"Why I’m Suing Barack Obama "

...I think this is absurd: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=174942

Thanks for that clarification on Hedges' background.

Too may people are going about walking and dressing like dedicated progressives these days calling for the ouster of Barack Obama. When you scatch away the outer patina we find someone who never liked the man for one reason or another to begin with, claiming their actions are based on some patriotic or moral mission they've been on since birth.

The fact is, these people would be glad to replace Obama with a president Romney on the absurd notion they can then stop complaining about government over reach.

I don't know Hedges' rooted motives for certain, but It was easy to spot many of these people even before the election. They were the ones with "Democrat For McCain" signs in their yard. I had one friend who had one of those signs in his front yard in 2008. Do you know what he said when I asked him why?

Of course you do.

That crowd blames him for everything and gives him credit for nothing.

He casted a ballot for McCain/Palin. On the other hand, Obama has stated that he is FOR repeals of certain provisions. Not to mention the VETO-PROOF majority in the House.

Hedges is completely right in this case. There is no place in any Democracy for laws like this.

I think he's also right (I've said it before) that the banksters and Wall Street PTB got spooked by the Occupy movement, and are doubling down against the citizens.

The law has not been applied to him.

His argument that it might someday be applied to him may not be enough to continue a suit.

The person indefinitely detained can file a writ of habeas corpus. Where in the NDAA does it say that the person does not have the right to counsel and that the detention is not public? You're now adding new evils to the alleged "indefinite detention."

With no real legal backing to it.

And apparently decided that there can be no challenge to it, either.

Why don't you worry more about jurisdiction stripping? There are un-reviewable acts of the Executive now. That would be more of a threat to the separation of powers.

Yet you simply deem that since you want it to be so, there can be no challenges to this law.

I agree, without a damaged party he's the wrong one to bring the suit.

I've been saying for some time a suit will be brought, and won, but it will be against the AUMF, not the defense budget. And it will require a damaged party.

So if they do not have a good argument for change in existing law, they are subject to frivolous filing penalties. One is not supposed to file lawsuits to get attention.

I really, really, really, really doubt it. But it might be enough to scrape by against frivolous.

These are the facts. You don't have to like them. The Courts apply the case law, not your personal take on things.

This lawsuit by Chris Hedges is doing exactly what I believe Obama wanted it to do. Challenge the law's legality in the courts. I believe he set it up to lose in court.

People who are just determined to dislike, mistrust and criticize every single thing President Obama does, of course will assume the worse. That he has some nefarious plot to sell them out to the evil forces of the world, etc.

I believe his back was up against the wall with this. Congress was going to pass it, with or without him. He agreed to sign it in return for planting legal bombs in it that I feel certain will cause it to be struck down in court.

The House of Representatives voted to pass the NDAA 2012 with 283 (65%) voting yes and 136 (31%) voting no. 14 (3%) didn't vote.

The Senate voted to pass it with 86 (86%) voting yes and 13 (13%) voting no. 1 (1%) Senator did not vote.

I am just guessing that the 8 Republicans - including Michele Bachmann - that didn't vote the last time would have joined their colleagues in the House to make up the two thirds majority needed to hand President Obama an embarrassing defeat with an override of his veto in this election year. There's no question that there was more than the required number to override a veto in the Senate. It would have been a futile act of symbolism to veto it.

The veto of this bill, which primarily funds the entire Armed Forces, would cause a delay, during which troops in Afghanistan would not be paid, jets would be grounded for lack of fuel, the Pentagon couldn't pay its heating bill and thousands of shipbuilders and other workers employed by contractors with the military would be laid off. He doesn't have line item veto power so he couldn't just veto the part he didn't like.

President Obama would have begun his reelection year with Republicans blaming him for "not paying our brave combat soldiers," killing jobs, and being weak on defense. He knew he was going to catch hell for this decision, but he made a difficult choice. That's why he made the signing statement. What other reason would he do that? The wording of it was part of the legal sabotage he placed in it to help assure that the courts would overturn it.

All the lefties who think he is just weak, immoral or corrupt are blinded by their one dimensional thinking. Why is it so hard to believe that this man is smarter than you?

This begs a number of questions.

Why did the White House indicate he was leaning towards not signing the bill?

Why was the bill signed on New Year's Eve of all days?

If the President is so concerned with civil libeties, why has his administration engaged in and endorsed
activities such as the following?

"The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party."

"Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy"

"The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review" (Johnathan Turley)

This is only a sampling. And it is nothing new with him. *Here is Rachel Maddow on indefinite detention from 1999*

youtube.com
/watch?v=XBdPEK5pNtE


He may be 'smarter' than us lowly, beknighted flatlanders. It may not be to our benefit however

--

As far as Chris Hedges, I suggest a viewing of his recent wide-ranging interview on CSPAN. Particularly for anyone questioning his motives.

www.c-span.org/Events/In-Depth-with-Author-and-Journalist-Chris-Hedges/10737426679-1/

Obama knows the law is seriously flawed and deliberately unconstitutional.

Yet he signed it anyway.

Just like he knew the de-funding of ACORN was a bill of attainder and unconstitutional. Yet he signed it into law anyway and destroyed ACORN.

Obama has betrayed the American People.

huh?

He can sign it, knowing the Courts will not uphold it, so it's worthless anyway.

Now I know why. Idol worshipers at work!

"Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School"

Not a lawyer!