DOJ Says Ruling on Indefinite Detention Law Is ‘Unprecedented’

so is indefinite detention

would be well aware of that fact...

indefinite detention powers when and if we get into our next two wars.

...flies right over Eric's head.


''Whoa, whoa. You mean you expect me to uphold
the Constitution!?!?!''

intentionally doing this .....



(like mittens is intentionally destroying the Republican party so nothings left)

e.g. the internment of 120,000 citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry.

Here's the official explanation for that action: FDR gave authority to a racist military commander with a hard-on for war, who had been listening to racist rhetoric from community members and had received intelligence that signals had been sent to Japanese subs. He declared the entire West Coast to be a military zone and all Japanese and Japanese Americans ended up in internment camps. Everyone who disapproved and could have done something about it failed to do their jobs.

That's it.

What's left out is the economic interest and the decades of laws that prevented the Japanese from owning property (and later, renting property) and the ways farm corporations exploited the Japanese labor. When the Japanese were in internment camps and their crops needed to be harvested (farm corporations had liens against the Japanese crops), the farm corporations pressured the government to subsidize dummy corporations to harvest the crops (avoiding any exposure to risk) which would then sell back to farm corporations for cheap.

Big profits for doing nothing.

The value of the Japanese farms in 1985 dollars- between 800 million and 1.2 billion.

BTW, one of the community members who passed on racist rhetoric to Lt. Gen. DeWitt was California Attorney General Earl Warren, who would later become Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, and chair of the Warren commission which investigated the Kennedy assassination.

Oh, and the intelligence about the Japanese subs? Turns out it wasn't true, and the DoJ had tried to ensure that their disagreement would be included in DeWitt's report that was to be sent to the SCOTUS for review on the internment cases. However, when the DoJ tried to see the report, they were lied to and told that the report had already been printed (it wouldn't be printed until two weeks later.)

Does any of this sound familiar?

Wars fought by liberal Democrats are very, very bad for civil liberties. CHAOS, COINTELPRO (antiwar component), GARDENPLOT, etc. all hatched under Johnson, as was the use of mass terrorism and psychological operations in war (Phoenix Program, CORDS) and covert operations (CONDOR).

and people here were trying to justify the initial defense saying it was only standard procedure. It's pretty clear how the administration actually feels, despite the feel-good, weasel-worded signing statement.

...there's no Constitutional authority which permits the use ''signing statements'' to get around portions of a law that a president may not like. That would be tantamount to a line-item veto, which the Constitution doesn't provide for.

Criminals have rights under the law, even enemy criminals, so they call the new breed of criminals, terrorists, by other names, to get around the Constitution and the law on which they are based. How is that allowed in the first place?

....is the sheer bald-faced unconstitutionality of the powers the admin. wants the president to have.

Deeply troubling. Disturbing.

They will, I guarantee, muck it up.

...that is the one place where the idea of giving the Executive Branch more power (particularly this one) where this ''Star Chamber'' provision of the law might be scotched.

He doesnt care who is in office. Once the power is establish and accepted, bingo-bango, kiss Democracy good-bye.

...''the pursuit of happiness.''

There are 6 plantiffs. Among them are Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Danial Ellsworth. I wonder why the WSJ didn't mention that? Here is Chris Hedges article from this morning: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32460.htm
This isn't over yet, of course. But we have these plantiffs to thank for fighting the good fight here.

...that the WSJ presses would blow up if they tried to print the names of Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg at the same time.

- The liberal settings on those old conservative printers don't go that far......

internment of Japanese-Americans in WW2 was also by executive decree, not by Law, and was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1944. This Act is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

You are right, though, it didn't overturn internment. Not the Court's finest hour.

Korematsu v US (1944), "Japanese Internment Cases" - The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, adding, "The provisions of other orders requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding."


On This Day: Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Japanese ...
www.findingdulcinea.com › ... › On This Day
Dec 18, 2011 – 18, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that the wartime internment of Japanese-Americans was constitutional, ...

First, they chose to rule on what was before them, but instead of ruling on the detention (and providing a remedy for the interned) they ruled on the ability of the executive to successfully wage war. Second, they avoided the political question of waging war by deferring to the executive.

Justice Douglas wanted to provide an opportunity for the Japanese to prove their loyalty, but pressure by Chief Justice Stone resulted in him conforming to the majority.

See my post (#14) for more info.

Obama is dead wrong on this issue.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Power corrupts and all that ...

"Democratic mass parties are bureaucratically organized under the leadership of party officials, professional party and trade union secretaries, etc.... Of course, one must remember that the term 'democratization' can be misleading. The demos itself, in the sense of an inarticulate mass, never 'governs' larger associations; rather it is governed, and its existence only changes the way in which the executive leaders are selected and the measure of influence which the demos, or better, which social circles from its midst are able to exert upon the content and the direction of administration activities by supplementing what is called 'public opinion.' 'Democratization,' in the sense here intended, does not necessarily mean an increasingly active share of the governed in the authority of the social structure. This may be the result of democratization, but it is not necessarily the case.... The most decisive thing here- and indeed it is rather exclusively so- is the leveling of the governed in opposition to the ruling and bureaucratically articulated groups, which in turn may occupy a quite autocratic position, both in fact and form." -Max Weber

People have even written theories about it and stuff.

Maybe if you weren't so rude and conceited, you might not be so fucking ignorant.

Maybe you can find someone to help you with reading comprehension. Is your Mommy around?

It's right up there for you to read.

Here's what you wrote: What's unprecedented is the Justice Dept. claiming the President has autocratic power.

Goddamn, you just keep doubling down on stupid.

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

With that, I'm ending this waste of time.