens)
Gross: $274,661 (USA) (1 June 2008)

Haven't seen it... now I feel like I need to snag a copy.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1867009/

The Conspirator: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Lincoln (2011) - Special Feature


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

The Conspirator is a 2010 historical drama film directed by Robert Redford based on an original screenplay by James D. Solomon. It is the debut film of the American Film Company. The film tells the story of Mary Surratt, the only female conspirator charged in the Abraham Lincoln assassination and the first woman to be executed by the United States federal government. It stars James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Justin Long, Evan Rachel Wood, Jonathan Groff, Tom Wilkinson, Alexis Bledel, Kevin Kline, John Cullum, Toby Kebbell, and James Badge Dale.

Box office: The Conspirator did poorly at the box office doing $11,538,204 gross on a 25 million dollar budget.

Balked at full price, got used copy, viewed once. Need to watch Senator Levin's interview again.


.

What side is he on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to woo me with science (Reply #32)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 08:30 PM

33. Surprize! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:33 AM

76. Maybe that's thebest way to create 'settled law' assuming everyone does their part including public.

Exhaust the appeals, let the Supreme Court with the composition as it currently stands enshrine the unconstitutionality? I don't actually know, I don't remotely know the field or the case, but I do continue to trust the President.

For crying out loud, look around. (eg. DADT 'sudden' collapse. No hope, despair, then BAM, done deal. Also not a field I know much about, but it appears concerted sustained effort was necessary by multiple players.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101757862

"You're are the reason," President Obama in Golden, CO.
September 13, 2012




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:07 AM

42. Thanks!

For posting the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:39 PM

15. She is a woman, Judge Katherine B. Forrest

and she absolutely nailed the problem regarding how the Government has been using 'National Security' to force people, including judges she points out, into accepting them.

This took a lot of courage on her part as there is no doubt she will be accused of supporting terrorists, or damaging National Security etc.

But from the beginning of the destruction of our rights, the question has always been, what are we supposed to be fighting for in this Global WOT? THEY said the 'terrorists hate our freedoms', so then we give them what they want. None of it ever made sense.

It is a pleasure to read a rational overview by an intelligent judge, of the threat these laws actually are to what has been falsely claimed to be the rationale for the WOT.

She points out too in her decision that the Government was unable to present any adequate defense against the plaitiff's case. I guess they just do what they are told without question and never expected to be challenged.

for Judge Katherine B. Forrest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:40 PM

17. Her, too, then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:28 PM

8. K&R Good News! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:30 PM

9. that's great news.

and you're right, it's too rare. let's hear it for due process!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:32 PM

10. That's great Manny!

Wish all the Judges would see the light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:32 PM

11. Fantastic!

There's hope yet! K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:34 PM

13. I don't get to post much, but when I do…

…I kick and rec Manny's posts on our civil liberties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:40 PM

19. Excellent, excellent news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:02 PM

25. until the supremes decide imd is a ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:16 PM

28. k&r for the Constitution ... finally. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:43 PM

30. K&R Damn good to know there is at least one good judge out there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:55 PM

31. Standing & Clapping.



DURec!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 08:46 PM

34. Finally, some sanity

The NDAA is a perversion of the Bill of Rights. I'm surprised the RWingnuts haven't seized on this as an example of Obama wanting to seize total power. But he won't.

What I'm worried about is a FUTURE totalitarian leader of America who WILL use the NDAA under the flimsiest of pretenses to imprison vast numbers of citizens under a "terrorism" guise.

And I'm not sure a "permanent injunction" will stop such a future despot, if they so desire to use the NDAA.

But, as things are today, it's excellent news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:11 PM

36. Permanent injunction?

Does such a thing exist?
(Serious query)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:43 PM

37. Thank God.

Small steps ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:02 PM

39. I don't understand so-called "liberals" who defend laws like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #39)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:23 PM

40. Third Wayers

They only call themselves Liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #40)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:24 AM

44. Can you name one on DU?

No? Cool!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #39)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 07:26 AM

59. Actually, on here they said there was no indefinite detention clause.

 

It was a big embarrassment when this judge found the clause and blew it out of the water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:02 AM

41. Which side is that? Most actual conservatives didn't like it either and are cheering this ruling.

The power mongers/progs are pissed at the ruling for some reason, not sure why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:23 AM

43. Cool! The judges agree with Obama!

*waits for the right wing derived misquote trying to malign Obama*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #50)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 05:19 AM

53. Obama has no control over the judicial branch.

I suppose separation of powers doesn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #53)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 05:37 AM

54. What?

Are you trying to say that Obama has "no control" over the U.S. Department of Justice?
i.e. and/or the Attorney General of the USA, Eric Holder, who Obama apointed?

THAT is who is appealing this, and the buck stops on Obama's desk, whether we like it or
not. HINT: the "Judicial Branch" consists of courts and judges, not DoJ prosecutors..

Did you even read the link I sent you? ... to an article with Headline:
"Unmoved by Ruling, Obama Appeals Permanent Injunction Against Indefinite Detention Provision in NDAA"
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/09/13/unmoved-by-ruling-obama-appeals-permanent-injunction-against-indefinite-detention-provision-in-ndaa-video/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #54)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 05:38 AM

55. That is correct.

He already nominated a center-right attorney general. Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:27 AM

45. k&r nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:53 AM

48. Sadly Obama is ALREADY APPEALING the Permanent Injunction decision

Unmoved by Ruling, Obama Appeals Permanent Injunction Against Indefinite Detention Provision in NDAA (VIDEO)
By: Kevin Gosztola Thursday September 13, 2012 8:32 pm

“The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”


Those were the words of senior Obama administration officials when President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which included a provision authorizing the military to indefinitely detain citizens suspected of being “associated forces” of al Qaeda and affiliated groups or providing “direct” or “substantial” support to al Qaeda or affiliated groups, into law. Yet less than twenty-four hours after federal judge and Obama appointee Katherine B. Forrest issued a permanent injunction against the provision, the administration has already had its lawyers file an appeal to the ruling.



http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/09/13/unmoved-by-ruling-obama-appeals-permanent-injunction-against-indefinite-detention-provision-in-ndaa-video/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #48)


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 07:13 AM

57. Boy am I Confused

Given all the propaganda, lies, confusing reports, etc... I've lost track. This is what I think I understand:

1. The original part of the NDAA that we don't like was introduced by House Tea Party members as part of their toxic amendment game plan.

2. The Senate version had a less draconian provisions.

3. In the reconciliation phase between the two bills, the Tea Party did their "my way or the highway" stance, like in way too many other issues.

4. Obama back the House version if only because the rest of the damn bill was needed. I thought his line of reasoning was that even if it is in the law, he could ignore it.

5. Now I'm hearing that Obama is fighting the injunction... Is he fighting for all the provisions, some of the provisions, or what?

Again, this is what I think what happened. Where did I go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsarge54 (Reply #57)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 07:23 AM

58. Please read this...

Obama HAD to sign NDAA into law. It was veto-proof.

Here is a piece by Nathanieal Downes outlining what Obama is doing now:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/13/ndaa-detention-struck-down/

Obama IS a good guy in all of this. His arm was twisted initially and now he is trying to make the best of a SHITTY situation.

Read more about WHY NDAA was signed into law (this is a really, REALLY good resource and explanation and I have done hours of research):

http://skepticalcubefarm.wordpress.com/tag/ndaa/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duchess St.Rollins (Reply #58)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 08:02 AM

60. Thanks

Does that mean that I am pretty much on track? Whew, I thought I was losing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duchess St.Rollins (Reply #58)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 08:24 AM

62. In your linked articles, I don't see an explanation of

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

why Obama is appealing this decision. That appeal will take months to resolve, past the end of his presidency in the awful event that he loses in November.

Also, the first article claims that the NDAA does not apply to US citizens. I believe that the judge here ruled that it does, which is why she struck it down as unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #62)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:10 AM

63. The elephant in the room here is not the appeal,

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

although the appeal sucks. What sucks even more (IMHO) is that Obama is following Bush to use signing statements to assert the power of the executive branch to ignore the law if it decides that ignoring the law is in the national security interests of the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #63)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 06:48 PM

69. True, but not true in the way you're implying...

President Obama's original signing statement for NDAA explained why he did NOT like the law and would still adhere to the Constitution. Basically, even though NDAA is now the law of the land, he will ignore the provisions in NDAA (that the Republicans added to the end of the military budget that he could NOT veto because it would have been overridden) that say he can detain American citizens without a trial. I understand what you're saying, but he used the signing statement to UPHOLD the Constitution because a law was passed that is unconstitutional. In other words, he is using his power in the OPPOSITE way as Bush did. That may bother you, but it sure as hell doesn't bother me!

From http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2012/01/signing-statement-on-ndaa.html

"Signing Statement on NDAA

The White House on Saturday issued a signing statement on the National Defense Authorization Act, which we covered most recently here. There are two principal issues here. The first relates to authorities that Congress seeks to grant to the President, including, apparently, the authority to detain U.S. citizens in military custody. The second relates to restrictions on authorities. The signing statement deals with both.

As to authorities, the President clarified that the Administration will not use authority in the NDAA to detain U.S. citizens in military custody "without trial." We wrote earlier that the NDAA itself probably doesn't change the government's detention authority under existing law and court decisions (whatever one thinks about that law and those court decisions). The signing statement, too, doesn't fundamentally change that picture. In short, the Administrations statement that it won't detain U.S. citizens in military custody "without trial" probably only comports with the requirements in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and probably doesn't offer any extra or special protection beyond Hamdi.

As to restrictions, the Administration's signing statement flatly refuses to comply with the requirement for military custody for foreign detainees and the restrictions on transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. or to other countries. These restrictions undoubtedly raise separation-of-powers problems, but the signing statement means that the President will ignore the NDAA--the law--in favor of his Administration's own (even if correct) interpretation of the Constitution. (An alternative would have been the veto.)* This is a practice that this President once disavowed, or at least qualified. The Administration's signing statement on the NDAA is one of its more aggressive uses of a constitutional signing statement, signalling the Administration's willingness to ignore the law it just signed because it is unconstitutional in some applications. The Administration is correct that these limitations raise grave separation-of-powers problems, but it's less clear that a signing statement is the best way to deal with them."

*Actually, that's incorrect. A veto was NOT an alternative, as it would have been overridden. In order to overturn a presidential veto, both houses in Congress must vote to approve the bill by a two-thirds majority, which was the case with the military budget that NDAA was attached to.

From Politicususa:

"Obama used this signing statement to amend and clarify his administration’s interpretation of NDAA, a bill he is already on record as objecting to. Due to the administration’s objections and the ACLU’s objections, the language in the original was clarified and changed. However, all law is open to interpretation and can’t be taken alone – the NDAA in concert with the Patriot Act, for example, could be interpreted to mean something much differently than the Obama administration would want to agree to – thus, the signing statement."

More here:
http://www.politicususa.com/reality-obama-ndaa-signing-statement.html:

I really feel like a lot of people don't understand the entire situation. It's complex and a lot of digging is necessary to cover all the bases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duchess St.Rollins (Reply #69)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 07:21 PM

70. If only what you are saying were the whole truth.

You are correct that to some degree Obama is saying that he will ignore provisions that would violate due process and other constitutional rights and I, like you, applaud that. But read the whole statement. It is riddled with references to Obama's intention to ignore the law whereever it interferes with the effectiveness of what the executive branch wants to do for the sake of national security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #70)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:50 PM

73. Maybe...

It's all just supposition at this point since the law has NOT been used (or abused) in the way you describe. It's a slippery slope when you start making accusations about what MIGHT happen or what Obama MIGHT intend, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duchess St.Rollins (Reply #73)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:38 AM

74. The idea that the President has the constitutional right to ignore federal statutes

to promote national security has been abused, and Obama has consistently failed to oppose this idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #62)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 06:18 PM

68. Actually, yes it does...

Explicitly:

"The Obama administration, with the clear and obvious option to at least drag out the case, failed to even try. And they used an appeal already, on August 6th. Had they not done so, should the President be defeated in November, the new President would have been within the window in order to file an appeal based on the judgement date of the case, which would have been on February 12th of next year. Instead, that window closes on January 6th, due to this earlier action, closing the window for appeal before the end of President Obama’s first term.

What we are looking at here is a strategic maneuver by the President to strip away these provisions. The USA PATRIOT act put them where the courts could not easily touch them, so he worked hard to make sure that they were attached to the NDAA in just the right way to open up the door. He cut a deal to get certain judges in on certain dates, which put a judge he selected in to the correct court at just the right time for the NDAA signature. Then, he gave a strong enough defense to make sure that Congress could not go after him for failing to do his job as President, but not strong enough to drag out the case. Then the administration prematurely executed their appeal, ensuring that getting another appeal opportunity would be more difficult, and even then it would not be in the hands of any successor.

This is playing political chess. Without ever exposing himself to liability, the President, a constitutional lawyer before entering into politics, used the system in order to overturn one of the most easily abusive and abhorrent provisions which has ever been signed into law, the suspension of Habeas Corpus."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duchess St.Rollins (Reply #68)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 07:24 PM

71. The author of the article explains it, but does not provide any footnotes denoting the

sources of the information that he is relaying.

Do you have any idea where I can find the author's source of this information?

I have very serious skepticism and trust issues with almost all media, and with politicians in general. I don't know this reporter, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that what he says here is the truth. If I find out later on that this statement is just an expedient bullshit defense of the President's actions, I will be even further disillusioned, as well as furious.

I will try to find the source of his information, but if you already know specifically where the information came from and could post it, it will probably save me considerable research time.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #71)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:40 PM

72. It's just an opinion piece...

No sources are really needed to back the article since it's an opinion piece about WHY Obama is doing this and what the OP thinks his grand strategy is.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duchess St.Rollins (Reply #72)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:16 PM

78. What I'm looking for is the legal source of the appeal dates/deadlines cited by the author.

"The Obama administration, with the clear and obvious option to at least drag out the case, failed to even try. And they used an appeal already, on August 6th. Had they not done so, should the President be defeated in November, the new President would have been within the window in order to file an appeal based on the judgement date of the case, which would have been on February 12th of next year. Instead, that window closes on January 6th, due to this earlier action, closing the window for appeal before the end of President Obama’s first term.

Hopefully, the above emboldened dates for possible appeal are not just the author's opinion, and he didn't just make these dates up just to support his argument.

I'm trying to find out what his legal source of the information about the appeal dates is, that's all.

I want to see the proof that these deadlines/dates for appeal are legally factual, and I don't know where to find this proof. In his article, the author should have linked to the source of this information.

The fact that he did not provide this source for his reading audience, which he could have very easily done, is what has my made my bullshit radar go up. If he had provided his source of information for those dates, he would have a great deal weight behind his opinions.

I'm not saying he is wrong, I just want to see evidence that will lead me to believe that he is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duchess St.Rollins (Reply #58)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:30 AM

75. Yikes, you're right

Sorry I missed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:35 AM

77. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread