Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:19 AM
Fire Walk With Me (38,893 posts)
NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue
WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.
The lawyers made the argument on Friday in seeking a stay of the ruling, issued earlier this week by Judge Katherine Forrest in the Southern District of New York.
Forrest had ruled on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who said they feared the government could grab them under section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. That section affirms the administration's right to detain any "person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," including U.S. citizens.
6 replies, 1135 views
NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue (Original post)
|Fire Walk With Me||Sep 2012||OP|
Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:24 AM
antiquie (4,133 posts)
3. I choose to believe
Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)
the Administration is appealing this ruling to get permanent blockage. I know, there I go being Pollyanna again.
Response to antiquie (Reply #3)
Mon Sep 17, 2012, 03:11 PM
truedelphi (30,694 posts)
5. I have no idea what you mean- it's a bit ambiguous.
Permanent blockage for this one case. Or extended to all cases.
Morning coffee not kicking in and more explanation appreciated.
We have already had the SCOTUS crowd approve of letting a guy whose crime was being black while driving being forced to have body cavity searchers. The ruling on that case was draconian enough. (No woman should approve of this ruling - I can clearly remember the joy that Chicago PD took in deciding that women driving late at night could be prostitutes, with coke up their snatch. So for decades, women after midnight needed to make sure someone was with them so they weren't abused by police.)
The NDAA needs complete removal.
Response to truedelphi (Reply #5)
Mon Sep 17, 2012, 05:36 PM
antiquie (4,133 posts)
6. I totally agree NDAA needs complete removal.
I was trying to find an excuse for President Obama's position, which I do not agree with; like maybe he was trying to get a result that could not be gotten around by Congress or another Executive Order.
(I am having difficulty waiting until November 7th to attack policy.)