General Discussion

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

71. For the people insisting that the law could never be applied to American citizens, I have a question

Fri Jun 8, 2012, 01:27 AM

Jun 2012

If a provision in the NDAA says it's inapplicable to American citizens, and the judge's injunction merely prevents the Executive Branch from applying the law to American citizens, then there's no harm to the decision, right? And, more to the point, there's no valid reason for the Obama administration Department of Justice to appeal the ruling, right?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NDAA unconstitutional: Federal judge bans Obama from indefinitely detaining Americans [View all] lovuian Jun 2012 OP

That's awesome news. teddy51 Jun 2012 #1

I think so to lovuian Jun 2012 #2

There seem to be allot of things along those lines he doesn't get. teddy51 Jun 2012 #10

There's no reason for him to "get" things that are completely imaginary in the first place. TheWraith Jun 2012 #13

That might be your take on it, but others don't see it that way. teddy51 Jun 2012 #16

how do you explain the Judge's ruling? lovuian Jun 2012 #17

It's explained by part of the NDAA very definitely pertaining to US citizens. nt MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #22

Funny that at least one judge and several that had a part in writing the thing TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #32

So you believe your interpretation is the only interpretation. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #36

exactly and so did the Senators who signed it lovuian Jun 2012 #46

Some might say it doesnt really matter. Bush already inacted indefinate detention rhett o rick Jun 2012 #62

No, SCOTUS decided that they needed a military review panel for due process. boppers Jun 2012 #72

Thank you. I agree she addressed indefinite detention and said, "but only providing that the rhett o rick Jun 2012 #95

The judge read it in there and ruled it unconstitutional. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #70

You are incorrect. It does not say that, the government would not conceded that and the Judge morningfog Jun 2012 #92

The Judge disagrees with you. Your reading is incorrect. morningfog Jun 2012 #110

Apparently, that means nothing Ter Jun 2012 #75

Cool abelenkpe Jun 2012 #3

Whatever it takes. Fine by me, hope this holds up all the way. freshwest Jun 2012 #6

You have a good point there as well! One would think that Democratic Senators would have teddy51 Jun 2012 #11

Didn't the Obama administration propose this? lark Jun 2012 #104

Very good. Nt xchrom Jun 2012 #4

Rt.com.. SidDithers Jun 2012 #5

If I wanted to hear lies about lies, I'd just watch Fox News. nt TheWraith Jun 2012 #7

Is it inaccurate if so I'm sorry lovuian Jun 2012 #8

As a rule, Russia Today's accuracy... TheWraith Jun 2012 #12

I agree the headline is crap but the ruling seems to be there lovuian Jun 2012 #14

If the Judge saw a problem with it and stopped it, then there must have been a problem. teddy51 Jun 2012 #25

Wrong. boppers Jun 2012 #76

Part of it certainly does - and it's hideous MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #19

No, it's not. Sorry, it's one of the best news sources available right now. Although it does sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #58

Complete bullshit. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #69

"Judge Forrest does include in her ruling, however, that Americans can be indefinitely detained" boppers Jun 2012 #73

Interesting that you cant find it in the bill when lots of people, including a judge can find it. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #101

Do you accept LA Times? morningfog Jun 2012 #18

thanks morningfog lovuian Jun 2012 #20

Good! People who think that provision was hunky dory whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #27

If the story is being reported in US papers... SidDithers Jun 2012 #37

Why are we being treated to Red Baiting? whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #38

... SidDithers Jun 2012 #39

... whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #41

... SidDithers Jun 2012 #64

Good question. Sick of this kind of baiting. The only people I know who hate RT in this country sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #113

put the US stories up lovuian Jun 2012 #40

Post 18... SidDithers Jun 2012 #42

Yep it is a fact lovuian Jun 2012 #45

If the story is in the LA times, why did you use rt.com?...nt SidDithers Jun 2012 #51

If the story is in both, why does it matter? Occulus Jun 2012 #60

Why not? Even Hillary watches RT because 'they are good' she says. It is an excellent news sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #61

He probably just playing with Riftaxe Jun 2012 #63

RT is a far more reliable source than the right leaning LA Times. Why do you have more sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #100

Because the LA Times is Right Wing rag. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #115

Any comment on the actual story? morningfog Jun 2012 #65

Why dont you discuss the issue instead of trying to deflect the discussion? nm rhett o rick Jun 2012 #99

So, the LA times story doesn't agree with the rt story. boppers Jun 2012 #74

Do you have a link to the ruling itself or a link to an alternative analysis? morningfog Jun 2012 #84

I don't think I could do it better than you did. boppers Jun 2012 #116

Thank you. morningfog Jun 2012 #117

The media tend to gloss over important details, and go for sensationalism. boppers Jun 2012 #118

Here is what it actually says: morningfog Jun 2012 #93

The LA Times is a Right Wing rag. Surprising to see it here considering the huge outcry over sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #114

see post 18 and then apologize!!! lol. fat chance of that! Logical Jun 2012 #31

Here is a you tube lovuian Jun 2012 #9

Who wants to bet $20 that Obama will fight like a banshee MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #15

You have a point and let's see what he does next lovuian Jun 2012 #21

"NDAA which was badly needed" Why was it badly needed? teddy51 Jun 2012 #26

Fighting' TERRA!!! MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #50

You and I both know that's Bullshit. This whole bill is just another way to steal a little teddy51 Jun 2012 #52

Do you actually not know what the NDAA is? boppers Jun 2012 #77

I think it has a few more sinister parts to it than it does good ones. Those things may teddy51 Jun 2012 #102

If he starts using it against the GOP... Comrade_McKenzie Jun 2012 #28

And when a future GOP administration uses it against us... Zalatix Jun 2012 #49

that would suck abelenkpe Jun 2012 #34

He can just drone them instead KurtNYC Jun 2012 #48

He's making a list, he's checking it twice. MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #57

the veal is good ... tip your waiters .... heh .... nt littlewolf Jun 2012 #66

Actually, I'm sure he's glad that it was struck down. The Doctor. Jun 2012 #81

So the DOJ needs to start defending DOMA again? MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #82

Obama didn't sign DOMA. The Doctor. Jun 2012 #85

Why does that matter? MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #89

He has to fight it. NCTraveler Jun 2012 #103

Does he have to fight for DOMA as well? nt MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #109

That is good news bhikkhu Jun 2012 #23

I'm happy about this regardless of who happens to be in the Whitehouse. leeroysphitz Jun 2012 #24

wow, GREAT NEWS Logical Jun 2012 #29

The judge is an Obama appointee, so he gets half credit cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #30

I really like Obama.. but he is a PRESIDENT.. and ALL annabanana Jun 2012 #33

If the government appeals............. Swede Atlanta Jun 2012 #35

if the Appelate court overturns it then America justice system lovuian Jun 2012 #44

K&R for a modicum of sanity. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #43

Judge Forrest is a tinfoil hatter! Zalatix Jun 2012 #47

Blind Faithers whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #54

Did you read the article? The rulings? boppers Jun 2012 #78

Quotes would help. nm rhett o rick Jun 2012 #96

But not against journalists and activists, morningfog Jun 2012 #98

Hooray! NS2012 Jun 2012 #53

K&R! quinnox Jun 2012 #55

K&R Solly Mack Jun 2012 #56

great news Beringia Jun 2012 #59

K & R littlewolf Jun 2012 #67

She was appointed by Obama! usregimechange Jun 2012 #68

For the people insisting that the law could never be applied to American citizens, I have a question Jim Lane Jun 2012 #71

It's already being applied to American citizens. Has been for years. boppers Jun 2012 #80

HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2012 #79

So just reading some of the thread responses, a few people are disappointed...... marmar Jun 2012 #83

Very disturbing to see that marmar. But thankfully, it is only a few. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #105

The soap opera like, fainting spells exhibited by the "Source Guardians" are, and always have been Dragonfli Jun 2012 #106

The Obama administration ProSense Jun 2012 #86

All true, but the Government was unwilling to state that morningfog Jun 2012 #94

Guidelines are Sooo binding. "The administration later issued guidelines in February which rhett o rick Jun 2012 #97

So, since the judge banned Obama from using the provision, The Doctor. Jun 2012 #87

It's the headline on the story at the link, n'est-ce pas? marmar Jun 2012 #88

Je sais. The Doctor. Jun 2012 #91

Cool, but what about non-citizens? Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2012 #90

Yes, because the US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and as such we are bound by it. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #108

K&R And big Thank you to the judge. idwiyo Jun 2012 #107

Nov 2008 Mr Obama will close Gitmo.. end torture. lib2DaBone Jun 2012 #111

Obama should have known better than to sign that bill. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #112