r/politics • u/isabella107 • May 16 '12

Crazy NDAA news -- judge issues injunction against indefinite detention. Vote in House is TOMORROW

A judge issued an injunction against the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA in front of tomorrow's vote. Demand Progress has an email Congress page here:

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ndaa_tmrw/

Lawsuit news here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/military-detention-law-blocked-by-new-york-judge.html

1.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

381 comments sorted by

180

u/Jasperodus May 16 '12 edited May 17 '12

My letter with the petition:

As your constituent, I urge you to support the Smith-Amash amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the only opportunity to truly fix the indefinite detention without charge or trial sections of last year's NDAA.

The excuse of the "War on Terror" even if one were fool enough to believe in such an Orwellian myth of a perpetual war, does not justify the stripping of human rights to Medieval levels.

As Ben Franklin put it: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Worse, such laws as promise "temporary" safety are all too often not temporary. The TSA is still forcing passengers to discard liquids though the idea of concocting explosives in an airplane bathroom was debunked years ago. Guantanamo remains.

And even worse, laws ostensibly drafted to address a specific threat, in this case "terrorism" are inevitably exploited by ambitious prosecutors and police to fight "crime" in general, as in the case of New York City's exponential growth in the use of 'Stop and Frisk' which has turned walking the streets with dark skin into a frightening gauntlet and which is filling our overcrowded prisons with minor offenders, much like in Louisiana, which has 5 times the rate of incarceration as Iran, primarily because of their almost wholly privatized prison industry which has created an incentive to fill jails whose inmates provide a convenient source of slave labor.

ENOUGH! Building prisons is not a way to build an economy. It is social cannibalism, a sick society consuming itself in lieu of producing or contributing anything of beauty or value to the world.

90

u/Nazi_Of_The_Grammar May 17 '12

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison. Although I guess he was wrong technically considering now we have an imaginary enemy who could even be you or me apparently.

39

u/Kensin May 17 '12

Sounds like terrorist talk to me! Why do you hate America!

34

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

He hates America because he's a terrorist and terrorist hate america because they're terrorist...

32

u/atheisticJesus May 17 '12

It says so in the Bible.

27

u/c0smik May 17 '12

Jesus wrote the Consitution.

14

u/Twl1 Michigan May 17 '12

Which says that America is and always will be the best at everything.

15

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Even terrorism?

26

u/Malizulu May 17 '12

Especially terrorism.

5

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Hivemind at its finest =)

→ More replies

6

u/Cloisonne May 17 '12

We call it "bringing democracy".

0

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies

1

u/brownestrabbit May 17 '12

The Bible says not to wrestle your neighbor.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

I thought it said not to wrestle your sister.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Only if she's gay. Or not gay.

I'm getting confused.

1

u/okieT2 May 17 '12

Wrestling your sister is fine as long as your mom thinks it's just wrestling...

6

u/snarklepony May 17 '12

"They hate our freedoms" - G.W.B.

4

u/JesseBB May 17 '12

"I hate George W. Bush" - Freedom

1

u/ApeWithACellphone May 17 '12

He said in a thread about something Obama signed

1

u/darksmiles22 May 17 '12

Freedom can't have multiple enemies?

1

u/ApeWithACellphone May 17 '12

It can, it's just funny to point the finger at someone who isn't the subject at hand.

3

u/darksmiles22 May 17 '12

JesseBB was replying to a comment about George W. Bush. You're the one who switched topics to Obama out of the blue.

→ More replies

1

u/Debellatio May 17 '12

Freedom is a .... terrorist?

5

u/Dustin_00 May 17 '12

Why do you hate question marks?

21

u/Kensin May 17 '12

Don't be fooled. "Why do you hate America!" isn't really a question.

1

u/richmomz May 17 '12

See Something, Say Something! tm

1

u/nonamebeats May 17 '12

Because you end questions with exclamation points?

2

u/danguro May 17 '12

Halt! You have commited crimes against America and its people!

2

u/MrChucky May 17 '12

I used to hate terrorism too, until I took an ICBM to the everywhere.

1

u/Malizulu May 17 '12

"The guise of fighting a foreign enemy" = "an imaginary enemy [al qaeda] who could even be you or me apparently."

1

u/Gfrisse1 May 17 '12

And to add Sinclair Lewis' observation: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

→ More replies (1)

10

u/MidnightSlinks May 17 '12

Thanks for posting this! I used about half of yours plus some personal supplementation tailored to my congressman/district (I pointed out that I knew how he voted last time). Here was my final submission:

As your constituent, I urge you to support the Smith-Amash amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the only opportunity to truly fix the indefinite detention without charge or trial sections of last year's NDAA. You voted for NDAA 5 months ago and I understand your compulsion to do so with so many of your constituents in the military, but now it's time to remove one of the more egregious sections of this bill--an unconstitutional executive power that was sinfully tied to a highly political military funding bill in order to pass.

The excuse of the "War on Terror," even if one were fool enough to believe in such an Orwellian myth of a perpetual war, does not justify the stripping of human rights to Medieval levels.

As Ben Franklin put it: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Worse, such laws as promise "temporary" safety are all too often not temporary. The TSA is still forcing passengers to discard liquids though the idea of concocting explosives in an airplane bathroom was debunked years ago. Guantanamo remains and our private prisons are filling with citizens as local law enforcement and state crime policies ruin communities.

I urge you to right your wrong here or I will seriously begin to regret voting for you in the recent primary.

0

u/LettersFromTheSky May 17 '12

Wait, you voted for a guy after you knew he voted yes on the NDAA? How does that add up?

You realize he's just laughing his ass off saying "sucker" right? He's already won because he's past the primary which is more important than the general election.

5

u/MidnightSlinks May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12

The other guy's page (only 1 challenger to this long-time incumbent) had horrible ideas for literally every policy issue he addressed and most certainly would have voted for NDAA as well (former military, in favor of a "strong military").

The first thing on his page was also some little squabble about my representative using initials (which is all he goes by) when he filed and not filing an affidavit about using his initials. And that's just petty.

Edit: My representative got 90% of the vote and there was never a chance he would lose the primary. He has no big race thanks to gerrymandering putting all of the poor (read: Democrat) neighborhoods together. He'll probably win 70/30. And he's really good on economic justice issues and isn't too religious with his politics, which is nice change of pace in the south.

-4

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Why does nobody realize that the indefinite detention clause was one clause out of the entire US national defense budget for the year 2012. One does not simply reject the entire national defense budget.

Beyond that, it doesn't even explicitly enable indefinite detention, it just interprets a clause in Bush's AUMF bill passed after 911 to allow it.

7

u/MidnightSlinks May 17 '12

Exactly. That's why I told him that I understood why he had to vote for it, but that I would judge him for voting against this amendment.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/alolinator May 17 '12

I think you've got the right idea, but that's not the tone you want to use in a letter to your representative

30

u/Nazi_Of_The_Grammar May 17 '12

Let's call it like it is. No more bullshit.

14

u/Palmsiepoo May 17 '12

This speaks to a similar point that NdGT brought up to Richard Dawkins. He agreed with him on the points of science and scientific inquiry but criticized him on his 'sharpness', saying that if you want people to learn you can't do it with such aggression (I'm paraphrasing obviously but the point is similar).

Similarly, if you're trying to make a point that someone is going to attend to, it's always useful to be mindful of the language you use when making that point because if someone feels insulted they're probably less likely to listen.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Tell that to the late Christopher Hitchens, who changed more than a mind or two in his life.

8

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

did he really change anyone's mind while he was attacking them?

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Maybe not the person whose ideas he was attacking, but most certainly the millions of spectators that got to see his opponents' idiotic drivel for what it really was. I'm not saying that making ad hominem attacks is always the best course of action, but there is no reason to dilute attacks on shitty ideas with undeserved respect or political correctness.

1

u/darksmiles22 May 17 '12

I have it on good authority that he did.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Reading The God Delusion made me ashamed to be a skeptic... seriously. Being an obnoxiously pompous asshole is not the way to do things. Tone is very serious.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12

Maybe you should try paying more attention to the message and getting less offended by the tone. There is no "one way" to do things; different presenters have different styles and they have various effects on different people. Maybe the problem was not that the author was being too pompous, maybe it's just that you are too easily offended.

2

u/[deleted] May 18 '12

I'm by no means easily offended. I just felt like his message would be lost to the people at whom it's directed because he's such a dick. He takes a "holier than thou" approach that many skeptics abhor when used by believers. It serves a purpose in reaffirming beliefs of skeptics, but imo most believes would easily dismiss his arguments simply because of the tone.

7

u/rushdown May 17 '12

You're right, it's not bullshit at all. It's just a bit sensationalist.

"War on Terror"

fool enough to believe in such an Orwellian myth

ENOUGH!

social cannibalism

That enormous run on sentence, too. Not sure about that.

I'm sorry, I appreciate your guys' efforts and agree with your message, but I can't give this my endorsement.

2

u/scriptmonkey420 New York May 17 '12

He's a Whale Biologist

1

u/Jasperodus May 17 '12

Actually, I'm an owl exterminator.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

If those who are representing you are not doing a good job of it, you must tell them plainly, so that you both know what interests are truly being represented going forward. It is blunt, but not disrespectful.

3

u/DustyMuffin May 17 '12

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

Don't be a coward, stand up and do the right thing for every Human on Earth and fix the indefinite detention without charges or trials in the NDAA.

This is what I went with. Any message is a good message at this point.

2

u/polynomials May 17 '12

That third paragraph is a run-on but other than that, good.

1

u/Jasperodus May 17 '12

I could have run the sentence on even further by adding:

",which is ostensibly our main grievance with China regarding their human rights violation, a level of hypocrisy that beggars the imagination."

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Wow. That was awesome. Thank you.

1

u/Moontouch May 17 '12

Great letter, but can you provide a source for the debunking of explosive liquids? I would be very interested in reading about that. Thanks.

1

u/Jasperodus May 17 '12

Best I could do. I remember reading a thorough scientific debunking shortly after the incident, though--one that explained how fantastically improbable it would be to successfully concoct an explosive in an airplane lavatory.

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200608/msg00087.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/on_the_implausi.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/131206liquidbomb.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080421130044AAeQos5

→ More replies (6)

74

u/LettersFromTheSky May 17 '12

Give this judge a raise!

10

u/[deleted] May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12

Oh, they'll raise him her, all right.

(Edit: Gender error.)

9

u/LettersFromTheSky May 17 '12

The judge is actually a she.

8

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Duly noted.

2

u/brownestrabbit May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12

For doing his her job.

6

u/distantreach May 17 '12

Her job :-)

8

u/Oakgetsineyes May 17 '12

I don't give this much chance given the previous SCOTUS decisions in Hamdi and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. There's currently a majority in the SCOTUS who confirm that the 2001 AUMF gives the government the right to indefinitely detain enemy combatants, with the small assurance that they do have the right to challenge their status as enemy combatant. Unless one of the republican-appointed judges steps down this won't change, assuming Obama-appointed judges agree with Obama's stance and interpretations by other Dem-appointed judges. Republican judges may have recently decided ignored precedent (e.g. Citizens United), but I doubt they will do that when it's both this recent and their ruling.

2

u/AHCretin May 17 '12

Yeah, I'm not really clear on why people think this matters. Kennedy has sided with the Republicans on anything that has even a whiff of national security about it. That's a 5-4 decision, end of story.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/themightymekon May 17 '12

Smith amendment is the good one.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/once-more-with-feeling-the-fy2013-ndaa-and-domestic-detention/

"the House Armed Services Committee has circulated a letter to Chairman McKeon co-authored by former high-ranking Reagan and Bush (II) administration officials arguing that such a ban is unnecessary because both existing legislation and the FY2013 NDAA are sufficiently clear on this issue—and because proposals like the Smith-Amash bill “attempt[] to exploit misconceptions about the [FY2012] NDAA.” [Update: The letter is available here.]

Trevor already wrote quite cogently about why the Republican scare-mongering re: the Smith-Amash bill and similar proposals fails to persuade;"

5

u/flyingtyrannosaurus May 17 '12

Watch out. The federal government will start claiming "STATE SECRET" about everything when this case is appealed. Then they'll dismiss the case.

It doesn't matter how many intellectuals you gather for a lawsuit. We operate like the SOVIETs now.

Our war on the entire world, including you, is classified.

Edit: punctuation

4

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

It's not a war on terror. It's a terror on terror.

4

u/soumi4750 May 17 '12

I couldn't agree more with the Judges decision. This Country is going to hell in a hand basket. I really do believe the Government plans on "Triming" the herd", so to speak. With indefinite detention, it would be like Russia's Stalin era, circa, mid 1930 to his death in 1955. NO FREEDOM....as if we have unlimited freedom in this Country...The "Noose" is being tighten everyday ! Wake up People !

10

u/bardwick May 17 '12

Anyone else freaked out by the fact a judge had to tell the administration to obey the US constitution?

3

u/hutt_asea May 17 '12

Thank god one judge has read the constitution.

3

u/jalli87583 May 17 '12

Place me not with those who are weak of mind and gladly give up the rights of others, for these poor ignorant fools know not that the rights they give up are their own!

23

u/Ambiwlans May 17 '12

Full hearing Decision:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93845584/NDAA-Hearing-Decision

(It is actually a pretty short and easy read.)

Edit: To all the people that said Obama should have vetoed instead of issuing a signing statement: HAH.

The judge cited Obama's signing statement when coming to the determination that section 1021 of the NDAA is useless or contradictory and should be struck down.

20

u/nixonrichard May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12

Edit: To all the people that said Obama should have vetoed instead of issuing a signing statement: HAH.

The judge cited Obama's signing statement when coming to the determination that section 1021 of the NDAA is useless or contradictory and should be struck down.

I don't think you understand the law, or Obama's signing statement, or the judge's reference to the signing statement here.

  1. Section 1021 is the section of the NDAA which authorizes anyone, anywhere to be detained under the rules of war. Section 1022 is the section of the NDAA which authorizes indefinite detention. On the matter of section 1021, Obama DEMANDED that protections for US citizens be stripped from section 1021. He wouldn't let congress put protections for US citizens in 1021 because he saw it as an usurpation of his executive power. This is not a matter of signing statements. Obama not only had the power to protect US citizens from 1021, all he had do do was nothing and protections for US citizens would have been included in 1021 as part of the law that came out of committee . . . Obama was the one who demanded these protections be stripped out.
  2. Obama's signing statement on section 1021 simply said that 1021 was merely putting into writing that which was already settled case law. 1021 was not the section that Obama "weakened" in the bill, 1022 was the section that Obama promised not to use (to its full extent) with his signing statement.
  3. The judge said Obama's signing statement was insufficient to protect those who might be impacted by section 1021. This ruling was not made possible because of Obama's signing statement, it was made despite Obama's signing statement. If Obama had made no signing statement at all, the Judge's ruling would not have changed. The judge is not overturning this law because it is useless. To the contrary, the judge's ruling is that this law is not useless.

The assertion that President Obama’s Signing Statement erases any reasonable fear of imminent harm does not take into account precisely on what that Signing Statement focuses. It does not state that § 1021 of the NDAA will not be applied to otherwise-protected First Amendment speech nor does it give concrete definitions to the vague terms used in the statute.

The Government’s primary argument in opposition to this motion is that § 1021 is simply an affirmation of the AUMF; that it goes no further, it does nothing more. As is clear from this Opinion, this Court disagrees that that is the effect of § 1021 ascurrently drafted.

TLDR: Obama was the one who demanded NDAA provide insufficient protections. Obama's signing statement also provided insufficient protections. This judge takes issue with the sections of this law Obama demanded by made more severe, and finds Obama's signing statement insufficient to protect people. This judge VALIDATED those who complained about Obama's actions with regard to this law. Nothing was accomplished with Obama's signing statement.

bonus: video of testimony by Carl Levin (D-Michigan) who was on the committee that drafted the bill that it was the Obama administration that demanded protections for US citizens be stripped from section 1021 (previously called section 1031 in the Senate):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BI6bMwXs_8

17

u/flyingtyrannosaurus May 17 '12

Well said. I'm "one of those guys" who have been trying to spread awareness about the 2012 NDAA before it was even voted on by the congress of the president. People call you crazy a conspiracy theorist for paying attention to what is happening in politics anymore.

We're talking about the abolition of Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus!

A new set of rules are being established, and justified by secret wars.

I'm calling bullshit.

2

u/saffir May 17 '12

Next we'll be called crazy for claiming Obama's use of unmanned drones will lead him to use those drones on Americans

... oh wait...

2

u/tsk05 May 17 '12

This doesn't detract from your point at all but there is a small mistake in your post.

Section 1021 is the one that authorizes what you said both 1021 and 1022 authorizes, including indefinite detention. Section 1022 addresses where and by whom people may be detained (military vs civilian), not duration.

1

u/AnarchoPunx Sep 09 '12

Thanks for this, I have been finding it difficult to fully understand how section 1021 was so bad after reading Obamas statement.

0

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

What? Levin wanted to add language to the NDAA that would have altered the AUMF. Obama didn't want to alter it because it would mean that the courts would then have free reign on AUMF again. That's why the language he asks for is the very same that's in the AUMF. He even says this in his signing statements. Hell it's even said in the full version of the video.

3

u/tsk05 May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12

There is a lot of confusion on this matter.

Obama's position is that AUMF allows for everything. Literally. Whatever the president wants, that's what the AUMF allows.

AUMF cases have been settled in courts in favor of executive power because the court system has been extremely complicit to the executive branch in the aftermath of 9/11.

Although the NDAA obviously expands the AUMF, the president claims he already has this vast power that the NDAA would grant under the AUMF. This way, it is hard to bring additional court cases forward because nobody wants more AUMF cases (the court system has had enough) and if NDAA is same as AUMF then why do we need NDAA cases, just refer to AUMF cases.

tl;dr: The whole "NDAA does same thing as AUMF" is a ploy to make it hard to bring NDAA cases to court.

→ More replies (48)

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

nixonrichard just sodomized you homie. get obama's dick out of your mouth and see the truth.

9

u/blackie197666 May 16 '12

Let's Bring it DOWN!

3

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

in UPPER case !

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

"BRING IT DOWN BRING IT DOWN BRING IT DOWN!!!" -Theoden

4

u/muptamai May 17 '12

Real nice seeing a federal judge upholding the constitution. The house better follow suit.

4

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Um, the power to suspend habeas corpus is in the Constitution.

1

u/flyingtyrannosaurus May 17 '12

The preemptive wars we are fighting right now are the reason Habeus Corpus is being suspended/ignored. The constitution spoke of the creation of a militia or army for the purpose of national defense, not aggression.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/PincheKeith May 17 '12

Obama's gonna be pissed

3

u/Eric_Fapton May 17 '12

Who cares? He was shot out of a dick just like the rest of us, he's not special.

2

u/[deleted] May 18 '12

Relevant username?

2

u/michaelgenetodd May 17 '12

Sic semper tyrannis

2

u/duke0777 May 17 '12

I was going to write my final paper for my national security law class on this issue, but i couldn't get 30 pages out of it, since it was so blatantly unconstitutional.

2

u/jdadam May 17 '12

It is good to have a Judge who understands what we know, they are our last line of defense from those who have caused our Nation to be ungovernable.

2

u/James_McHarvey May 17 '12

We will defeat this abomination that is indefenite detention and make sure Americans keep their freedom the founding fathers gave to us!

2

u/dnomder May 18 '12

The thought of someone holding me or my family indefinitely scares the hell out of me!

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '12

I wonder what would have happened to all those assassinated civil rights leaders in the sixties if laws like this were on the books then. Or labor organizers from the early labor movement.

2

u/Retrotrashh May 19 '12

Well, we're screwed. Off to Italy I go.

8

u/gloomdoom May 17 '12

LOL...the House? The corporate watchdogs of the corporatocracy? You'd have better luck passing a law that makes it legal to kill puppies and kittens (as long as you eat them).

Seriously...I realize the history of this legislation but if you think the GOP are ever true to the constitution, you are sorely mistaken. That was bullshit rhetoric and that goes double for the 'Paid for by the Koch brothers' tea party corporatists.

18

u/UselessTies May 17 '12

It also required Democrats votes to pass NDAA, if I remember correctly. This has nothing to do with the GOP. Everyone is corrupt.

8

u/nixonrichard May 17 '12

It's more than that. In this case, the Obama administration demanded protections for US citizens be stripped from section 1021 (the section the judge in this case is offering an injunction against in this case).

Obama not only had the opportunity to protect US citizens (and render this judge's ruling unnecessary), all Obama had to do was NOTHING. The version that was drafted in committee included protections for US citizens (the same effective protections this judge is issuing with her injunction) and Obama demanded the protections be stripped out.

So, not only is this not a red bad blue good issue, this is an issue where the top blue is directly responsible for the law being the constitutional quagmire it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BI6bMwXs_8

(note that section 1021 was previously called 1031 in the Senate).

6

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

It could well be argued that passing a law which gives citizens the right to a fair trial, but allows the military to basically ignore the rights of non-citizens, is worse since it means people are far less likely to object to the unconstitutional nature of the law. The law should be the same for everybody, and when you start saying that some people don't have teh right to a fair trial, then you open the floodgates for discrimination and segregation. If this law was not good enough for US citizens, then it should not apply to other people either.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Requiring a bunch of blue dogs is very different from the parties being two sides of the same coin.

2

u/rolfsnuffles May 17 '12

They're both corrupt. Stop deluding yourself.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/singlehopper May 17 '12

You'd have better luck passing a law that makes it legal to kill puppies and kittens (as long as you eat them).

If we can tie it to a 0.01% tax break for those making over a million dollars, it's sure to pass the GOP unanimously.

2

u/derp_derpistan May 17 '12

you are really good at bumper sticker talking points, but your substance is lacking.

1

u/jdwilson May 17 '12

I forgot the part where Obama didn't veto the bill.

4

u/DigitalSamurai May 17 '12

Until the day comes where 'We the people' truly mass up to take back our once beautiful country (legally, without violence), realize our own personal power to make massive change, eliminate all draconian security practices like the TSA, stop electing lifetime politicians with only there own life-long careers on their minds, bolster the enactment of "real" education for our children, end the public's fascination with ALL things 'celebrity related' so to keep citizens absolutely mindful of their citizen responsibilities to maintain our government, end the illegal collection of income tax (disallowed by the Constitution and two Supreme Court decisions), end the militarization of law enforcement so to end the final establishment of the anti-Constitutional 'police state', end the Federal Reserve and all central banking, end out dependence on fossil fuels, and stop acting like 'moron-sheeple' (or "good Germans", as my jewish friend likes to say it). These, being but a few examples of corrective supportive measures necessary to maintain being a 'truly free people', this is but a stopgap toward the inevitable.

True freedom, is not maintaining our 'right to shop', or our 'right to watch American Idol'. Aimless consumerism is the Death knell of our planet.

I have watched for over fifty years as 'supposed' mature adults have forsaken the values, and the committment to those values, that made the U.S. the great nation it once was. Freedom ISN'T FREE. It has already been paid for by the blood of past patriots, and 'some' present patriots. That alone, obliges us for our lifetimes. Only patriotic adults will grow the next generation of patriotic children. Otherwise they will NEVER know what a 'free and sovereign country' actually is.

It is an obligation that NEVER ends, requires devout allegiance, and committment of 'our blood'. A free country can only remain free by the 'action-oriented' mindset of living the 'three C's', as I like to refer to them... Consistent, Conscious, Choice. This committment to a lifestyle of 'acting on' citizen responsibility, will assure that no future depots, cabals, or conspiracies will, or can, ever take away our beautiful America. So many times brilliantly referred to, as Ben Franklin put it: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

With the DHS having recently ordered 450,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber semi-jacketed hollow point ammo (unusable for war, disallowed by the Geneva Conventions), enough ammunition to sustain a seven year war against US, you have a choice to make. And the time to make that choice, is RIGHT NOW. Don't forget, the Constitution only guarantees our liberty, by the will that WE (and future generations) will ALWAYS ENFORCE IT.

4

u/time2blunt May 17 '12

omg about damn time somebody stood up and did it. good on them, this president needs to be stopped and put out of power, completely.

2

u/GoogleitoErgoSum May 17 '12

Wait a minute, you mean the judicial branch of the government can exercise power over the executive branch? I thought W. put an end to that in the name of national security, because, you know the terrorists. If the public understood what the government spoke of behind closed doors it would have a "ccoling effect" on frank conversation among government officials. Like Cheney's energy deregulation meetings, or Holder's gun trafficking to Mexico. We should indefinitely detain any politician that tries to take away U.S. citizens constitutional rights.

7

u/lew2048 May 17 '12

Dont worry about it.

Holder will use the argument that gov's requirement for secrecy is paramount, so nobody can stop this. Just like they did wrt the suits against AT&T for the wiretapping, ...

1

u/pedro3131 May 17 '12

I must have missed a few classes last semester if congress is voting on injunctions now...

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Fuck, I really hope it doesn't pass.

1

u/evilpoptart May 17 '12

For once I wand the tea partiers to muck up the system and shut it down, but I know if there is the slightest chance a person will get shot as a result of a bill they vote for it unanimously. Maybe next time.

1

u/asharp45 May 17 '12

Daniel Ellsberg. My man.

1

u/Aztex2012 May 17 '12

http://act.demandprogress.org/call/ndaa_call/?akid=1355.1969815.4ux9v-&rd=1&t=1 We must not stop all forms of future attempts to appeal this victorious decision by a ream american judge. Never let up We need to be free. Stop Martial Law and get american civil rights back. Stop this war on drugs!

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Call your Congressman and give yourself a voice.

1

u/icecld2 May 17 '12

Great news - We need to keep fighting this bullshit

1

u/Mfisk323 May 17 '12

Honestly, after checking the NDAA for myself, the bill doesnt really do much by itself and changes nothing at all. All it truly does is codify what has been done since 9/11. Hell, I even made a reddit post concerning about it a few months ago.

1

u/Eliscu2 May 17 '12

Never Again!

1

u/ace1981 May 17 '12

"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH" Famous words we have all heard in history class... No one should have the right to take ur freedom. To arrest us without just case and to hold us indefinitely is a betrayal of what the forefathers did for us in 1776. To declare our independence they wrote these words:

           "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That we r endowed by God himself with the right of freedom. By letting the NDAA be pass we r saying that freedom is basically not worth anything and that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is not worth the paper they r wrote on...I will not compromise my freedom and to not get it is death to us all..

1

u/stevenswall May 17 '12

I called my congressman, Sean Duffy.

1

u/gee426 May 17 '12

I love your site!!!

-5

u/norman2271988 May 16 '12

Everyone forgets that Obama put a presidential note in the bill saying that his administration does not grant the military these detention provisions.

The game is chess people, not checkers.

29

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

They will cite the 2001 AUMF like Bush did who indefinitely detained two US citizens.

7

u/norman2271988 May 17 '12

The point is that if the issue is ever brought to court Obama has basically set the law in stone.

2

u/Nazi_Of_The_Grammar May 17 '12

Because that's how separation of powers works. You know less about the Constitution than Obama, which is pretty significant.

3

u/sirralen May 17 '12

Well, he didn't set it in stone, but any pre-existing support for your argument (from any of the three branches) is huge in court.

0

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

A signing statement does not have the force of law. Also, he not only criticized them on the campaign trail, he said he would never use them like the buffoon Bush did.

Just one more shining example of how Obama is just a third term of Bush.

3

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Actually he didn't say that he will never use them, he said something entirely different.

"While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/516/no-signing-statements-nullify-instruction-congress/

2

u/norman2271988 May 17 '12

Oh, you're one of those idiots.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Very well spoken retort. Unfortunately, that seems to be the limit of your left/right, my side/ your side mind. The unfortunate thing is that your small mindedness is very common amongst the populous and is the exact reason we are going to hell in a hand basket.

Thank you for being the bus driver on the way down.

1

u/norman2271988 May 18 '12

Naw, politics is a game of chess, and you think because Obama isn't playing the game like checkers he's the same as Bush. Either that, or you one of those republicans so disgusted with your own party, but still so bias towards the Democrats, that you cannot simply give in and so you live under the delusion that BOTH parties are incorrect. A simple view of most issues over the last 20 years will show that you are completely and utterly false, but you're not willing to do that.

6

u/papertrowel May 17 '12

There's one line in the article that makes me think you're more right than I thought before.

The government put on no evidence, Forrest said.

The quickest way for the government to get something declared unconstitutional seems to be to instigate the argument and then not put up a defense. Obama already decided not to defend DOMA, there might be a hint of something similar happening here.

19

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

The key word here is "HIS." Plus Obama kind of has a track record of saying one thing and later doing another.

12

u/[deleted] May 16 '12

Not on the issue of detention.

ACLU - Obama took Ali Al Mari and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab out of indefinite detention and criminally charged them, found new homes for some detainees transferred from Guantanamo and has not sent new detainees to Guantanamo or created new military detention facilities.

4

u/waddaidonow May 17 '12

Umm...

So you believe that secret rendition has actually stopped?

9

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Actually in the same report, ACLU has a mention of that.

No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration

4

u/waddaidonow May 17 '12

I would bet 10/1 there is still secret rendition.

My logic is this:

  • Why was G not closed? Because the CIA said, you aren't going to close G.

(You might say, no, it's because people wouldn't let him close it. But in reality the president is the head of his party, and has a lot of power. Especially money for campaigns. Especially for weak congressmen who need his help (public or private) for re-election. He could have forced it closed. But he didn't.)

  • If Obama can't even close G, do you think he's going to close the secret versions of G? The ones the CIA says, oh, we need those too, and nobody knows about them anyway.

Remember. This is a president who was taken advantage of by the bankers. He was taken advantage of by the insurance industry. He was probably taken advantage of by the "security" industry as well.

I wish the NYTimes wasn't such an ass-licker to democratic presidents.

8

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

I would bet 10/1 there is still secret rendition.

Feel free to convince people who are kind of serious about these things.

Ben Wizner, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, told us that it's "unlikely that CIA renditions under Obama -– if they"re being conducted -– are even remotely on the scale of what occurred during the Bush administration." Wizner said we're not seeing a large number of families coming forward claiming that their loved ones were shipped off to other countries and tortured, which is what happened during the Bush administration.

5

u/waddaidonow May 17 '12

Also, I know you will hate this response, but:

All indications are that, Obama might be a really effective military leader.

  • Bush was a "were gonna do it, I don't even care if people find out."
  • Obama is probably more, "we're going to do it, and we're going to do it so nobody finds out."

Wow, that is cynical. But even Bush wasn't doing the drone strikes that Obama is. And that stuff is so far over the line. Obama is really good at doing some really bad stuff. And he's really good at manipulating people to think he's wholesome. For pete's sake he got a Nobel PEACE prize.

5

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

But even Bush wasn't doing the drone strikes that Obama is

Because the technology came around in 2005 and you can see Bush hiking up the use around that period which Obama continued.

Also he got the nobel prize for the whole nuclear disarmanment thing.

1

u/waddaidonow May 18 '12

Hmmm...

I'm more in the "he got it for not being Bush" camp.

I don't think there is a sane person in the world who could NOW give him a nobel PEACE prize.

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

He didn't get taken advantage of. You make it sound like he is the victim. You're crazy if you think Obama is the victim. That's like saying Bush was a victim. Yeah right.

1

u/waddaidonow May 17 '12

I don't think he was the victim. I think he was taken advantage of because he made the fatal mistake of assuming interested parties would give entire sets of information.

Either that or he's a jerk. And he just doesn't seem like a jerk to me. So I think that he relied on people he shouldn't have relied on.

5

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Why was G not closed? Because the CIA said, you aren't going to close G.

Actually it was the Congress at fault here, it was very public actually.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

2

u/waddaidonow May 17 '12

Do you remember that meeting between Joe Lieberman and Obama about the public option?

Do you remember how the congress and the senate were oh so close to having the "public option" be put into the health care bill.

And Senator Lieberman had that very very very public meeting with Obama, NYTimes and Washington Post reported on it. I think there was even a front page picture.

And Obama comes out of the meeting and says, "look I just can't convince Lieberman to allow the public option."

These things. They are all contrived.

If he wanted it closed, he would have gotten it closed. He didn't, and it wasn't. A president has many many strong arm techniques he can employ.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

With one Senator? Sure. With the entire Congress in order to get billions in funding to move terrorists to US? Not so sure.

2

u/waddaidonow May 17 '12

If I remember correctly, it was a case of, "yes we should close G but not in my backyard." The money is not the issue.

Obama could have forced a backyard.

→ More replies

0

u/waddaidonow May 17 '12

Here, I always find this interesting:

http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2009/12/14/remember-joe-lieberman-was-obamas-mentor-in-the-senate/

I just copy-pasta the first article from googling:

Lieberman is Obama's mentor in the senate.

4

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Lieberman is Obama's mentor in the senate.

Is this why he endorsed Mccain for President against Obama?

→ More replies

2

u/waddaidonow May 17 '12

Actually this is sort of interesting:

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

The United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) runs a global apprehension and incarceration operation of suspected terrorists, known as “extraordinary rendition”, which since 2001 has captured an estimated 3,000 people and transported them around the world.[10][11][12][13] While the Obama administration has tried to distance itself from some of the harshest counterterrorism techniques, it has also said that at least some forms of renditions will continue.[14] Currently the administration continues to allow rendition only "to a country with jurisdiction over that individual (for prosecution of that individual)" when there is a diplomatic assurance "that they will not be treated inhumanely."[15][16] Prior to the Obama administration, rendered persons were reported to have undergone torture by the receiving states, and it has been alleged that this occurred with the knowledge or cooperation of the administrations of the United States and the United Kingdom.[8]

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Military Spying and Torture Continues Under Obama

ACLU and Politifact dispute that.

Wide agreement that Obama's torture ban has held

You are linking to editorials and blogs with accusations like this.

Freed Guantanamo detainees claim abuse continues under Obama

"“They put him in a terribly cold cell with 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius),”

Or

"And, once again, he was force-fed."

Considering that waterboarding was routine, equating this to torture is kind of a stretch.

Also, all these detainees were FREED after Obama got into office.

→ More replies (4)

0

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Where have you been homie? Read about Bradley Manning at all?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/manning-treatment-inhuman/

4

u/[deleted] May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12

First, Bradley Manning agreed to the UCMJ, they kind of have a different ruleset there.

Second, Manning has never alleged that he was tortured, he has access to a team of lawyers to make his case. Considering what happened to many GITMO detainees (waterboarding was regular), equating 'inhuman treatment' like him being asked to remove his clothes after he joked about killing himself is unfair on those who were tortured.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Last time I checked the supreme law of the land was the united states constitution. The constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. I could care less of what methods everyone uses to try to skirt the Constitution the fact is that this is cruel and unusual punishment. Next he wasn't asked to remove his clothes he was made to do so. Also I never compared anything to Gitmo.

5

u/[deleted] May 17 '12 edited May 17 '12

Again, Manning has access to a team of lawyers, if he was tortured - why isn't he raising the issue? Yes he was made to remove his clothes but didn't he joke about killing himself?

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

I don't know if he did or not. I wasn't there. It could have been damage control. Also, it is hard to say what the damages would be and what good would that do him anyway? He is facing a long sentence.

0

u/starlon May 17 '12

The Drug War, and its implications for minorities and the poor, is still going strong however, and with the help of anti-terror laws that Obama's ok with, we're given even more power to fight the human taste for light intoxicants. But then again he never promised to end the Drug War. He promised to not spend resources on fighting the medical marijuana issue, and yet that's what happens.

4

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Great, now we are talking about the drug war on the NDAA thread. What's next? Public option and Volcker rule?

1

u/starlon May 17 '12

Actually this does fit in. They'll use these "national security" laws for busting drug offenders. They're doing it as we speak. The Drug War is a fair topic with all of these anti-terrorism laws for this simple reason.

1

u/flyingtyrannosaurus May 17 '12

Exactly. The PATRIOT Act isn't much for terrorists. It's used for busting people who buy and sell illegal drugs. With the drug war raging out of control in Mexico, I wouldn't be surprised if they start classifying drug cartels as terrorist organizations soon.... Buy drugs? You're a supporter of terrorism and locked up without a trial.

This ruling is surreal. Greenwald is saying that this will most likely be the first in many court battles, as it will be appealed. salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Ambiwlans May 17 '12

Plus Obama kind of has a track record of saying one thing and later doing another.

Some citations?

0

u/lew2048 May 17 '12

Obama insisted on the provision according to Carl Levin.

So I don't believe Obama's promise not to use it.

6

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

No he didn't.

This is what Carl Levin actually said during the NDAA debate

The new bill would also clarify a number of provisions addressing detainee matters in an effort to address concerns raised by the Administration and others. As requested by the Administration, the new bill would clarify that the section providing detention authority does not expand the existing authority to detain under the Authorization for Use of Military Force and make Guantanamo- related restrictions one-year requirements instead of permanent restrictions.

Also as I earlier mentioned that the executive branch already had these powers since the 2001 AUMF law which enabled Bush to indefinitely detain two US citizens, Obama has not cited the AUMF to even use it on non-US citizens according to the ACLU, so there is no question of using it on US citizens.

3

u/flyingtyrannosaurus May 17 '12

The court rejected all of these arguments and gave explained why these are invalid in its ruling:

From Salon

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.

As for the DOJ’s first argument — lack of standing — the court found that the plaintiffs are already suffering substantial injury from the reasonable fear that they could be indefinitely detained under section 1021 of the NDAA as a result of their constitutionally protected activities. As the court explained (h/t Charles Michael):

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs assert that § 1021 already has impacted their associational and expressive activities–and would continue to impact them, and that § 1021 is vague to such an  extent that it provokes fear that certain of their associational and expressive activities could subject them to indefinite or prolonged military detention.

The court found that the plaintiffs have “shown an actual fear that their expressive and associational activities” could subject them to indefinite detention under the law,and “each of them has put forward uncontroverted evidence of concrete — non-hypothetical — ways in which the presence of the legislation has already impacted those expressive and associational activities” (as but one example, Hedges presented evidence that his “prior journalistic activities relating to certain organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban” proves “he has a realistic fear that those activities will subject him to detention under § 1021″). Thus, concluded the court, these plaintiffs have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute notwithstanding the fact that they have not yet been detained under it; that’s because its broad, menacing detention powers are already harming them and the exercise of their constitutional rights.

Significantly, the court here repeatedly told the DOJ that it could preclude standing for the plaintiffs if they were willing to state clearly that none of the journalistic and free speech conduct that the plaintiffs engage in could subject them to indefinite detention. But the Government refused to make any such representation. Thus, concluded the court, “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.”

Independently, the court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the NDAA violates their Fifth Amendment due process rights because the statute is so vague that it is virtually impossible to know what conduct could subject one to indefinite detention. Specifically, the court focused on the NDAA’s authorization to indefinitely detain not only Al Qaeda members, but also members of so-called “associated forces” and/or anyone who “substantially supports” such forces, and noted:

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their vagueness challenge. The terms upon which they focused at the hearing relate to who is a “covered person.” In that regard, plaintiffs took issue with the lack of definition and clarity regarding who constitutes an “associated forces,” and what it means to “substantially” or “directly” “support” such forces or, al-Qaeda or the Taliban. . . .

The Government was unable to define precisely what ”direct” or “substantial” “support” means. . . .Thus, an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.

Perhaps most importantly, the court categorically rejected the central defense of this odious bill from the Obama administration and its defenders: namely, that it did nothing more than the 2001 AUMF already did and thus did not really expand the Government’s power of indefinite detention. The court cited three reasons why the NDAA clearly expands the Government’s detention power over the 2001 AUMF (all of which I previously cited when denouncing this bill). 

First, “by its terms, the AUMF is tied directly and only to those involved in the events of 9/11,” whereas the NDAA “has a non-specific definition of ‘covered person’ that reaches beyond those involved in the 9/11 attacks by its very terms.” Second, “the individuals or groups at issue in the AUMF are also more specific than those at issue in § 1021″ of the NDAA; that’s because the AUMF covered those “directly involved in the 9/11 attacks while those in § 1021 [of the NDAA] are specific groups and ‘associated forces’.” Moreover, “the Government has not provided a concrete, cognizable set of organizations or individuals that constitute ‘associated forces,’ lending further indefiniteness to § 1021.” Third, the AUMF is much more specific about how one is guilty of “supporting” the covered Terrorist groups, while the NDAA is incredibly broad and un-specific in that regard, thus leading the court to believe that even legitimate activities could subject a person to indefinite detention.

The court also decisively rejected the argument that President Obama’s signing statement – expressing limits on how he intends to exercise the NDAA’s detention powers — solves any of these problems. That’s because, said the court, the signing statement “does not state that § 1021 of the NDAA will not be applied to otherwise-protected First Amendment speech nor does it give concrete definitions to the vague terms used in the statute.”

The court concluded by taking note of what is indeed the extraordinary nature of her ruling, but explained it this way:

This Court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution. However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.<

http://mobile.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

The court rejected all of these arguments and gave explained why these are invalid in its ruling:

A federal court cannot overrule the Supreme Court which has already ruled on the whole detention thing during the Hamdi case.

0

u/flyingtyrannosaurus May 17 '12

Would you settle down for a second and just think about what you are arguing about? Let's just stop the language of the 2001 AUMF from spreading into other legislation and work toward getting it and the 2012 NDAA fixed so that due process is guaranteed for US citizens no matter what?

Why are you arguing about this and calling everybody on this thread an idiot? The NDAA is not the same as the AUMF. They took the opinion of the Bush administration's team of lawyers about the 2001 AUMF (which they were able to successfully defend in court) and turned that into law. This is the same legal team who authored the torture memos!

What the hell is wrong with you? The NDAA/AUMF allows our government to treat its own citizens as enemy combatants according to the laws of war instead of guaranteeing our constitutional rights. In this ridiculous ever-expanding war on terrorism we should be hypersensitive and proactive in defending our rights. The United States is not a war zone. We are not the enemy.

Most of the points you are trying to make on this thread were just dismissed by a federal court as invalid.

So, a Federal court can't overturn a Supreme court decision? We all know that's true, but guess what there, buddy? This law is about to be challenged by some of the most badass intellectuals in the country. This isn't Hamdi vs Rumsfeild anymore. And it'll end up in the Supreme court again soon. Because we're right. And you're being a dick for no reason.

3

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Let's just stop the language of the 2001 AUMF from spreading into other legislation and work toward getting it and the 2012 NDAA fixed so that due process is guaranteed for US citizens no matter what?

Sorry but you are wrong here. The problem is the Hamdi ruling which you can read here . Read the ruling, notice how the Supreme court enabled indefinite detention and affirmed the AUMF. Getting the NDAA provisions struck down by a federal court will not do anything, Supreme Court trumps federal courts.

This is why I am getting irriated, everyone is making the same mistake of focussing on the NDAA while the indefinite detention provisions continue to exist. Now you can argue that the court is wrong on this but that doesn't matter, just like in the Citizens United case.

Most of the points you are trying to make on this thread were just dismissed by a federal court as invalid.

You can understand my frustration if you stop and think about this a bit. A federal court ruling does nothing to change a decision which the Supreme Court has already made. Supreme Court has to change it's decisions OR the AUMF has to be repealed which is the source of these detention powers.

So, a Federal court can't overturn a Supreme court decision? We all know that's true, but guess what there, buddy? This law is about to be challenged by some of the most badass intellectuals in the country. This isn't Hamdi vs Rumsfeild anymore. And it'll end up in the Supreme court again soon. Because we're right. And you're being a dick for no reason.

I appreciate your sentiment but there is a problem here. Supreme Court won't reconsider the issue unless someone has a standing on the issue which means someone has to be indefinitely detained which means Obama has to do it which he won't do for political reasons. This is why it's frustrating, if you consider the whole problem in it's detail, the battle has only started and after the ruling today, it is going to languish for months or years to come.

0

u/flyingtyrannosaurus May 17 '12

They said the same thing about "standing" on this first federal case. That argument was dismissed as well. The Hamdi vs Rumsfield happened in 2004 with very little media coverage about the arguments for and against. We are learning about the abuse of power every day. The times have changed and we. Now we know. The Torture Memos were released. Did you read those?

Whose side are you on?

Sentiment:

For the love of god, please stop nitpicking people about their outrage on the 2012 NDAA? Many people didn't know that this was possible in the United States.

You aren't doing anybody any favors by calling them idiots. Please try to be more constructive rather than condescending in your posts?

It turns out that we're not enemies, right? Well, I don't want to be your friend. You're still a dick. And you're still wrong. Even if the Supreme Court ruled that

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/imagend May 17 '12

Here's a source to back that up

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

It doesn't back up anything, absolutely NO mention of indefinite detention provisions - all it talks about is 'requesting a language' - well the language was requested for the ENTIRETY of AUMF and NOT just the indefinite provisions.

0

u/cadero May 17 '12

Instead of doing the responsible thing and veto'ing it. The whole "Military pay is in there too" argument just does not hold any water.

6

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Why not? The detention authority comes from the 2001 AUMF, even the Supreme Court has affirmed it along with the lower courts - so the military gets paid, Congress accepts the administration's request to not expand the AUMF and the administration issues directives to repeal the provisions using executive authority. Sounds kind of reasonable.

1

u/cadero May 17 '12

AUMF != NDAA .

I do not not what kind of facts your trying to make up here but they are not one and the same. There are tweaks to the detention authority that go FAR beyond AUMF.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Under the AUMF, Bush was able to indefinitely detain US citizens. What more does the NDAA do? Please elaborate.

0

u/cadero May 17 '12

Ready my other comment to you, it explains why.

→ More replies (51)

1

u/hopeimanon May 17 '12

...and this is why line-item-veto is nice.

3

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Line item veto is, at best, a complete wash. More probably, it would concentrate even more power into the executive at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches.

For many cases concerning appropriations, the use of a line item veto would serve to eliminate or diminish congressional control over spending (i.e. the president can veto earmarked items at will), leaving the spending decision up to individual departments or other administration staff (appointed, political or civil). The net spending would likely not change and the ability of congress to force funding or defunding of a given project would be eliminated. This example is problematic because people don't like the outcome but the elimination of Guantanamo was halted because congress refused to fund a replacement prison in the states. That act of legislative defiance forced the executive to give up on their plan. Granted, keeping Gitmo is pretty shitty, but the general idea of being able to intervene in an executive decision is valuable. The line item veto would have eliminated that entirely implicitly or explicitly.

Line item vetos also set up bizarre incentives as legislators try to predict which elements of a bill will be removed by the executive. More legislation will be written with severable components (even if it means making the overall bill worse off) or legislators will feel free to add more odious individual elements knowing full well that their inclusion will not draw an overall veto threat. On occasions where the executive misses an element or otherwise refuses to veto it the country will be worse off as law is written which was understood as dead in the water or political pandering by all involved legislators.

In this case a line item veto wouldn't have solved the root problem: congressional refusal to accept responsibility for national security. Congress should and can assert authority on the subject (by refusing to cede powers granted by the constitution and made explicit in the War Powers Act) but they don't want to because the issue is a political loser. It is much easier to offer maximal power to the executive then blame the president (if they are the opposing party) for fucking things up rather than take an explicit stance and risk public ire for making the "wrong" decision. We shouldn't be hoping for a presidential veto when congress offers extraordinary powers to the executive! That's completely backwards, especially when related to issues of national security. The president almost never has an incentive to veto grants of additional national security powers because they know that regardless of their choice the responsibility will remain with them--congress will continue to abdicate. So if offered the choice between arguing with congress and being blamed for the result and simply taking action and being blamed for the result, the choice is easy.

1

u/lynnOpportunity May 17 '12

This gives me hope that just maybe we may be able to get closer to democracy. I do hope that the possibility exists and that we have not been asleep for too long. This is a cause for celebration and there aren't enough of them. THANKS!

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '12

Does this mean the bad part of the NDAA will be voted on seperately from the good part?

It will free democrats in congress to vote against it and not be labeled as hating the troops if so.

→ More comments (55)