Federal Court Rejects NDAA's Indefinite Detention, Issues Injunction 301
First time accepted submitter Arker writes "A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. The Obama administration had argued, inter alia, that the plaintiffs, including whistleblower and transparency advocate Daniel Ellsberg and Icelandic Member of Parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir lacked standing, but Judge Katherine Forrest didnt buy it. Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle."
A small ray of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time someone stood up to the nightmare of a police state.
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism." Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist? You supported him therefore you supported terrorism. WAT?
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist?
My good friends call me Harry.
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:5, Funny)
To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.
That's because what they do is knowingly support terrorism, which is completely different.
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:4, Insightful)
It only applies to foreign nationals who are arrested overseas (i.e. not on American soil). If you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, you're safe. If you're arrested in America, you're safe. It's not a good law, but my god, does anyone on this site have any idea what it even says?
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:5, Informative)
Even being a US citizen doesn't protect you.
Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen living in Yemen who was thought to have ties to al-Qaeda. His 16 year old son was killed a few weeks later. They were executed by the US (using unmanned drones) without a trial or even charges being brought in the US.
The Wikipedia page gives a fairly comprehensive biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:5, Informative)
That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.
Trials in absentia are generally illegal in the United States. In the 1993 case Crosby v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law "prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial."
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:4)
If OBL had gotten a US green card first, would we just have to give up and let him have his way with us?
We'd have had to make a good faith attempt to capture him instead of moving right to assassination, if we cared about our laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that why everyone was cheering when bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALS? Let's face it, we went down the slippery slope of extra-judicial killings a VERY long time ago.
Here's the deal: you either accept that we are in an actual war against people who are trying to kill any Americans they can get their hands on, and we use military methods to deal with the threat. Or you accept that we are dealing with a bunch of common criminals, and we bring in the detectives, the cops, and the judges.
One or the other. Y
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have a very good point.
The military is really not well suited to track down terrorists and bring them to justice. They are better suited for use where the enemy is also an army. Terrorists operate in small cells and it requires detectives and cops to track them down and bring them to justice. The invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary since they were willing to turn over al Qaeda and it baffles me why we are still there when al Qaeda has been absent for years. (Iraq was never a terrorist th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf [gpo.gov], pg 265. Read it for yourself.
This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.
You're wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The AUMF is the "existing law" the NDAA codifies, you simply have chosen to misread the statute.
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Either we (Americans) believe in our core values (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Pledge of Allegiance, due process, etc.) or we do not. Personally, I do, because these values result in desirable outcomes in the long run, even if inconvenient in the short term.
These values apply universally. There are no exemptions for non-US citizens, location outside the US or convenience to US interests.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf [gpo.gov], pg 265. Read it for yourself.
This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.
FWIW, I have seen you post that before and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention. To be fair, earlier drafts of the bill did not include such language. So there is a reason that people got upset; it wasn't that lies were being spread. However, the language was modified in the final draft and people didn't get the memo. So thanks for pointing it out.
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we do. It says in very broad terms that US citizens may be detained without being charged or tried. Just because the president said it wouldn't be done does not mean that some future president would not do it. It very definitely needs to have a narrowing of the possibilities of application if its going to exist at all.
You mean the same President that swore he would Veto this bill but passed has no intention of taking the actions in the bill because he swears it won't happen?
The same Administration that swore the bill would not pass yet signed it at 11:59PM 12/21/12 when nobody was watching, and is fighting to keep the clauses in the Law, have no intentions of using the Law?
The terms "Gullible" and "Having the wool pulled over ones eyes" come to mind, but also "turning a blind eye" and a few others.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasnt that the same group that the FBI setup as a honeypot to catch terrorists?
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also about time we admit to ourselves that police state momentum (i.e. continuous expansion of government) is now in full swing and supported by ALL mainstream political interests. And the next step is admitting that those political interests work purely for themselves, and not "the people" as they claim (increasingly loudly).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just "political interests" (which I assume you mean political parties and candidates and other well-connected people or organizations), it's the regular American people too. Anyone who votes Republican, except maybe the die-hard Ron Paul people who aren't also Tea Party supporters, obviously supports a police state. And then anyone who supports Obama (which is most Democrats) strongly supports a police state too, because they're so dumb that they support anything Obama supports, even if back during Bu
Re: (Score:3)
Obama has gone along with the Republican agenda in the name of "compromise". If he were actually honest and principled, he would have opposed them at every turn, even if it meant getting nothing done and not getting re-elected.
1. Why didn't he close Guantanamo? It was his campaign promise. It doesn't matter what Congress says, he's the executive. He's enforcing an unconstitutional law in holding people there without trial, and that deserves impeachment. If he has to just let them go, even onto American
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
The step after that, is admitting that this is also supported by mainstream Americans. Here at Slashdot we would like to think that it is the people -vs- the politicians. But in reality the people support this too. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, most Americans trust the government and the military to look out for them, and so they support warrant-less wiretapping and infinite detention because they perceive that it protects them from terrorists.
I'm sorry, but the enemy is us.
Someone please free us (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A small ray of hope (Score:4, Interesting)
Dont worry, the judge will find himself on a free vacation at Gitmo for his crimes against the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not on this issue.
No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (Score:5, Insightful)
When it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll affirm the law. They've been asleep at the wheel for 10 years, why wake up now? I'm pretty sure that most of them aren't even aware that there *is* a 4th Amendment at this point. And they probably think Habeas Corpus was a Roman emperor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like they struck down the Patriot Act, retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping, and all the other laws that have made torture and infinite detention with no trial legal?
Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statement, combined with your sig, gave me a serious headache.
The Republicans are offering coporate slavery.
The Democrats are offering government bureaucrat slavery.
They both are willing to use the military, the "War on [Terror|Drugs|Poverty|Obesity|Bullying|CO2]" to get their way.
Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're mistaken.
The Republicans are offering corporate slavery.
The Democrats are offering corporate slavery.
There's some minor differences in the particular corporations they would enslave you to.
Corporatism is the enemy of left and right (Score:2)
Exactly so. Anyone who's not part of the mainstream political establishment, including Tea Partiers, Occupiers, and libertarians, should be working together to fight the corporatism that strangles us all. Instead, activists on the left and the right are assiduously kept distracted by hating the other side, often by being fed caricatures of the other side's motivations.
Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the Tea Partiers at all. It was probably accurate back when that group first got started, but they were very quickly co-opted by corporate interests, so nowadays they're just the more extreme wing of the (corporatist) Republican party. It's sad, because they had some good principles at the very beginning, but just like how easily the Obama voters were led into accepting and backing Bush policies just by having "their guy" parrot them, the TPers were easily led into pushing for tax cuts for the ultra-rich and corporations by some politicians claiming to be for them.
Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (Score:5, Insightful)
The Court can only strike-down cases brought before them, and the government (both Bush and Obama) have been very careful to make sure that doesn't happen. They drop the case before it ever has a chance to reach the justices.
BUT when the justices have reviewed cases, they've typically sided with the Constitution, such as striking down the Washington and other city's laws that effectively-forbid ownership of guns. Striking down a law that forced states to build nuclear disposal sites. Striking down warrantless searches of our cellphones. Striking down random stops along highways (unless there's a specific & urgent need: such as locating an escaped prisoner). The Court of the last ten years has done more to limit the government's power than the Court from 1940 to 2000 (which was expansionist).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Libertarians think they're getting freedom by eliminating the government. They're just getting corporate slavery.
More like freedom where you choose which corporation you want to deal with. (1) Libertarians are not Anarchists. Just as Fascist/corporatists are not Communists. Libertarians don't want to eliminate government completely but instead, to quote Jefferson, "If it were possible to have no government, we would. But we need to government in order to protect our rights." He also said, "No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him."
(2) It is government that gave Comcast its monopoly over my neighborhood. If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple or MSN or Time-Warner could enter the market and give us some choice.
(3) And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.
That's not what most people who identify as libertarian usually say. Much more often, libertarians say that a truly free market would lead to an increase in prosperity that would make those measures so much less necessary that voluntary charity would be sufficient to meet the needs of those who genuinely can't take care of themselves.
Dissonance (Score:4, Funny)
/head explodes
Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (Score:4, Informative)
It is government that gave Comcast its monopoly over my neighborhood. If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple or MSN or Time-Warner could enter the market and give us some choice.
Well, that depends on where you live, doesn't it?
It's also quite possible that Comcast would come in and build it's network--you know, place their wires under the street--and offer service. Time-Warner would come in, look at the expense on running their own wires, see they have competition which is going to limit how much they can charge and how quickly they will make back that investment and say, "Nah. Not worth it."
On the other hand, if The Government lays down the wires and allows these companies to use them to deliver services (charging them all an equal fee for use of the wires), then you might actually have quite a bit of competition. Of course, that wouldn't be a good thing because "Government Owning Stuff Is Bad."
And, depending further upon where you live, Comcast might show up, take one look, and say, "No way would this be worth it." Then you got nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the only provision that you mention that the SCOTUS has upheld was the "material support" provision. It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.
Most of the other Patriot Act and FISA laws get dropped by the government when they get to court. They know, for instance, that courts are not going to uphold a law that prevents people from talking about secret warrants, so they bow out instead.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
The Court can only strike-down cases brought before them, and both Bush and Obama were very careful to make sure that doesn't happen. They drop the case before it ever has a chance to reach the justices. (Note that RIAA and MPAA use the same technique, to avoid getting DMCA or ProtectIP struck down.)
When the justices have reviewed cases before them, they've typically sided with the Constitution, such as striking down the Washington's law that effectively-forbade ownership of guns. Striking down a law that
Re: (Score:2)
Well, all Very Serious People know the Founding Fathers had their fingers crossed when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They only meant for the 2nd and 10th to be taken seriously.
Signing Statement? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about Obama's signing statement in which he decried the very power he was accepting by signing the NDAA? Do you mean to tell me Obama was dishonest in his disapproval of infinite detention? Shocking.
The crazy thing is some people actually bought the argument that this clause was forced on him by Congress. The fact that he's defending it in court makes it absolutely clear what his stance on infinite detention is.
Re: (Score:2)
This is something that was never 100% clear for me: where is the responsibility shared vs divided when it comes to the DOJ attorneys, or any particular area of government's own sanctioned attorneys? Is it entirely at the direction of the president that they function, or who is responsible if they are advocating a position in a particular case?
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:5, Informative)
Obama directed the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He could do the same with any other law. This is why his argument that "we have to enforce the law" when it comes to Cannabis dispensaries [laweekly.com] is entirely bankrupt.
That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.
If you're someone who wants to laud Obama for his Civil Rights record, ask yourself how many gay people there are in jail for being gay. Then ask yourself how many Cannabis smokers there are in jail. Why not attack the bigger problem first?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but anti cannabis bigotry is far, far worse than anti-gay bigotry. Around 5-10% of the population is gay. Around 10-20% of the population smokes pot. Neither of these groups pose any threat to anyone whatsoever.
Gay people might get fired because of bigotry. Worst case scenario one is lynched, once a decade or so and there's a huge outcry of sympathy.
Pot smokers on the other hand go to jail regularly. Persecution of pot smokers is official government policy. When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.
Every time a pot smoker is arrested, that's a hate crime.
Re: (Score:3)
When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.
It is standard process that an officer is placed on paid administrative leave in ALL shooting deaths. So, it doesn't matter if the officer shoots a "harmless pot head" or a machine-gun-wielding terrorist roaming a college campus. They get paid administrative leave.
This is to allow them time to investigate and see if the action taken was justified. "Why don't them place them on unpaid leave during that time?" Because you cannot punish a person prior to due process taking its course.
Re: (Score:2)
When the law itself is completely unreasonable, it's completely reasonable to label the valid application of the law a hate crime. It was once illegal to marry outside your race, or drink at the wrong water fountain. The valid application of those laws was a hate crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law ITSELF is based on racist (and classist) moors.
It's Moops!
Re: (Score:3)
Sober people cause fatal accidents too. Perhaps we should prohibit sobriety.
See what happens when you argue from emotion instead of reason? You come to idiotic conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
Well you shouldn't. If someone calls me a "white honkey" I am not harmed by that act. It's just words and I can walk away from the idiot.
If someone beats me up, I can pull my gun and kill him. Per my natural right of self-defense.
BUT if the government has control over my body, and forbids me from smoking weed (or snorting coke) (or drinking alcohol) then that is a FAR more dangerous thing. It means the politicians and bureaucrats have control over my body, like a Middle Ages lord over his serf, and ca
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.
He also fails to uphold the Constitution by doing so, a clear violation of his oath of office. There is no wiggle room here, from Article II:
Re: (Score:3)
Pot smokers can choose not to smoke pot.
Gay people cannot choose not to be gay.
That is why the Gay rights issue is a higher priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's only a hero on the stump.
Re: (Score:3)
The SCOTUS has already ruled that signing statements have no legal standing. They apply to the president currently in charge, but not future presidents.
Also Obama's white house was the source of these two sentences. His administration specifically asked Congress to add them to the NDAA. So he's trying to pretend "I don't want indefinite detainment" while working behind the scenes to add it to the bill. I thought Clinton and Bush were skilled liars/deceptors, but Obama makes them look like amateurs.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I thought Clinton and Bush were skilled liars/deceptors, but Obama makes them look like amateurs.
I dunno, it doesn't get any more amateurish than this. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks what a turncoat authoritarian bastard this mother fucker is. And yet people still fall for it.
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>yet people still fall for it.
Exactly. Even when I post direct articles from reputable sources like NYtimes or USAtoday about Obama assassinating 3 Americans (including a 16-year-old boy) without giving them their constitutional right to a trial to prove their innocence, there are some people who refuse to believe it. And continue loving the man. (Or just call me racist against black people.)
Re: (Score:2)
Who'd have thought Nixon was one of our more honest presidents?
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about it? He should be thrown out of office on treason against the constitution. I'm not arguing whether or not any of his other policies are good or bad, and will not state my political affiliation. However, when a president blatantly violates a basic freedom that so many Americans have fought to protect, a freedom he has sworn to protect, then he deserves treason charges. And yes, GWB deserved it also for the exact same reasons.
But the sheep that live in this country will ignore it and instead either applaud or crucify him for his social policies. Pitiful.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:5, Informative)
You've been tricked by a summary rife with propaganda.
The the lying demagogue who wrote the article states, "Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle." The deceitful bastard was clever enough to include a hyperlink, knowing you wouldn't click on it but would instead just accept it as gospel. But go ahead, click on it. The recent statements referred to are from a joint letter by several former officials. Their names?
Edwin Meese - Republican Attorney General under Reagan
Michael Mukasey - Republican Attorney General under George W Bush
Michael Chertoff - Republican Secretary of Homeland Security under George W Bush
Steven G Bradbury - Republican Head of the OLC under George W Bush
Daniel Dell'Orto - Republican Lawyer for the DOD under George W Bush
David Rivkin - Republican Legal Counsel to both Reagan and George HW Bush, and the guy behind the lawsuit against the ACA
Charles Stimson - Republican Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of "Detainee Affairs" under George W Bush
Paul Butler - Can't find any details on this guy, but he's definitely not the Democrat of the same name who died in the 60s.
Seven Engel - One of the lawyers in the anti-ACA lawsuit.
Paul Rosenzsweig - Member of the Heritage Foundation, a well known right-wing think tank.
Do you really think anyone on that list is speaking for the Obama administration? Sadly, the truth takes time to dig up, and in that time hundreds of people have no doubt seen the summary and your post, and fallen for the propaganda. What hope does truth have against such well-engineered lies?
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Irrelevant. It was OBAMA who told Congress to add those two sentences for indefinite detainment w/o trial. The only reason he would do that is so he can use the power to grab Americans off the streets, accuse them of being terrorists, and then lock them away for 10 years w/o a trial to defend their innocence. (Probably in Guantanamo... the place Obama promised to close but never did.) Obama also assassinated 3 americans in Africa, including one 16-year-old boy, and without giving them their recognized right to trial. He is NOT the honest man you believe him to be.
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:5, Informative)
So it's irrelevant that the summary is a lie? Sure, yeah, who gives a fuck about the truth when you have a political axe to grind.
Furthermore, Obama did not insist on the addition of "those two sentences for indefinite detainment". The indefinite detention section was already there, but only applied to Al Qaeda. Obama asked for it to be expanded to cover other terrorist groups. But it can't be used to "grab Americans off the streets", as you claim, because it also says:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
But let me guess... that's also irrelevant. No truth is relevant if it goes against your limitless hatred.
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:5, Informative)
There are more than two sentences about that.
The "two sentences" the administration fought to have added, once it was clear that the Congress wouldn't pass the NDAA without indefinite detention language, were the ones that provide that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA neither "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force" nor affect any "law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States".
The President stated at the time that the original language would be unconstitutional and unacceptable and require a veto, and -- in his signing statement -- that with the new language the provisions were still undesirable, and unnecessary since they had no effect beyond what had already been done by the AUMF.
The court in its preliminary injunction disagreed and said that as a principal of construction statutes should be read as doing something, and that the something that the NDAA did on this issue appears to be unconstitutional. The difference between the court on the administration isn't over whether the NDAA doing anything beyond what had been previously been found to be authorized by the AUMF and found constitutional by the Supreme Court in cases challenging actions under the AUMF would be unconstitutional, the difference is over whether the NDAA, on its own terms, actually does anything at all on the issue.
Note that this has set up a controversy under which a court siding with either the administration or those challenging the law would find no new power under the NDAA -- if the administration is right, the NDAA has no effect on indefinite detention powers regardless of its Constitutionality. If the challengers are right, the NDAA's detention provisions are unconstitutional, and, as such, have no effect.
Congress blocking funds from being used for that purpose repeatedly since Obama came to office has nothing to do with that, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the actual signing statement, he didn't deride the indefinite detention power, largely because the NDAA did not create any new indefinite detention power. Specifically, while he objected to earlier language regarding indefinite detention than was in the final bill which would have expanded indefinite detention power -- and objected to other provisions in the bill -- his signing statement
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it.
If he wanted to reject those provisions, he should have vetoed it. Actually, if he wanted to adhere to his oath to uphold the Constitution, he is required to veto it. But he didn't, so we know how much an oath is worth to Barack Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First: Veto it? He don't need no stinkin' veto. He could have asked Harry Reid not to even let it come up for a vote in the Senate, like they have done with budget proposals for the last 1134 days.
Second: Really? He had to sign it, 'cause he was scared of "right wing heads"? He is so ineffectual that he can't make a cogent argument that burying the 4th amendment and shredding habeas corpus is stupid? I knew he sucked as a President, but....that's just plain scary. Damn. Just....damn.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just how gullible are you? Has the phrase "He beats me because he loves me" ever passed your lips?
If selling out every democratic principle is what it takes to win Congress's trust, we don't need it. We'd be better off with a president that vetos every single grab for power and gets nothing else done, than we are with this collaborater.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why so many people have trouble with the idea that Obama does all of these crazy illegal things that he hates because he's trying to win Congress's trust.
He doesn't need Congress's trust. He needs the American people's trust. And the country needs to know that laws are being followed and enforced fairly if we don't want the place to turn into a totalitarian regime. Constitutionality is more important than law, and following the law is more important than any political jockeying.
And if you don't understand how important that is, consider how you reacted when George W Bush did all sorts of crazy illegal things. If it's ok for presidents you like to do somethin
Re: (Score:2)
And if you don't understand how important that is, consider how you reacted when George W Bush did all sorts of crazy illegal things. If it's ok for presidents you like to do something, it's also ok for presidents you don't like to do the same thing.
Would you say that the American people frequently let Obama get away with crazy illegal things?
...and might that not imply that he already has their trust?
(Spoiler warning: I'm Canadian.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he has their misplaced trust. It would be best for everyone to divest themselves of that as soon as possible.
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh...
Re: (Score:3)
If he wanted to reject those provisions, he should have vetoed it. Actually, if he wanted to adhere to his oath to uphold the Constitution, he is required to veto it. But he didn't, so we know how much an oath is worth to Barack Obama.
You can't veto the NDAA, because then how are you going to pay the troops without authorization? That's why the NDAA always contains crap like this, because it's "must pass" legislation.
However, Obama did the right thing in this case. He gave a signing statement that had no power, but puts his views on the matter on record. He then signed an Executive Order baring the execution of the law, as he deemed it unconstitutional.
BTW, who's fucking complaining about the Republicans breaking their own legislative ru
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what Fox presents it as? It's not like any Fox News viewers are going to vote for Democrats anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop pretending like this isn't how Washington works.
Washington doesn't work, that's the point. When the most promising opportunity for actual change in an entire generation comes along, and it's utterly pissed away like this, it's time to give up on working through the system. It's completly broken, and cannot be repaired.
The only chance of this getting better is for the people to take the streets, and not give them back until our Constitutional rights are restored.
Re: (Score:3)
Either 1) it's irreparably broken and you need to stop blaming Obama for things that apparently are out of his control
Obama has the power to fix a lot of problems with the country. The problem with the system is that no one who actually wants to fix the problems can ever get elected.
2) instead of griping about how awful the system is, run for office and fix it yourself, or start your own PAC for change, or otherwise try to make things better.
Are you stupid? PACs are useless without major corporate donors.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it. It's not as if he didn't have the text before it passed.
What a show. Nobody seems to have heard that those provisions, ensuring that they applied to US citizens, were included at the request of the White House [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wow. Just wow.
How does State Spooge taste, slave?
Re:Signing Statement? (Score:4, Informative)
Having the DOJ actually dispute it in court
Where on earth did you get that from? It's the DOJ that's *DEFENDING* this law in court, not opposing it.
Re: (Score:2)
And Romney won't either. He has already stated that he supports this travesty, so I see no reason why he wouldn't support the next one.
Watch out! (Score:2)
Obama is going to kick your terrorist-loving asses!!!
Where did we store the Guillotine? (Score:2)
When the merde hits the fan, we might need to use it on those "security officials" who wrote a PDF to Congress and the judge demanding that the NDAA indefinite clause be left untouched & enforced.
Constitutional rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
I Feel Dirty Somehow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.
I'm fine with Ellsberg filing the lawsuit. I don't often agree with him, but he's a citizen. But an "Icelandic member of parliament" should have exactly zero standing on this unless we've snatched an Icelander, which to my knowledge, we haven't done. This reminds me of those Spanish judges issuing "international arrest warrants" for various and sundry "war criminals". There may be some rotten guys on their list, but a Spanish judge has no business issuing a warrant for an international that's never done any
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, she does have standing. As a member of parliament, she could be expected to travel to the US for official state visits. Her records have already been subpoenaed by the DOJ because of her association with WikiLeaks. Therefore, if her simple presence in the US could make her subject to indefinite detention, she does have standing - remember, she was afraid to come to the US to testify for that exact reason. Remember, the US Constitution doesn't apply only to US citizens, it applies to anyone sub
Re: (Score:3)
According to TFA, the government refused to say whether the Icelandic parliament member was violating the law or could be jailed. Perhaps we haven't snatched any Icelanders yet, but the government is still reserving the right to do so in the future and specifically is reserving the right to snatch this particular person.
Of course, the government probably wouldn't snatch any Icelanders, but that would be because of selective prosecution--the law lets them snatch anyone. If the law lets them snatch anyone,
inter alia (Score:3)
First time accepted submitter Arker writes inter alia when he meant to say either
In context, the usage is not clear, but I'm guessing the first one. In case it helps someone who likewise wanted to know if it could possibly be used as an innuendo. I don't like learning new words that can't be innuendo'ed.
What statements? (Score:2)
All I saw was a letter from a congressman signed by former members of staff.
The actual ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
We don't need one.