Problem Solved.

That seems to be one of the preferred methods of this Admin.

I think my statement is fairly clear and unambiguous.

Cheers!

that the NDAA gives Obama the right to detain him and other US citizens.

The court rules "no Obama can't detain you under this statute" and your response is "Obama would just use drones--that's what he does."

are in charge.

.

but only by a thin layer of scum imo.

Obama is actually going to detain all his critics and send them to FEMA camps.

I read it on the interwebz.

and go house to house collecting all 200 million of our GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNSSS!"

Now be scared and go by more GUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNS! FREEEDUMB!

Sadly, I had a person I consider to be half intelligent tell me that with a straight face the other day.

That is SAD. That is a line right out of the NRA playbook! UGH!!!

but a tyrannical big brother is so far beyond what they need when they can have control over your bank account and credit card.

Who needs to kill you? They can just ruin your life. Make your credit rating disappear, invalidate your drivers license. Seize your assets. Tell your dog Thor that you are a commie bastard when your not at home.

commie bastards. They never have good doggie treats.

'squinty eye' treatment when we see each other. I think he is watching Foxnews behind my back. I found a copy of Atlas Shrugged underneath his dog bed. You think he is wearing a wire?

This is pretty confusing.

Let's first talk about U.S. citizens. The court appears to say that the NDAA doesn't change what was in effect before. The question is what was in effect before? Does Obama believe the AUMF gives him the authority to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial? Would a court agree with him that the AUMF allows such a thing?

As for non U.S. citizens, the court says since the plaintiffs themselves are unlikely to ever be arrested, they lack standing. I suppose this means the court won't rule on this until somebody is locked up, and that person sues. I really dislike these standing arguments, especially when it comes to secrets. Have courts ever ruled that Mr. X can't sue the NSA for information it collects about X, because X can't be sure they have any information on him?

Second paragraph--general rule is that harm can't be speculative.

I think the standing issue is much more problematic re: NSA surveillance than it is for detention. Much easier to determine if you've been detained than to tell if you've been snooped on.

I would hope you're right. But has a court ever ruled one way or the other? Even if Obama doesn't claim such power, could President Cruz claim it?

I agree standing may not be as big a deal for detention, though the person eventually detained may not be as well-equipped to challenge the law than these plaintiffs. Sometimes it just feels like courts use standing to avoid making uncomfortable decisions-- recently on same-sex marriage, for example. I understand that it doesn't want to spend time dealing with hypothetical situations, but on the other hand, certain issues really do need to be clarified sooner rather than later.

Getting court approval is the real question.

The rule against advisory opinions is as old as the constitution itself.

Would be more useful to have advisory opinions--ironically this is about as close as one can get.

indefinite detention, under the theory of Hedges et al, because the NDAA compromise language that actually passed simply says that the NDAA itself does not affect any existing authorities regarding indefinite detention of citizens. The possible issue of indefinite detention of citizens might still be raised in a different suit, under a different theory, but that suit would (I think) have to aim at whatever actual statutory language or judicial precedent does control any possible indefinite detention of citizens, a matter which the court here recognized as being in dispute

And, as I further read the decision, non-citizens and non-permanent residents MIGHT be able to challenge the NDAA language regarding indefinite detention, under the theory of Hedges et al, but to do so would first HAVE to establish standing by documenting sufficiently substantial grounds for fear of such prosecution, a proof which the non-citizen plaintiffs did not provide to the satisfaction of the court, since they brought forth evidence neither of any actual plans or threats to prosecute them nor of any person, in a position comparable to their own, who had been so prosecuted

It was IMO a most naive suit, showing very little legal sophistication: why should one go to court arguing that one needs protection from a power, that the current administration doubts it has and says it will not use, and that is actually in dispute? This outcome is better than some we could have had from the lawsuit: suppose, for example, the court had ruled against Hedges et al, but in the course of its ruling had determined -- in agreement with the idiotic theory of the plaintiffs -- that the executive certainly DID have the power to detain journalists indefinitely, on a finding that their writings somehow aided al-Qaida? That might have been a major loss, if upheld by our current Supreme Court. Such an outcome, of course, was unlikely -- but to my PoV Hedges et al have shown themselves to be litigative morons for even inviting such an outcome

Point is to draw attention to themselves. The 2nd circuit basically wrote the ACLU's brief should any president attempt to detain a citizen citing the NDAA.

Frivolous lawsuits are cool!

NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit Thrown Out

have a pronounced herd mentality in which they nod their heads and accept with 100% fervant and blind faith everything appointed gateskeepers for the Truth say.

They don't particularly like to think for themselves, so they just go along with their echo chamber of choice.

Plaintiff: This law allows the government to detain me. Strike it down!
Court: The law cannot be used to detain you.
Plaintiff: Fascist!

period.

to be amended or repealed.