Community | September 15, 2012 | 180 comments

Obama Appeals NDAA, Indefinite Detention Ban. Media Ignores it.

source: http://youtu.be/-FEQ7_bL0GM

Radical_Centrist

http://youtu.be/-FEQ7_bL0GM

Only hours after a US district judge made permanent an injunction that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans without charge, the White House said they’d appeal to continue their efforts to keep a controversial new law on the books.

On Thursday, the Obama administration acknowledged that they plan to challenge a ruling made only a day earlier by US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest that concreted an injunction she issued four months prior on a provision included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act , or NDAA. In May, Judge Forrest said the indefinite detention statute in the NDAA failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary block. On Wednesday, she made that injunction permanent, but not without raising objection once again from the Executive Branch.

“First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away,” Forrest wrote on Wednesday. “This Court rejects the Government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention.”

Judge Forrest’s decision this week reaffirms her earlier ruling that prohibits the US government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA, a clause that allows for American citizens to be detained and held on the suspicion of supporting terrorists “or associated forces” until a very vague time frame described as only “until the end of hostilities.” After US President Barack Obama signed the legislation into law on New Year’s Eve, a team of journalists and activists challenged it in court.

http://youtu.be/-FEQ7_bL0GM
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Collective Journalism,   1 more
  2. tags:
    Obama,  Barack Obama,  Media,  Civil Liberties,  9 more
  3.     
    |

180 comments // Obama Appeals NDAA, Indefinite Detention Ban. Media Ignores it. // Video

  • Stephen_Reichman
    • 0
      Stephen_Reichman  
    • Image

    • Please repost this, and share to as many friends as you can - We need to call the president out on his ILLEGAL attempts to power grab - Congress cannot make a law that overrides the constitution without first amending the constitution. Also, the president has already threatened to VETO the protections included in the 2013 NDAA against indefinite detention - Lets let everyone know who he really is - Someone who will ignore the voices of every concerned American to serve his own goals.

      http://www.change.org/petitions/barack-obama-president-of-the-united-states-stop...

    • 6 months ago
  • modans55
    • -1
      modans55  

    • “At the most basic understanding of the Constitution, Congress makes the laws, the president executes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws and thereby oversees this constitutional design of checks and balances.
      If the president vetoes a bill, the Constitution requires him to tell Congress what his objections are, so that Congress can reconsider the bill and accommodate his concerns, or repass the bill with a two-thirds vote in both houses.
      If Congress approves the bill over the veto of the president, the bill becomes law without his signature. A controversial issue arises when the president signs a law passed by Congress but declines to execute the law under conditions that he believes make it unconstitutional.
      Presidents have issued signing statements claiming this authority and have indeed exercised this authority from the presidency of James Monroe to the present.”

      Page 710, UCLA Law Review
      http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-4.pdf

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
  • modans55
    • -1
      modans55  

    • Now, for all you ‘experts’ who keep mouthing off that there weren’t enough votes to override the President’s possible veto of NDAA 2012:

      NDAA 2012 Senate Vote:
      Yea….86 (86% of votes cast)
      Nay…13
      Not voting..1

      NDAA 2012 House Vote:
      Yea….283 (68% of voted cast)
      Nay….136
      Not voting..14

      Action by both the House and the Senate is required to override a presidential veto. A two-thirds majority vote of the Members PRESENT is required to override a presidential veto. If one house fails to override a veto, the other house does not attempt to override, even if the votes are present to succeed. The House and Senate may attempt to override a veto anytime during the Congress in which the veto is issued. Should both houses of Congress successfully vote to override a presidential veto, the bill becomes law.

      SHUT UP AND BLAME THE SOURCE OF THE MESS….CONGRESS.

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
    • -1
      modans55  

    • So why didn’t Obama just veto the crap? Well, if he vetoes the bill, which was passed with enough votes to override that veto, it becomes law anyway. There is a very solid point to be made that he should have vetoed the bill to make the political point that the detention provisions were unconstitutional and unacceptable. That said, again troops need food. Their families need paychecks.
      Also, included in the NDAA for the very first time were provisions to address the horrific problem of sexual assault in the military. The NDAA that was signed included allowances for a servicewoman who is raped to transfer to a new base as to not be forced to live and see her rapist every day. Before this NDAA she was forced to live on the same base.
      Lastly, two important points. In this situation I see Obama with two choices: veto that crap and have troop pay delayed and the bill passes anyway because of the veto override. OR, sign it and issue a signing statement assuring everyone that your administration isn’t going to go full dictatorship and start locking up everyone until the end of time (obviously, it’s not the Obama administration that is the cause for concern but how future administrations use this power). Obama chose the latter.
      Secondly, the detention provisions in the bill are unconstitutional (anyone with any sense would know this) and will more likely than not be challenged in court. Things like the 4th, 5th, 6th, oh and the 8th Amendment come to mind? Even a conservative Roberts Court will take issue with these provisions.
      The most important point of all here is that President Obama doesn’t make laws. Congress makes laws. So if you want better laws that don’t clearly violate the constitution and infringe on civil liberties, we need a better Congress that the one that just essentially blackmailed our Constitutional Law professor President to sign a bill you just know he didn’t want to.

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
    • -1
      modans55  

    • 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 Force and make Guantanamo related restrictions one-year requirements instead of permanent restrictions.
      The new bill would also modify a provision requiring military custody of al-Qaeda members who attack the United States (subject to a national security waiver) to clarify the President’s authority to decide who makes determinations of coverage, how they are made, and when they are made. As modified, the provision makes it clear that these determinations will not interfere with any ongoing law enforcement operations or interrogations. Under the modified provision, the Executive Branch has the flexibility to keep a covered detainee in civilian custody pursuant to a national security determination, or to transfer a military detainee for trial in the civilian courts. The Administration agreed to have military custody apply to al Qaeda members captured outside the United States (subject to a national security waiver) but disagrees with the committee decision not to preclude the application of the provision inside the United States.

      http://www.armedservices.senate.gov/press/SASC%20NDAA%20Markup%2002%2011-15-11.p...

    • 8 months ago
  • Tayllerand
  • Tayllerand
  • Tayllerand
  • modans55
  • modans55
    • -3
      modans55  

    • It is certainly interesting to see so many conservative trolls on the Current website. But, lies are like horsesh*t, you can find it most anywhere. Sad little conservatives.

    • 8 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +2
      Radical_Centrist  
    • modans55:

      Half of the people jumping your @$$ over this issue are actually PROGRESSIVES, I am proud to admit I am a Paleoconservative however. Do you think the ACLU is FULL of Conservatives as well? I mean they have been Obama's MOST vocal opponents on the NDAA.

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
    • -3
      modans55  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      The ACLU has been on the President's case only because he SIGNED the NDAA. Had he not signed it and veoted, Congress had the votes to override that veto, and the President would have had no opportunity to express his opinion regarding the provision, and people like you would have slammed him for not having the Military's interests at heart.
      The President was placed in a no-win situation by Congress, who WROTE the NDAA, and no matter which course he had taken he would have been blamed.

    • 8 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +2
      Radical_Centrist  
    • modans55:

      You keep PARROTING the lie that if Obama had vetoed the NDAA Congress would have overridden it. 357 total votes are required to override a presidential veto, the Republicans could not muster that many votes on a good day. There are "ONLY" 288 Republicans in both Houses of Congress!

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
    • -3
      modans55  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      I keep posting facts and you continue to ignore them. You have zero credibility.
      "There seems to be a notion that if President Obama had vetoed it, Congress would have gone back and redone the bill. The vote totals say something quite different. They would have simply voted to override, and they had the votes to do it. Now, yes, lots of liberal bloggers would have been thrilled to death that he vetoed it. Well, not really. Most of them would have come up with another reason why he “failed.” Getting overridden on a veto wouldn’t have done much for him, either."
      http://cendax.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/some-thoughts-on-the-ndaa/
      Isn't it getting close to your bedtime?

    • 8 months ago
  • tverdell
  • Progresshiv
  • Radical_Centrist
  • Incredulous
  • PressCore
    • +2
      PressCore  

    • The worst way I can think of for any adminstration to solve the Immigration
      problem. The barbed wire in front of the flag is very telling. As from the
      words of a Jackson Browne song, noone would want to break into a Prison.

    • 8 months ago
  • EvilDoer
  • gump
    • +4
      gump  

    • I live in a lawless country in a lawless world. ....Sounds like civilization is a failure when I read that sentance. There are natural laws in effect. Thank god we have those. Numbers and waves as some ancient greeks used to say. The fabric of our universe. But the humans. So free to choose... Can be so lawless....

    • 8 months ago
  • lightningthunderfox
    • 0
      lightningthunderfox  

    • parties pick nominations, nominations go to congress to ask for votes, congress submittes electoral college to Supreme court. Supreme Court regardless of electoral college Picks the President of the U.S.A. Where in there do you see your vote?

    • 8 months ago
  • gump
  • Radical_Centrist
  • Gordon_Shumway
    • +1
      Gordon_Shumway  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      Really? That's a shame. This video is drivel! It's grammer school level sarcasm that's barely suitable for a playground argument; and it makes no point which I can discern.

      Anyway, what I mean is that I didn't care for it!

    • 8 months ago
  • gump
  • modans55
  • rerushg
    • +6
      rerushg  

    • The wrinkle here is the same as it's always been. We are at war.

      Did anybody think the DOJ would NOT appeal this? Really?

      Sooooo.... get on Congress' ass and get us out of war posture. Presidential powers diminish dramatically. Tell them we don't really give a shit what THEY think anymore, end declared war. We can still have military intervention without declared war. "War on Terror" is war forever. There is no reason for war on terror. It falls completely under what any nation would consider to be its responsibility to defend itself from aggression and disruption by violence. No "war" required.
      Likewise the "War on Drugs"; that's bullshit too.

    • 8 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
  • rerushg
    • +4
      rerushg  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      Really stupid question.
      The Authorization to use Military Force is absolutely no different, including the stipulation that presidential powers under the War Powers Act are enabled. That is precisely the point, R_C. You make a point of minutia. Do you refer to the Iraq War as the "AMF in Iraq"? No, you don't. Who does? The posture is almost exactly the same except for duration which is constantly renewed.
      And THAT's the point too. Congress can refuse to renew the AMF's and presidential authority under the WPA are dissolved and all these issues go away. If they don't renew it, the argument falls irrefutably into purely constitutional context and there is no justification for indefinite detention at all.

    • 8 months ago
  • lightningthunderfox
  • hammywill
  • gump
  • gump
  • treewolf39
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +1
      Radical_Centrist  
    • rerushg:

      "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

      This is "NOT" a deceleration of War!

      Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

      CHAMP CLARK
      Speaker of the House of Representatives
      THOS. R. MARSHALL
      Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate

      Approved, April 6, 1917
      WOODROW WILSON

      This "IS" a Declaration of War!

      http://youtu.be/8TZ5cpaPlf4

    • 8 months ago
  • treewolf39
    • +2
      treewolf39  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      Great speech and of course most of the country never saw it. Thank you. I like Ron Paul but his party leads way to much to war and more war no matter what he says. Lets keep filming these people and the police so the rest of the people can really see what they say and then what they do. I knew we were in bad trouble when states mike Mass. made it not legal to film the same police they pay for. Free country my ass. The only truth in that is the freedom of the American government to fuck you over and lie.

    • 8 months ago
  • rerushg
    • 0
      rerushg  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      "This is "NOT" a deceleration of War!"
      You got that right. Could not have said it any better.

      The practical differences amount to little more than relieving the country of binding agreements under international treaty.

      Dick Cheney commencement speech to West Point in 2007:

      ".... As Army officers on duty in the War on Terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for. Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away. These are men who glorify murder and suicide. Their cruelty is not rebuked by human suffering, only fed by it. They have given themselves to an ideology that rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience, and demands that women be pushed to the margins of society. The terrorists are defined entirely by their hatreds, and they hate nothing more than the country you have volunteered to defend."

      Actually, Cheney describes the typical red state.

    • 8 months ago
  • rerushg
    • +1
      rerushg  
    • lightningthunderfox:

      Sure. You're right. The point is that we're arguing the nuance when the practical result is exactly the same.
      The result is that President Obama is forced to maintain a strong militant posture resulting from the idiots Bush/Cheney desire to got to war for economic purposes and to obfuscate financial malfeasance, all based on lies.
      Obama must defend as stridently as possible for even the smallest incident is political disaster. What is the most likely source of terrorist incident in this country? False flag attack from the Wacko-Right.

    • 8 months ago
  • rerushg
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +1
      Radical_Centrist  
    • rerushg:

      "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

      I might add Iraq had "NOTHING" to do with 9/11. according to this resolution we SHOULD have been bombing Riyadh instead of Baghdad.

    • 8 months ago
  • rerushg
    • -1
      rerushg  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      "....we SHOULD have been bombing Riyadh instead of Baghdad....."

      We do you persist that we must bomb someone. Appropriate response was to track down bin Laden. Instead Bush/Cheney mad a big show of Iraq, killed over 100,000, and back-burnered the bin Laden effort in order to perpetuate the war on terror.
      The involvement of the Saudis is pretty evident but their collusion with the neocon Right. Recall that the Saidis were allowed to fly home from the US despite the FBI/CIA wanting to question them. Bin Laden's brother sat in a meeting here with the Carlyle Group on the very day of 9/11.
      It simply baffles me, R_C, that your persist in bashing President Obama while knowing full well that the horrors of the past 12 years were the result of GOP neglect, if not outright perpetration.

    • 8 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +2
      Radical_Centrist  
    • rerushg:

      I am not saying we should bomb anyone. I am just following your assertion that this CRAZY resolution is a declaration of war. By the criteria of who is able to be attacked Saudi Arabia is "FAR" more guilty than was Iraq. How many of the alleged bombers wee from Iraq again?

    • 8 months ago
  • rerushg
    • 0
      rerushg  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 perps were Saudi. But it's understandable that bin Laden might have purposely recruited Saidis to cast blame on the one Arab country in the region most aligned with America. From Iraq: none.
      My point is the AMF is actually worse than a formal declaration of war.

    • 8 months ago
  • gump
    • +2
      gump  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      They kind of look the same to me except one just says lets kill everyone not just Germans. They should have specificly listed the Bush Boys as the enemy in one of them. Instead of just describeing them in relation to what was done on 911.

    • 8 months ago
  • gump
    • +2
      gump  
    • treewolf39:

      I don't care for Ron. He is a con. He is a rabid self promoter who just gathers what he can for himself. His thinking has a limited horizon that precludes being a positive leader who could effect positive out comes for common people. Just too dam selfish. I knew his biggest promoter in Phx Az . So I know somethings about his politics. Ron just lacks the right stuff. Mostly lacking the kind of integrity that includes real concern for other people. He was a big disapointment to me. Good to see you treewolf39. Hope you are getting better. I suggest lots of bracholy and spinich raw or juiced maybe as a smoothy every day.

    • 8 months ago
  • gump
  • gump
    • +2
      gump  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      Agree right down the line but the way forward is blocked by the far right haveing complete control of this country through its Darksider Bush Boy controled CIA that dominates the world scene with military power above any real power of congress or the president to choose policy. Total corruption. This is not a real democracy. I wish that it were.

    • 8 months ago
  • hammywill
    • -2
      hammywill  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      There's nothing in the Constitution which proscribes how a Declaration of War must be worded. Authorization for use of force is indeed declaration of war. Not saying I agree with it, but Congress DID authorize it.

    • 8 months ago
  • hammywill
    • 0
      hammywill  
    • rerushg:

      You know how it could be stopped in one day without any bloodshed? A nationwide General Strike. But Americans won't do that, or anything remotely like it. They won't even close their bank accounts at Chase! So it will get to a point where violence is assured. *sigh*

    • 8 months ago
  • rerushg
  • modans55
  • Radical_Centrist
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • gump:

      Its is slow with very few rides to the store And a social security disability program being manged be people who belong in jail or at least an unemployment line. No money for months. Oh well, at least I am not related to Mittens! Ron has given decent speeches before and nail the truth from time to time sometimes on important issues but you are right. He is no one to trust in any way. Even Mittens speaks the truth once a year but it is usually on accident and don't worry, he will tell you something different the next time. Hope your life has some mellow parts. Peace.

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
  • modans55
  • modans55
  • modans55
  • treewolf39
  • Radical_Centrist
  • Radical_Centrist
  • modans55
  • modans55
  • modans55
    • -1
      modans55  
    • lightningthunderfox:

      World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds,.

    • 8 months ago
  • Leafsfan_Torontofan
    • +3
      Leafsfan_Torontofan  

    • The Patriot act now this.These 2 parties don't want change.It shouldn't matter where you are from if you are arrested by the USA.You should get a trial not a Military tribunal.I would like to actually hear a argument that the USA is the freest country in the world.

    • 8 months ago
  • Andover
  • AmericanStandard
  • treewolf39
    • +5
      treewolf39  

    • My favorite part is not having a king but instead three branches of government that has the job of protecting all our rights even from the other branches! Checks and balances.

    • 8 months ago
  • texshelters
  • gump
  • treewolf39
  • gump
  • modans55
  • treewolf39
  • Radical_Centrist
  • circlesquared
  • treewolf39
  • treewolf39
  • Radical_Centrist
  • treewolf39
  • Gordon_Shumway
  • rerushg
  • modans55
    • -2
      modans55  

    • Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. That section affirms the administration's right to detain any "person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," including U.S. citizens.
      If any suspected terrorists are allowed to walk, you neo-cons would be all over the administration for being weak. You can't have it both ways.

    • 8 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +2
      Radical_Centrist  
    • modans55:

      I have no problem locking up Americans who are Terrorists, but it would be nice to give them a trial FIRST! This is some Third world BS where the Gov ACCUSES you of a crime then puts in prison without ever giving you a chance to defend yourself.

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +2
      Radical_Centrist  
    • modans55:

      Do you UNDERSTAND how the NDAA works? Once you are arrested the Gov is "NOT" required to give you a trial or even formally charge you with a crime. This is why a Judge has found that it violates the sixth amendment.

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
  • Radical_Centrist
  • modans55
  • Radical_Centrist
  • treewolf39
  • modans55
    • 0
      modans55  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      There was a LOT in the NDAA that had no need to be included. The Provision you are whining about was authored by Senators Carl Levin and John McCain.
      Obama was FORCED to sign the NDAA in order to have funds released for Military Pay and Veteran's Benefits.
      Don't YOU remember? It was in all the papers.

    • 8 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +3
      Radical_Centrist  
    • modans55:

      Obama, and his MSM puppets, wanted Americans to believe that he was “hesitant” in signing the Constitution usurping NDAA into law, which allows the federal government to indefinitely detain US citizens without due process. Of course to show his “objection,” Obama “threatened” to veto the act and later issued a signing statement to cover his administration’s fraud.

      So, as we learn from this clip, Sen. Levin, a Democrat, tells us that Congress had written the act to exclude American citizens from indefinite detention but the Obama administration wanted that language removed. The Obama issues a signing statement pretending to be against the language his administration wanted changed.

      If someone in the media had balls to actually be a journalist, this would be a Pulitzer Prize moment. Again, Obama is caught boldly lying. It’s documented.

      The media parrots Obama’s talking points and the gullible continue to drink the Obama Kool-Aid.

      The president is the biggest fraud and most dangerous man to our country.

      Wake the Fuck Up People.

      http://bit.ly/UdisiV

    • 8 months ago
  • modans55
    • -3
      modans55  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      If any person or person would be excluded from the provision, the Underwear Bomber could not have been detained if he had been found out before his 'junk' misfired.
      Again, if you want to talk about unconstitutionality, look no further than the Bush Doctrine and Bush's Signing Statement about using torture on terrorist detainees.

      McCin partnered with Levin to write the provision. Where are your crocodile tears whining about him?

    • 8 months ago
  • hammywill
    • +3
      hammywill  
    • modans55:

      The NDAA allows for indefinite detention without trial. Of course people are detained BEFORE they are tried, but in this case I almost think you are being intentionally obtuse. Obviously there is no issue with an arrest and detention, it is the NOT getting a trial part. Indefinite detention without trial is abhorrent for any reason.

    • 8 months ago
  • hammywill
  • hammywill
  • hammywill
  • Radical_Centrist
12
1 - 100 of 180

top videos