HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Obama's Indefinite Detent...

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:59 PM

Obama's Indefinite Detentions OK'd by Judge

&feature=plcp

"WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals judge gave the Obama administration the OK to keep enforcing its indefinite detention policy Tuesday, issuing a temporary stay of a ruling that had found the practice unconstitutional." Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks discusses this decision and the Obama Administrations use of NDAA. Tell us what you think of indefinite detentions in the comment section below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/indefinite-detention-ban-_n_1893652.html

Support The Young Turks by Subscribing http://bit.ly/TYTonYouTube

Like Us on Facebook: http://www.fb.com/tytnation
Follow Us on Twitter: http://bit.ly/OkX87X

Buy TYT Merch: http://theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com/

Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here: http://www.current.com/gettyt

13 replies, 1241 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

Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:06 PM

1. The only source I trust on this is Amy Goodman. F* TYT & HuffHo; they're more interested in

building a following than they are in the full breadth and depth of this issue, e.g. Buy TYT Merch.

I guess I should at least be thankful that you didn't quote Russia Today (RT) on this.

My thoughts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101759155#post7

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:08 PM

2. I've got to say this is NOT a good answer to the international terrorist problem

Surrendering long held beliefs about the right of accused to have a 'speedy' trial in which they can know their accusers and make a legitimate defense may not make us barbarians but it certainly makes us less than English yeomen who were protected by the actions of the barons who forced the Great Writ upon the English crown.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:16 PM

3. Let us consider what will be surrendered if we experience another 9/11, or someone else in a

precarious position out there in the World, experiences that at this particular global financial moment, especially after 10 years of U.S. killing INNOCENT Muslims.

Don't forget War with Iran IS on the table, (just like the last time) whether we like that or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:30 PM

5. What does this have to do with another 9/11?

You would have to make the argument that had this law been on the books, we would not have had a 9/11. In that case we had an executive branch that completely ignored strong warnings leading up to 9/11, and never scrambled fighter jets to protect the Pentagon. How can you argue that the power to detain Americans without charging them with a crime could have helped? Given the way the political system works now, I can see a situation developing where campaign money is intrinsically linked with disappearing people. No, I am not saying Obama, but laws work for ALL presidents.

In addition to being a bad law, it is hard to see it actually being constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:49 PM

7. Indefinite detention/the end of Habeas Corpus came out of AUMF 2002 that resulted from 9/11. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:37 PM

6. I can't see how surrendering REAL "rights of man" to potential threats is a good bargain.

Frankly, I can't even see a break even.

Acceptance of ruining the lives of others by treating them as criminals without a trial is a huge mistake. It not only makes enemies, IT DEMEANS US.

If we want a government composed of clones of Dick Cheney, this is the path we must pursue. If we DON'T want a government composed of Dick Cheney-s then we MUST hold fast to the iron rod of human rights and despite the risk, extend humane, dignified treatment to those we assume to be our enemies.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:00 PM

8. "clones of Dick Cheney" is binary thinking. More things ARE possible. & What about what other

people, who could very likely be affected by this stuff, e.g. Libya, what about what THEY want?

Americans have the luxury of ideology, not only is it quite likely that put to a choice many Americans would choose to strive for safety and assume that there are more than just binary choices in the matter, the rest of the world is involved in this too and that's a world emerging from a global financial crisis and maybe even beginning to address a 2-state solution in the ME, in an environment that includes strong actors that favor war on Iran.

Romney wasn't a mistake.

Though I agree with your principles, the difference between principle abstract value and reality is not insignificant and probabilities, no matter how strong we might assume they are in a certain direction, a direction that for some reason usually coincides with our own position on a given issue, btw, . . . that is, no matter how strong one thinks a given probability is, the reality is that you don't know whether the next instance of whatever will conform to your expectations or be something different.

Whatever the ideologues think about the principles, what about what the far far larger majority of non-ideologues want? Tell me why they don't count? Is it because we ideologues have somekind of superior position to decide what happens for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:07 PM

9. Doesn't violence & destruction SURRENDER far more than that which is violated & destroyed? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 07:37 AM

12. I think I kinda sorta said that.

At least it was sorta my intention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:24 PM

4. Yeah, this sucks

Obviously the Administration freaked because the injunction would have required them to immediately free everybody in secret and/or indefinite detention.

It's bullshit, though. We can't enjoy freedom and equality under the rule of law without having to take some security risks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:49 PM

10. "Justice" moves quickly when the Guvmint leans.

Why, I bet the plaintiffs hadn'd even finished their champagne and cake yet.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:56 PM

11. So sad to see the liberals all keeping quiet while our freedom disappears.

It's not worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 07:48 AM

13. That lawyers lost this round doesn't reflect on liberals in general.

There's a lot going on. When media don't trumpet this ruling nationwide, it's not just liberal silence, it's the general ignorance of what this article of the NDAA was all about that should be factored in. I'm sure the plaintiffs are going forward with this suit.

There was no general public discussion of Congress' renewal of The Patriot Act, either. Most people weren'te even aware that it was up for re-authorization until the day Congress voted for it. That bothered me just as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread