Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA

[MrDiaz]

Source: Internet

A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.

The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals court panel is expected to begin addressing the issue.

Read more: http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/

[msongs]

1. Obama's George W. Bush policy perpetuation scam nt

[magic59]

3. Hell, as long as there's 3 hots and a cot

I'm ok with it, may even enjoy the water-boarding, always like water sports.

[JoePhilly]

2. Mitt continues to have a very bad week.

[Ken Burch]

5. What the hell does THAT mean?

People who WANT American citizens who haven't been convicted of any crime to be kept under indefinite detention were never going to vote Democratic anyway.

Nobody who agrees with the bulk of Dem values is STILL in the immediate post-9/11 mindset.

[Turbineguy]

7. You're correct.

But can we put Rush Limbaugh in the pokie?

[Ken Burch]

8. Sure.

n/t.

[Fuddnik]

13. On edit:

Just don't feel like wading into tombstone territitory.

But, this is going to cost votes.

[Ken Burch]

17. saying that won't get you 'stoned

that would only happen if you CALLED on people to vote for somebody else in response to this.

[JoePhilly]

19. It means that Mitt continues to have a bad week.

[Ken Burch]

20. It's not a victory for our side that indefinite detention is ok, dammit.

Only people who oppose us on everything support indefinite detention. Mitt wouldn't have been able to do anything with it if the court had ruled the other way.

[fascisthunter]

26. this isn't something to cheer for

[sabrina 1]

28. It also means that we have dispensed with Habeas Corpus. Which means all Americans are

going to continue to have a very bad excuse for a Democracy. If Mitt had any brains, he would promise to restore our freedoms, the ones we were told was what made the terrorists angry at us.

I guess this means the terrorists are having a very good week.

[woo me with science]

65. You are seriously cheering this.

Disgusting.

[Ter]

31. Both candidates are pro-NDAA tools

n/t

[woo me with science]

64. Both candidates will expand the police state; both candidates will steal Social Security.

Wake the hell up, America. Get the damned banks and corporations out of our government.

Corporate rule is bad for human beings.

[W T F]

4. Good, Let's start with Congressional Republicans

[Poll_Blind]

9. I don't recall a Democracy needing to wish ANYONE into the cornfield.

PB

[GreydeeThos]

18. Rush Limbaugh needs a little time out in the cornfield

We can allow him back on weekends and holidays for entertainment purposes.

[Poll_Blind]

6. And the spirits of the Saints of Liberty and all who died for our Freedom cry out "Hooray! Hooray!"

PB

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Other news today is good; this is awful

And it's inexcusable that Obama wants this.

[SoapBox]

11. Agreed

...I'm not so happy with this.

[OnyxCollie]

12. But have you heard Obama sing?

"I, I'm so in love with you"

Best. President. EVAH.

[Marrah_G]

16. +1

[Octafish]

50. +2

I'm so old, I remember when Democrats thought civil rights were important.

[xiamiam]

55. nah..those days are over..its partisan politics above civil rights, the constitution, endless war

against a noun..I posted this yesterday and it got very little interest..du has been hi jacked by people who post about romney every day while crap like this is happening. I can't even find news here any longer..just partisan bs.

[kestrel91316]

14. He might regret this if someday some Republican president decides to declare some

Democratic politician a terrorist and whisks him/her away. And I fully expect that to happen if they win in November.

[MrDiaz]

15. thats my worry

but im worried that ANY presidents would have this power.

[Fuddnik]

21. Exactly

And once they have it, NONE of them want to relinquish it.

[renaissanceguy]

45. Absolutely. As Ben Franklin said...

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

It's things like these that really upset me about this president. He should know better. But once people have certain powers, they don't ever give them up. It'll be very dangerous if we were to have a Bush part II in the future.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[redwitch]

22. I agree. nt

[christx30]

29. I fail to see

how this is even Constitutional. They are essentially saying that he has the power just because... we say he does. Habeas Corpus and 4th amendment be damned.

[MrDiaz]

47. yyyuuuupppppp

Any one the federal government deems "dangerous" or a "potential threat", they can now just take you away, no lawyers, no contact to anyone, no defense! I felt the PATRIOT ACT was the biggest violation to our freedoms... but this just may be WORSE!

[christx30]

56. What's more...

The administration's response to the law being struck down was arrogant as hell. It was pretty much, "Who are you to disagree with us? What do you think you are? A branch of the government or something? Checks and balances? What's that?"
Here's a tip for Congress and the President: you are not kings. If you don't want your laws struck down, don't pass illegal, unconstitutional laws.

[midnight]

24. Like Siegelman?

[hootinholler]

39. Not exactly

He at least had the kangaroo court.

[fascisthunter]

27. no shit!

[alp227]

32. If the president made a signing statement

declaring explicitly against indefinite detention, why would the DO(nothing)J appeal the injunction?

The Obama administration fought the move, saying the law did not cover free-speech activities. It also claimed that the statute created no new detention authority that did not already exist in the original authorization to use military force. While Judge Forrest said she thought that it did expand detention authority, the fact that the government took the narrower view was "decisive" because it meant that "enjoining the statute will therefore not endanger the public."

[4th law of robotics]

33. I wish people would realize this

that their guy isn't going to be in office forever (8 years at the most).

Republicans cheer these sorts of things when they're in charge and get concerned when they aren't.

Democrats cheer these sorts of things when they're in charge and get concerned when they aren't.

Just think more than 5 minutes ahead people!

[struggle4progress]

35. The administration's view is that the law doesn't say what Hedges et al claim it says

[Wilms]

23. :( n/t

[rachel1]

25. K&R n/t

[bread_and_roses]

30. and this at same time AFGHANISTAN rejects indefinate detention

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/afghans-reject-us-favored-administrative-detention-17255073#.UFkcqFG1vyY

By HEIDI VOGT Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan September 17, 2012 (AP)

An Afghan judicial panel ruled Monday that administrative detention violates Afghan law, potentially thwarting a U.S. plan to hand over Afghan detainees that American officials believe should continue to be held without a trial.

President Hamid Karzai's office announced in a statement that a top-level judicial panel met earlier in the day and decided that the detention of Afghan citizens without a court trial "has not been foreseen in Afghan laws" and therefore could not be used.

[Nihil]

49. Ha ha ha ha ha!

So the Afghan government embraces freedom more than "The Land Of The Free"?!

Indefinite detention without trial must be one of those darn "freedoms" that all of those
anti-American "terrorists" hate ...

[struggle4progress]

34. The headline is anti-Obama propaganda from Russian state media.

[MrDiaz]

48. um ok

Is any of it false?

[treestar]

60. And as if the Russians can talk about any such thing

Yeah the headline is clearly someone's unsupported and uninformed opinion. Why is the OP afraid to cite the actual decision?

[MrDiaz]

61. Afraid to cite actual decision?

1 judge ruled it unconstitutional, the Administration immediately appealed it, that didn't work so they found a judge that would uphold that key portion in question...Here are multiple sources for you. But you probably think that they are all lies or, uninformed and unsupported opinions... Right?

http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-court-rules-favor-of-ndaa

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/10/appeals_panel_u.php

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/12895-appeals-court-judge-reinstates-indefinite-detention-for-now

http://indypendent.org/2012/09/28/obama-justice-department-goes-judge-shopping-ndaa-case

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ndaa-decision-extended-13339614

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/3/headlines/appeals_court_restores_ndaa_provision_on_indefinite_detention

http://www.businessinsider.com/court-extends-suspension-of-order-to-block-the-ndaa-2012-10

http://rt.com/usa/news/appeals-ndaa-detention-public-536/

[treestar]

62. Those are all newspapers - find the decision

Why are you suggesting that they found a judge who would do what they wanted? Are you saying the federal court system is corrupt? Wouldn't the bigger news story be the changing of judges to get the ruling they wanted? Or was it all done under a legal procedure?

What is the name of the case itself? You should at least know that, since it has undone the foundations of our government. I can find it if I know that and the district or circuit courts involved to be named would be a good idea. That would show you made some effort to find the facts rather than rely on the opinions of others. IMO most news reports end up being about the reporter's opinion, since they don't have patience to read the decision itself.

[marshall]

36. Just in time for Sam Bacile

He'll be cooling his heels in the poke for a while now.

[AnOhioan]

37. Yay us!!! Oh wait....

[sakabatou]

38. This is one thing I wish Obama didn't continue

[OnyxCollie]

52. Just one?

Damn, I've got a list...

[sakabatou]

53. No, it isn't just one.

This is one of x amount.

[OnyxCollie]

54. Understood. nt

[defacto7]

40. And why would he want to keep this power?

It seems very much out of character.

What could be the reason for him to go against what we thought he represented?

[gmpierce]

42. what?

Maybe, as a few people have said, right after the inauguration he was taken into a dark room and a couple of guys in black suits and sunglasses explained to him who really runs the country.

[defacto7]

43. Naaaa...

[tammywammy]

41. It's not indefinite at all. There's a stay on the injunction. Ridiculous headline. n/t

[Fuddnik]

44. Wrong.

[JackRiddler]

57. It's not the stay that's indefinite, it's the detention.

If you can't even understand the headline... don't post!

[Citizen Worker]

46. The Bill Of Rights is in intensive care. Death may be imminent.

[CrispyQ]

51. Not surprised.

PO'd, but not surprised. In some areas there are definitely differences between the two parties, but in other areas, not so much.

Be safe Chris Hedges & others like him.

[Denver Dave]

58. How many candidates mentioned the NDAA in the 1st presidential debate?

How may candidates mentioned the NDAA in the 1st presidential debate?

If you think zero, you listed to the private, limited, corporate sponsored debate instead of DemocracyNOW's expanded debate with more candidates and issues not addressed in the limited debate, such as the NDAA. See http://OpenUpTheDebates.org

Also, please sign the petition to Open Up The Debates:
http://www.change.org/petitions/open-up-the-2012-presidential-debates

[woo me with science]

66. Thank you. What too many Democrats don't get

is that the absence of other challengers doesn't just hurt the potential challengers; it keeps our OWN party from being responsive to us.

When the only other guy running is corporate, too, there is no pressure to appeal or respond to voters beyond the corporate agenda, because there is nowhere else those voters can possibly go.

Look at what is happening now. We have two candidates. BOTH will steal Social Security and impose austerity. BOTH will expand the police state and the wars. Both support indefinite detention and warrantless surveillance. BOTH will corporatize education.

The one percent have succeeded in narrowing the scope of debate and the policy options presented to Americans so much, that Americans forget what IS possible and what the Democratic Party used to stand for.

We desperately need reform of the system. Thank you for your post.

[Le Taz Hot]

68. Good points.

But I particularly liked your first paragraph. The process is STILL manipulated in smoke-filled room by people you and I will never know. The primaries are nothing more than a dog-and-pony show.

[woo me with science]

70. Well said. You can tell we don't have real representation anymore

by the fact that the policies coming out of Washington bear no resemblance whatsoever to what the people have said clearly, in poll after poll, that we want.

Poll after poll shows that Americans, by wide margins and across party lines, want to preserve Social Security benefits. Yet both candidates are prepared to cut them, and there is absolutely no debate about this in the media or on the campaign trail. It is presented as unavoidable....a given.

Surveillance and police state policies? Never mentioned in this election at all, and the people never consulted. They just metastasize.

And the wars....

Get ready for Grand Bargain redux. There will be plenty of political posturing and ostentatious "negotiations," but we all know already what the outcome will be. The people will get austerity, and the military industrial complex will be preserved. It's an old, familiar song...

No, we don't have representation anymore. And until the people rise up and take back control of our own elections and get the money out of the system, we won't.

[treestar]

59. How very unusual

A court decision that applies only to the Obama Administration? Or does it apply to the executive generally? Please quote the decision, not someone's conclusions about what it says, because that characterization must be wrong.

[woo me with science]

63. Unconscionable. Wake the hell up, America. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

67. If this were a Republican

DUers would be all over it. It's why I detest partisan politics -- it makes everything justifiable.

[woo me with science]

71. And it's why the oligarchy

spends billions fomenting the red/blue wars. Rush, Hannity, competing cable news stations....

We are played like fools.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

69. And people wonder why I will have a ---

hard time voting for him. Obscene, absolutely obscene. How many of us political activists have "associations" that many on the right consider "terrorist"? This is shameful on O's part -- a real stain on him and our country.

[woo me with science]

72. It is scary as hell.

Wake the hell up, America.

[woo me with science]

73. kick

Wake the hell up, America.