NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm...?

[NorthCarolina]

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.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html


What say you DU'ers, is the Obama administration correct on the issue of indefinite detention? Personally, I am against it and so agree with the decision of the court....but that's just me. How about you? I am curious as to the general mindset of other DU members on issues such as this.

[Robb]

1. Well, it's a nonstarter of an argument.

The judge has already said she ruled in favor of the injunction based on the administration's assertion that the law gives no new powers -- since there were no new powers, she argued, there could be no damage to national security by stopping it.

The argument put forward makes no sense, unless they're trying to lose the appeal.

[sabrina 1]

2. No they are not correct and it is shameful that they would challenge the ruling.

Indefinite Detention is a Bush policy. We were against it then, I'd like to know from anyone why we should be for it now.

I am thrilled with the Judge's decision.

Indefinite Detention if for Dictatorships, there is not an excuse in the world to even propose such a medieval, no it's even further further back than that, law in any modern country today after all the people who died throughout history to end these kinds of policies.

[99th_Monkey]

3. This is one of the biggest bones I have to pick with Obama

How can he keep pushing this indefinite detention crap when he is
supposedly an "expert" on the US Constitution?

It is shameful, it is un-American, and it is an egregious assault on the
civil liberties of Americans.

One can only hope that he's just posturing until after the election and is
just wanting to appear "tough on Terrorism" before Nov.; and will
instruct DoJ to drop the appeal after the election ... or maybe just do
a sufficiently sloppy job that it will again be ruled unconstitutional by
the higher court.