Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA - Polidicks

[QUOTE] 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. On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law, even though he insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement explaining his hesitance to essentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people. [I]“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,”[/I] President Obama wrote[I]. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” [/I] A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justice’s decision has been destroyed. With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person [I]"who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners"[/I] until a poorly defined deadline described as merely [I]“the end of the hostilities.” [/I]The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that the NDAA fails to[I] “pass constitutional muster” [/I]and that the legislation contained elements that had a[I] "chilling impact on First Amendment rights”[/I] [/QUOTE] Yeah, Obama's really doing your country good. [URL]http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/[/URL]

Oh god an RT article. where unbiased goes to die

I want to know how directly Obama is involved in this.

why do I get the feeling this article is an outright lie

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37719975]Oh god an RT article. where unbiased goes to die[/QUOTE] Other source [URL]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/18/court-restores-obamas-indefinite-detention-power/[/URL] [editline]18th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Amez;37719987]I want to know how directly Obama is involved in this.[/QUOTE] He signed it into law. Also; According to the Chairman of the Armed Services committee (Carl Levin: D-Mi), the Senate originally added an amendment precluding American citizens from indefinite detention, but the administration asked for this language to be removed (i.e. the Obama administration wanted the power to detain Americans) [URL]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302754-1[/URL] (around 4:43)

[QUOTE=Ridge;37719997]Other source [URL]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/18/court-restores-obamas-indefinite-detention-power/[/URL] [editline]18th September 2012[/editline] He signed it into law. Also; According to the Chairman of the Armed Services committee (Carl Levin: D-Mi), the Senate originally added an amendment precluding American citizens from indefinite detention, but the administration asked for this language to be removed (i.e. the Obama administration wanted the power to detain Americans) [URL]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302754-1[/URL] (around 4:43)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The provision was embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 by congressional Republicans, who crafted the bill to make it nearly impossible for Obama to shut down the Guantanamo Bay military prison.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ridge;37719997] He signed it into law. [/QUOTE] Obviously. I want to know if he actually intends to keep this part of the law, because at the moment I think it might be others in the White House pressuring him.

Detain Romney. Let the boxes shower.

[QUOTE=Amez;37719987]I want to know how directly Obama is involved in this.[/QUOTE] I have some doubt that he is involved too much. Obama Administration seem to make him look bad a lot.

[QUOTE=duno;37720039]Detain Romney. Let the boxes shower.[/QUOTE] He has immunity as a political candidate. [sub][sub][sub]i'm pretty sure some smartass is going to retort with "it's just been revoked" so this is a pre-emptive "Don't."[/sub][/sub][/sub]

No matter the party chosen out of the two, the foreign and security policies will remain the same it seems.

And then it was deemed unconstitutional because you can't hold citizens indefinitely against their rights. Seriously , Why even bring this up?

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;37720079]I have some doubt that he is involved too much. Obama Administration seem to make him look bad a lot.[/QUOTE]He has the authority to tell them to stop trying to appeal to keep the law in place. Guess what? He doesn't. Obama wants this law to exist.

[QUOTE=The golden;37720412]Wasn't this just ruled as unconstitutional?[/QUOTE] I don't think so, but if it was, that doesn't mean the ruling is final. They've been appealing every ruling (both sides) so this is obviously going to the supreme court, who will hopefully rule it as unconstitutional, then again they've made some pretty stupid calls as to what the constitution means before. An injunction was put in place, temporarily at first, and then last week another judge made the injunction permanent, to just now be reversed. Not that it matters much, Obama administration lawyers said in court that they don't care if there is an injunction or not, they'll still use the law and completely ignore any injunctions placed on it.

[QUOTE=lavacano;37720083]He has immunity as a political candidate. [sub][sub][sub]i'm pretty sure some smartass is going to retort with "it's just been revoked" so this is a pre-emptive "Don't."[/sub][/sub][/sub][/QUOTE] That has previously been remanded.

Also. The NDAA existing or not does not change what Obama can or can't do. Do you honestly believe Governments play by the rules when Foreign Affairs or Resistance to the Government is involved? [editline]18th September 2012[/editline] Do you think they ever have?

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;37720506]That has previously been remanded.[/QUOTE] god damn it :v:

Really wouldn't mind Obama having this power, but considering a delusional child in an adult body who's on a massive power trip has the chance to become president... No bueno.

Seriously this is RT how do you people even look at this thing as a remotely good "journalism" source.

[QUOTE=Jdeedler;37720223]And then it was deemed unconstitutional because you can't hold citizens indefinitely against their rights. Seriously , Why even bring this up?[/QUOTE] Yeah, because they have such a clean history with following the Bill of Rights. Doesn't matter if the NDAA exempts American citizens, there's ways around that. All that's needed to hold someone indefinitely is to declare them to be a terrorist working with the enemy, which allows them to strip that person of their citizenship. They've done it already and that was before the NDAA, and when the Fed says you're working for al-Qaeda or the like who is going to question that? Certainly doesn't help that lots of people have a sort of blood lust in regards to 'the enemy' they forget to ask 'why?'. [QUOTE=Nick Nack;37720795]Really wouldn't mind Obama having this power, but considering a delusional child in an adult body who's on a massive power trip has the chance to become president... No bueno.[/QUOTE] I don't care if Jesus Christ himself became president, NO ONE should have this power.

[QUOTE=Jdeedler;37720223]And then it was deemed unconstitutional because you can't hold citizens indefinitely against their [B]rights.[/B] Seriously , Why even bring this up?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4[/media]

[QUOTE=galenmarek;37720904]Seriously this is RT how do you people even look at this thing as a remotely good "journalism" source.[/QUOTE] because everything that the article says correlates with what other remotely good 'journalism' sources say? I'm up for making fun of biased sources when they're being ridiculous, but when they're telling the truth, and you're casting it aside because you think it's biased, what are you doing then

Carlin is partially correct, rights aren't god given, but your rights can only be taken away from you if you do nothing to protect them. Rights are often paid for in blood and sometimes they must be protected with blood as well. I'm more than okay with more rights being granted to more people, but the infringement, reduction or removal of established rights is wrong and should be contested at every turn.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37720011] The provision was embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 by congressional Republicans, who crafted the bill to make it nearly impossible for Obama to shut down the Guantanamo Bay military prison.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure Obama used up that excuse in 2009. I simply looked for the first corroborating article.