Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

[rhett o rick]

26. Let's look at your logic here. The current law allows indefinite detention.

From Wikipedia: "The plaintiffs contend that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban respectively that the NDAA arms the U.S. military with the ability to imprison indefinitely journalists, activists and human-rights workers based on vague allegations."

And you call the plaintiffs "rightwing crackpot". You've gotten it backwards. The rightwing started this. The rightwing loves indefinite detention ala. Jose Padilla. The plaintiffs are seeking freedom from the threat of arbitrary indefinite detention.

The plaintiffs wanted the SCOTUS to find the NDAA's indefinite detention to be unConstitutional. But the Robert's Court told the plaintiffs that they would not be allowed to challenge the law until after they got arrested.

You are defending Bush's indefinite detention. You are defending the Roberts Court. You are defending indefinite detention.

The current law allows the government to arrest and detain American citizens just like Bush did with Padilla. And you approve.