Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:42 AM

MrDiaz (731 posts)

Indefinite detention provisions of NDAA struck down in court, Obama to appeal

Source: Examiner

Judge Katherine Forrest made the ruling permanent on Wednesday that the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA was unconstitutional. The government argued that it is a normal provision in the law of war, while Judge Forester was of the opinion that the law of war has no place in domestic policy.

She very candidly strikes down all of the government's defense points, sometimes to the point of insult. "That frankly makes no sense, particularly in light of the Government’s inability at the March and August hearings to define certain terms in--or the scope of--§ 1021(b)(2)," she writes in response to a government claim that no future administration would be able to interpret it any differently.

Despite petitions starting immediately to ask Obama not to appeal the decision, by Thursday the appeal had been filed. If he doesn't want that power, as he has claimed, then why is the Obama administration fighting so hard to hold onto it?

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/indefinite-detention-provisions-of-ndaa-struck-down-court-obama-to-appeal

this was shown to me be an acquaintance at work...I know its the examiner but does anyone know whats up with this? If it is true why the hell should the government be able to indefinitely detain citizens?

10 replies, 1488 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

10 replies	Author	Time	Post
Indefinite detention provisions of NDAA struck down in court, Obama to appeal (Original post)	MrDiaz	Sep 2012	OP
It will be interesting to see the clash between the ruling & the Presidential	patrice	Sep 2012	#1
this is one of the issues that disturbs me the most about the Obama administration....	mike_c	Sep 2012	#2
absolutely	MrDiaz	Sep 2012	#3
And Obama	christx30	Sep 2012	#4
very	MrDiaz	Sep 2012	#5
And people kept	christx30	Sep 2012	#7
The DOJ needs to STOP IT with those fucking appeals.	alp227	Sep 2012	#6
K&R n/t	rachel1	Sep 2012	#8
Can we stop this Bullshit.	JRLeft	Sep 2012	#9
how	MrDiaz	Sep 2012	#10

Response to MrDiaz (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:48 AM

patrice (47,281 posts)

1. It will be interesting to see the clash between the ruling & the Presidential

signing statement on NDAA 2012. Appeal is also how you'd get your departments and divisions in synch on the ruling, so you don't have a bunch of different people doing different things.

Reply to this post

Response to MrDiaz (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:57 AM

mike_c (31,505 posts)

2. this is one of the issues that disturbs me the most about the Obama administration....

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:59 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

While Obama is clearly a more appealing candidate than Romney-- so much so that criticisms of Obama simply cannot credibly be perceived as openings for the Romney campaign-- there are aspects of the first Obama term that are extremely troubling. One of the most troubling has been the expansion of the surveillance and security state under his administration. I heard on NPR last night that during Obama's first term the NSA has intercepted and retained an average of 1.7 BILLION emails and telephone conversations daily between American citizens on American soil, accumulating something like 19 TRILLION such communications in all, and all without warrants or court oversight.

The NDAA is another tool in the security state toolbox for assaulting the rights of citizens in the name of state and corporate security.

Reply to this post

Response to mike_c (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:25 PM

MrDiaz (731 posts)

3. absolutely

disturbing

Reply to this post

Response to MrDiaz (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:57 PM

christx30 (1,166 posts)

4. And Obama

said that he was actually against the indefinite detention of American citizens, but signed it any way. Why is he appealing?
And why would the law be needed in the first place? Do terrorists have superpowers I wasn't aware of before? Are they legal geniuses or something and able to find loopholes that allow them free to murder, rape, pillage, with the police standing there shrugging their shoulders? "Well, I know he just blew up that supermarket, but he brought up 'Cogito ergo sum', so our hands are pretty much tied."
The answer is, they don't need it as a tool against terrorists. They need it as a tool against us.

Reply to this post

Response to christx30 (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:06 PM

MrDiaz (731 posts)

5. very

disturbing, these are the kind of things that made me HATE the previous administration. If he didn't want it in the first place then this should be what he wanted, instead he is appealing the ruling. That means he LIED. AGAIN.

Reply to this post

Response to MrDiaz (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:23 PM

christx30 (1,166 posts)

7. And people kept

Saying that Obama is against it. That he had no choice. It would have been voted into law anyway, and the veto would have been overruled. Besides, he would never use it. See? Its in his signing statement and everything!
So, Mr President, make them do that. And the f'ing shout it from the rooftops that the pubs just voted to lock up American citizens without trial or recourse. Say that you tried to stop them, but the opposition was too much and they overruled you. Or now that it has been struck down, let it die. Then it goes away (like you said you wanted) and you don't have an overridden veto.
Unless you're in favor of it. In which case, never mind.

Reply to this post

Response to MrDiaz (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:13 PM

alp227 (20,408 posts)