Obama administration argues for detention of Americans

1. 73

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   Even though he stated he would veto the bill if it included the indefinite detention of Americans, Obama signed the NDAA bill in to law.  Now an injunction is administered by a judge questioning the Constitutionality of this part of the law and the Obama team is appealing the decision.
   
   
   When President Barack Obama signed the bill on December 31, he granted the government the power to put any American away in jail over even suspected terrorist ties, but federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that this particular part of the NDAA, Section 1021, failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary injunction.
   
   On Monday, White House attorneys asked for an appeal for that injunction so that they’d be once more legally permitted to indefinitely detain anyone over mere accusations. When specifically asked to answer whether or not they’ve adhered by Judge Forrest’s injunction so far, though, administration attorneys refused to cooperate with the questioning.
   
   http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-injunction- … ntion-376/

   replyreport
   1. 36

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This law does concern me, however it certainly isn't the first law that attacked freedom.  The "Patriot Act" was also horrible.  I think that no administration should enact policies that can lead to torture, indefinite detention, etc.  It's a travesty - but to suggest only the Obama administration has done something like this is avoiding the larger issue of why, we as a people, don't hold ALL politicians accountable.  We tend to pick teams and look at our R or D side through rose colored glasses and that doesn't help either.  We desperately need more than this 2 party system of chaos.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am not suggesting anything, I am saying that a sitting Judge issued an injunction claiming indefinite detention of American citizens without Due Process is unconstitutional, And that the Obama administration is appealing the decision because they want the ability to make Americans disappear forever.  Using secret evidence in secret court proceedings, the Federal government of the United States has become a tyrannical dictatorship.
         
         With a Chief Executive boasting of his morning discussions concerning his "kill list", the POTUS is an accomplice in several homicides.  Ignoring international laws and behaving as if federal government is above the law! Since 9/11, the federal government has eviscerated the Constitution, all in the name of security, and in violation of their oath!  Breaking treaties that were freely entered in to by the government of the United States, the government is snubbing all legal procedures and precedents.  Even "plausible deniability" is ignored because of the arrogance that the people will never have the opportunity to have their grievances redressed!

         replyreport
2. 61

   Lemuel Martinposted 12 years ago

   Is there some reason that you, personally need to be concerned? I know it will never affect me. I am a law abiding citizen who supports President Omama. Next term will be different. Fox News will be out of gas.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What is the purpose of allowing the government to create laws that would allow it to act as a dictatorship, and just say 'they probably won't'?
      
      Do you think that is safe?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think the point about legislation like this is that it somehow never gets repealed, but stays on the statute books no matter who is in office.
      
      You might be safe while Obama is in office, but who's to know what one of his successors would do with powers like that?
      
      BTW the gradual incursion on civil liberties has been going on in the US (and in my country and elsewhere) for a while now. And it's a trend that has occurred regardless of which party is "in power".

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      It matters not how it would effect me personally.  The fact is that there are laws in place right now that could never be considered Constitutional.

      replyreport
   4. 73

      aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ironically the Jews said the same thing when Hitler passed similar legislation, nobody thought he would do what he did, and he was also a charismatic leader who gained power by oratory, and a good working knowledge of the law.
      
      But I am sure you need fear nothing, at least until you are taken off the streets and disappear, with no recourse.
      
      You should be horrified and complaining because what he has done is totally contrary to the constitution, but I guess if you support him.....

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Lemuel Martinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Don't make me go there.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh it will not be ME that makes you 'go there'.... you will vote for going there.

            replyreport
   5. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Anytime our rights are being eroded, we should be concerned. It bothers me greatly that Obama said (during his first campaign) that he would protect the rights of whistleblowers, in the interest of transparency. Wow, that was a lie! His department of Justice has instead used the antiquated "treason" law to prosecute whistleblowers. It's mind boggling that Americans aren't paying attention. Wake up folks. This stuff is real - it just ain't real good.

      replyreport
3. 73

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   The El Paso County resolution asserts that NDAA detention and other civil liberty crushing acts in the name of the “War on Terror” hands victory to the enemy.
   
   “Undermining our own constitutional rights serves only to concede to the terrorist demands of changing the fabric of what made the United States of America a country of freedom, liberty and opportunity.”
   
   Six other local governments have also passed resolutions opposing sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Most recently, the Northampton, Mass. city council unanimously passed its version. Counselor Bill Dwight (D) said the body discussed the value of a small town of 29,000 passing such a resolution, asking, what difference will it make?
   
   “The argument that we advanced was that we’re witnessing, essentially, an easy accommodation of the death of a thousand cuts of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights actually affects the 29,000 people who live in this city, who dwell in this city. That’s our province. These are the people we were elected to represent,” he said. “And then we spoke with a unified voice and said, ‘This is unacceptable.’”
   
   Dwight lamented that we have “made this easy accommodation” and the fact that we have by-and-large allowed fear to manipulate us.
   
   “We’ve reacted contrary to our oaths, as Matt Shea said. I mean, our first oath of office is to protect the Constitution of our states and the Constitution of the United States. And we have no greater obligation beyond, you know, fixing potholes and all the other sundry things we’re assigned to do, we have no greater obligation, no higher calling than to protect the Constitution, which is clearly in jeopardy.”
   
   http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02 … rty-lines/

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Faybe Bayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I hate to be a party pooper, I couldn't find the bill in any of the posts. I actually did find it posted online a few months ago and I read it, the parts that are ticking everyone off... It wasn't at all what everyone thinks it is, have any of you actually read the bill?

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Faybe Bayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Just in case anyone wants to read it, here it is. I can't remember the exact sections that caused the uproar but if memory serves it said specifically that they could detain people who participated in the 9/11 terrorist acts whether they were US Citizens or Foreign Nationals. I believe the reasoning behind the bill, at the time it was written, was to assure Americans that our country would not go easy on people just because they had US citizenship. Our laws currently protect Americans from detention, even if you participated in the 9/11 attacks. What with all of the conspiracy theorists out there who say that we did it, either Bush or the US Military, well you can understand why they wrote it if you look at the reasons, but does it impose on our civil rights? Not unless you participate in terrorist acts, and would you want terrorists walking the streets free, just because they have US citizenship? I know I wouldn't. http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cf … and-report

      replyreport
      1. 73

         aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Of course, this depends on who is deciding what the definition of terrorism is?
         
         When does a 'dissident' become classed as  a 'terrorist'?
         
         Was George Washington a terrorist?
         
         What happens if an American wants to overthrow a fascist government who ignore or change the Constitution unlawfully, would just announcing the intended overthrow or expressing the desire to see it be classed as 'terrorism' (and let's say that the dissident owned several weapons and belonged to a militia group who met to discuss these things?)
         
         Your constitution has been violated, and any citizen should be concerned about that, and I am not even an American, but protest that incarceration, for life, without trial, is wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Faybe Bayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            again, if I am correct, and I read the correct part, the detainees would have been participants in the 9/11 attacks, now if that was meant to overthrow our government it didn't work, if it had any participants who remain alive would be receiving a medal. Perhaps I didn't read the right part, but I think I was thorough. I can go ahead and read it again tomorrow, or anyone can read it now because it's posted here for all to read. I mean I have a tendency to question what the media feeds me with a spoon, especially internet media and news stations that are owned by large corporations, so I looked it up and read it for myself.

            replyreport
         2. 67

            Faybe Bayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh and Hi Aquasilver, I've been away awhile, it's great to see that you're still here, so many people have left.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Plodding on, and not writing much, but thanks for the 'hello'!
               
               John

               replyreport
4. 65

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   With such a news how can we refer to the U.S. as a democracy? As the land of freedom? And the worst is that a democrat man was at the origin of the bill!

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Faybe Bayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      is that who I think it is, I cried when I saw all your hubs were down. I hunted you down on Google and never got a reply, or are you just a ghost, a remnant of who I think you are?

      replyreport
5. 61

   Lemuel Martinposted 12 years ago

   This is the same old Fox News distortion of facts that don't exist. They are the masters of agitated agitation.
   
   There is too much work left to be done for raw emotion to carry us through. The  Republicans made white collar crime legal. Let's focus on reversing that as our main priority. Everything else will fall in line behind it.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If the POTUS will announce that categorically no American citizen will be detained indefinitely without a fair public trial to establish due cause, then OK, can we see that sometime soon?
      
      Point two I agree on 100%, the 1% need to be dispossessed and power restored to the people under the constitution, and full rights in law.
      
      Illegal income taxation needs to be redressed for citizens, corporate taxation needs to be simplified, increased and enforced for corporations.
      
      Unconstitutional laws need to be repealed.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Lemuel Martinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are you even an American? I don't think so. I suppose you must come here via the internet to  babble about politics. They would have your hide in Malaysia if you spoke out against the honchos there.
         
         President Obama is Hitler? That's right president, Commander-In-Cheif. If you don't respect the office, you are not respectable.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I was born in England, by a happen chance my great Grandfather turned left and ended up in England when he left Ireland, if he had turned right, I guess I would be an American.
            
            Where you are born is a decision of history, and you do not look like a native American Indian, so I guess you ended up American by chance, just as I ended up English (not British you note).
            
            In truth I am a denizen of the world, citizen of the Kingdom of God, temporarily resident on earth and awaiting my call back to base.
            
            A stranger in a strange land.
            
            I come here to discuss things, just like every other forum member, I also write hubs, maybe you will if you are not pulled off before you reach your potential.
            
            I do write about what I see, in Malaysia as much as in the rest of the world, and the 'honchos' that run the country would indeed 'have my hide' if I spoke about their religion, which I accept, and besides which, frankly as a Christian believer I feel safer here than I would elsewhere, our religionists are not radical, they are moderate, and overall the Muslims I count as friends are generally very decent folk.
            
            Do you have a problem with Muslims?
            
            
            
            I indeed respect the office, it's the man I have a problem with, but you chose him, so it's not my problem what he does, except that what he does affects me anyway, and every other human on the planet, despite the fact that only you guys get to make the vote.
            
            Maybe we folk who come here to 'babble about politics' can influence you Americans to think outside your own constraints, but I doubt it, as generally the only Americans who actually see the rest of the world are tourists, or doing business, or subverting sovereign nations that do not comply with the financial desires of the 1%
            
            Your decisions on your POTUS's over the last few terms have not been good, but then you are only offered fully vetted members of the global elite, who are constrained to obey their orders from the 1%, so I guess it's not much of a choice.
            
            I did not call President Obama Hitler, though I can see that it is easy to draw conclusions based upon historic evidence.
            
            Hitler was born in Austria and his father was named Schicklgruber before he changed his name. Hitlers mother remarried, and Hitler rose to power by charisma and skulduggery.
            
            When he had seized control, he assumed powers that were outside of the German constitution and legal system, Hitler was seen as a 'saviour' of the Germans, and they in general idolised him.
            
            I am not your enemy, even if I do ask you questions you dislike, and have not answered:
            
            If President Obama will announce categorically that no American citizen will be detained indefinitely without a fair public trial to establish due cause, then OK, can we see that sometime soon?
            
            Answer me that, and I will be a happier man, maybe not safer, but definitely happier that my good American friends will not suddenly disappear without trace or legal redress.
            
            Like President Obama's historical records, and Mitt Romney's tax returns, simple disclosure and confirmation would make these things disappear and allow the public to make real decisions.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Lemuel Martinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               1, That's First Nation, or Native American, not Indian. The ignorant Europeans did not even know where they were. If you knew more Florida history, you would know that the Seminoles accepted run away slaves ("brought here by chance") as their own, thus the "Black Seminoles". I do have a trace of that Creek blood in my veins for whatever that is worth.
               
               2. If you are as you say, then you should be aware that it isn't by chance that you are not an American. As a "citizen of the Kingdom of God", you would do well to be concerned with the affairs of your King and keep your nose out of our American business.
               
               As for the rest of your comment, It is in the circular file (slang for trash can) where it belongs.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Pedantic political correctness.
                  
                  
                  
                  Unfortunately, "your American business' affects all of humanity, your reckless illegal invasions of sovereign nations to protect your 1%'s oil interests, your covert undermining of governments who seek to break free from the yoke of American colonialism, and your corrupt political parties run by Rothschild's puppets are all things which run contrary to Gods commandments and will.
                  
                  I can comment, expose and interfere and will continue to do so until Americans take back the control of their nation under the constitution and stop their illegal actions worldwide.
                  
                  Christ evicted the money changers and con men from the Temple, it was a good example of what we should be doing today.
                  
                  By all means put my words in your trash can, I understand that you are incapable of answering them, so you must divert the matter.
                  
                  If President Obama will announce categorically that no American citizen will be detained indefinitely without a fair public trial to establish due cause, then OK, can we see that sometime soon?
                  
                  Remains unanswered, until you can answer that, you are nothing but an apologist and fellow traveller for the 1% fascists who run your country, and your diversion tactics are symptomatic of many other folk who sign up just to side track topics.... I think we call them trolls.
                  
                  Been here two days with plenty of posts but no hubs.... ask someone from head office to write you something that may gain you some credibility, I'm sure you have folk that can do that.

                  replyreport
6. 73

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   Congress Wants To See Obama's 'License to Kill'
   
   Congress is considering two measures that would compel the Obama administration to show members of Congress what Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) calls Obama's "license to kill": internal memos outlining the legal justification for killing Americans overseas without charge or trial. Legislators have been asking administration officials to release the documents for nearly a year, raising the issue multiple times in hearings and letters. But the new proposals, including one from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) first flagged by blogger Marcy Wheeler and another in a separate intelligence bill, aren't requests—they would mandate disclosure. That shift shows both Republicans and Democrats are growing impatient with the lack of transparency on targeted killings.
   
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/3 … 23641.html

   replyreport