Obama wins right to indefinately detain Americans under NDAA

[OCGuy]

Yes, this is a continuation of a Bush policy, much as Guantanamo is. (which was a campaign promise to close). I don't think this is a victory for either side of the isle. This is another strange Obama policy that contradicts the hard-core righties saying he is a socialist liberal pig, but it is another policy that calls into question the absolute loyalty from his base.



http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/

"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
"

 

[jackstar7]

He's a centrist. He's never been loyal to his base.

 

[OCGuy]

He's a centrist. He's never been loyal to his base.

I would say pursuing the ability to detain Americans indefinately is not a "Centrist" policy, on anyone's scale.

 

[jackstar7]

I would say pursuing the ability to detain Americans indefinately is not a "Centrist" policy, on anyone's scale.

Except you said it in your OP, it isn't something Conservatives can argue against because it's being tough on terror, and Liberals won't bitch too loudly about it because they don't want to be seen as weak (and because he's "team captain"). So it's right there on the middle of the road... where no one gives enough of a shit.

The best hope is for the ACLU to take up the case against this shit and have the Supreme Court knock it down.

 

[Moonbeam]

Except you said it in your OP, it isn't something Conservatives can argue against because it's being tough on terror, and Liberals won't bitch too loudly about it because they don't want to be seen as weak (and because he's "team captain"). So it's right there on the middle of the road... where no one gives enough of a shit.

The best hope is for the ACLU to take up the case against this shit and have the Supreme Court knock it down.

I wonder if they would. I definitely think they should. I do not want such power in the hands of alternate reality conservatives so I don't want Obama to have it either. The whole idea flies in the face of the Constitution, in my opinion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bet Romney loves this policy.

Part of my complaint that the ballot is stacked with big-gov authoritarian loving Neocons.

 

[Texashiker]

Obama wins right to indefinately detain Americans under NDAA

Obama already had the right to detain US citizens before the NDAA was passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942.

The governments right to detain US citizens without due process, under certain situations was upheld by the US supreme court.

 

[nageov3t]

indefinitely detainment is so pre-2008... it's all about killing them before that even becomes a question now.

 

[cybrsage]

There is already a Supreme Court ruling that says US Citizens cannod be denied their Habeus Corpus petition even when held in GitMo for terror charges (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld). If any President violates that ruling they will quickly find themselves under impeachment charges by the opposition party - one of the few good things about the current state of partisanship.

Non US Citizens can have their petition denied, but US Citizens cannot. There is nothing to fear from the provision in that authorization act...it cannot be enforced.

 

[Dude111]

No surprise he got it back,ITS PART OF HIS PLAN!!!!

And if wins re-election NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED EITHER!!

 

[jackstar7]

There is already a Supreme Court ruling that says US Citizens cannod be denied their Habeus Corpus petition even when held in GitMo for terror charges (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld). If any President violates that ruling they will quickly find themselves under impeachment charges by the opposition party - one of the few good things about the current state of partisanship.

Except for the part where the opposition wants that power as well when they get back into that position of power...

 

[Dannar26]

He's a centrist. He's never been loyal to his base.

LOL to that friend. Liberal president is liberal.

And this? This is a shame. Just like the patriot act nonsense that came before it. Just a shame for everyone.

 

[umbrella39]

"A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration"

LOL bowed down 😀

 

[cybrsage]

Except for the part where the opposition wants that power as well when they get back into that position of power...

If the state of politics was not as polarized as it is now, I would say you have a real reason to worry. But lets look at the current and potential immediate future state:

Obama wins, violates SCOTUS ruling. Do you think the Reps will not make sure everyone knows about it and starts impeachment proceedings? This will be one time they side with the ACLU in the immediate court case the ACLU puts in against Obama.
Romney wins, violates SCOTUS ruling. Do you think the Dems will not make sure everyone knows about it and starts impeachment proceedings? They will quickly side with the ACLU in the immediate court case the ACLU puts in against Romney.


Partisanship has many negatives, but this is one of its few positives.

 

[jackstar7]

LOL to that friend. Liberal president is liberal.

Reality tells a different tale, amigo.

 

[bfdd]

Reality tells a different tale, amigo.

Socialists the lot of them.

 

[hal2kilo]

I wonder if they would. I definitely think they should. I do not want such power in the hands of alternate reality conservatives so I don't want Obama to have it either. The whole idea flies in the face of the Constitution, in my opinion.

My biggest Obama dissapointment.

 

[Texashiker]

Liberal president is liberal.

Was jefferson a liberal because he owned slaves?

Was jackson liberal for kicking native americans out of the southeast? Jackson even ignored a supreme court ruling.

Was Woodrow Wilson a liberal for signing the Sedition Act of 1918 into law?

Was FDR a liberal for detaining Japenese Americans?

Was bush liberal for guantanamo bay?

There has been a long history of human rights violations on part of the US government.

What obama is doing is nothing new.

 

[jackstar7]

Socialists the lot of them.

Reality tells a different tale, amigo.

Oh yeah... I said that already.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration"

LOL bowed down 😀

Seems fitting. Not funny, but fitting. Well he says screw Constitutional protections, but wasn't that stimulus thing great? Yeah🙄

 

[JTsyo]

It makes no sense how something so obviously against the Constitution passes into law. Our leaders hate our freedoms more than the terrorists is seems.

 

[Texashiker]

It makes no sense how something so obviously against the Constitution passes into law. Our leaders hate our freedoms more than the terrorists is seems.

Laws have little to do with rights, and a lot to do with popular opinion at the time.

Over the past 100 years we can cite dozens, if not hundreds of laws that violate basic human rights, much less protected rights.

 

[Moonbeam]

It makes no sense how something so obviously against the Constitution passes into law. Our leaders hate our freedoms more than the terrorists is seems.

I think it's a difficult and complex issue. Take freedom of expression. In America the Nazi party is legal but not in Germany. Who is right? Freedom is great, even the freedom to be insane, but when 50,000,000 people die because of freedom of expression, sometimes people have a different idea of what freedom is.

With freedom comes responsibility. Where do you draw the line? Do you allow the freedom of citizenship to become a tool folk use to destroy the nation? Who decides? The Commander in Chief, is he the decider? Should somebody decide. If you give a President the one ring of power will he not abuse it, or without it, could not the absolute of freedom destroy freedom itself? All we can hope for is that human judgment and wisdom prevails, and the issue is complicated by the fact that Obama may be far more Presidential and prudent in his judgment than conservative Presidents are, owing, again, to the difference in reality vs altered reality thinking. We are doubtless safer under Obama then we were under Bush, but is that worth the fact that the conservatives can retake power? I don't know.