I'm surprised a Constitutional Lawyer wouldn't get it

Like the belief that the NDAA somehow authorizes detention for US citizens even though it literally says EXACTLY the opposite right in the text of the bill.

Why did Obama as the question if there was no doubt
I commend him for asking the Judge
On Thursday, District Judge Katherine Forrest finalized a ruling on the controversial National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama. Last month Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional and now decided no American should be subject to indefinite detention. Since the beginning, NDAA was confronted with hefty criticism and caused of group of activists and journalists to sue the Obama administration over the act. One of the plaintiffs, Tangerine Bolen, executive director for Revolution Truth, was a plaintiff

have a difference of opinion about that and amendments clarifying such got shot down more than once.

As best it isnt clear, at worst it authorizes indefinite detention. Why take the chance? Why not spell it our crystal clear? And no it isnt clear now.

And I believe the Constitutional lawyer completely "gets it". What a power for a president to have. Even if he chooses not to use the power what about future presidents?

and the military generals saw the signatures and know who is participating
in the lost of constitutional rights in America under the cover of terrorism and war

The Senate signed and the House and the President

and the SCOTUS, IMHO, backed him up.

We are living in a country where the president can literally kill whom he thinks needs killing and arrest and detain anyone he wants w/o due process.

Also, in the linked story: "Judge Forrest does include in her ruling, however, that Americans can be indefinitely detained"

government can link suspects directly to the September 11 terrorist attacks." This statement makes it crystal clear that government indefinite detention is not constitutional in any case except directly related to the attacks on Sept 11. And the Pres Obama admin is not happy with that.

Re. the SCOTUS rulings in the Padilla and Hamdi cases, i believe that they ruled that someone should be appointed by someone to decide if a military review panel was needed. I dont have the quote, but it was extremely wishy-washy.

The Obama administration knows it is in there and asked her to reconsider.

disagrees with you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002784840

A kid with a HS education could tell you the Patriot Act is unConstitutional, and he supports that too. They must know it's illegal, they just either love the power of are forced to listen by who's really in charge.

It should really say Sorry Senators though too. Those were the jerks that passed it.

certainly been against something like the NDAA.

Senate Dems were just going along with the president. He's the one who pushed this bill. Why are you giving him a break and holding Dem Senators accountable? They are all responsible for this horrible mess, but Obama more so than anyone.

Nice.

Sid

is there other sources for the decision

Is halfway between Fox News and Pravda. Among other things, the NDAA very explicitly does not apply to US citizens--it's right there in the bill text--so a judge can hardly "ban" it.

On Thursday, District Judge Katherine Forrest finalized a ruling on the controversial National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama. Last month Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional and now decided no American should be subject to indefinite detention. Since the beginning, NDAA was confronted with hefty criticism and caused of group of activists and journalists to sue the Obama administration over the act. One of the plaintiffs, Tangerine Bolen, executive director for Revolution Truth, joins us to discuss the court's ruling.

"Last month Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional and now decided no American should be subject to indefinite detention."

Nope, the NDAA stands. One single provision was blocked because it was vague, and in her ruling, she noted that her action does not affect the government's *current* ability to arrest, and militarily detain, US citizens, without a civilian trial. She repeated that finding in her follow up.

I have to run now, but let me know if you really need me to find it for you and I'll do it later.

give airtime to Progressive voices, which makes it hated by the Right. People like Bill Moyers, Greg Palast and so many you won't see on the MSM. They are free to speak without interruption another great feature of their programming. No yelling Right Wingers like Fox or CNN trying to provide 'balance' by having the likes of Glenn Beck on their networks. Of course they will give him a voice too, but he will not get away with the lies he tells on RT. Too many intelligent progressives for that.

Great foreign coverage also and much, much more news than 'infotainment' like we get on the MSM here. Thankfully no coverage of what Lindsey Lohan or Kim Kardashian are doing so lots more time for actual news.

And what's more, RT's reporting on this story is factual while your post is inaccurate. I guess that makes you worse than Fox News and Pravda by your own standards.

That's actually in the rt story with the fake headline.

And the Pres Obama admin even comments on reversing the decision that you claim isnt necessary. Why do they need to reverse the decision?

You never actually say whether you support indefinite detention or not. I am curious which way you lean.

Federal judge blocks National Defense Authorization Act provision

In a stunning turnaround for an act of Congress, a judge ruled Wednesday that a counterterrorism provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual defense appropriations bill, is unconstitutional. Federal district Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued an injunction against use of the provision on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who had filed suit in March, claiming it would chill free speech.

In her decision published Wednesday, Forrest, in the Southern District of New York, ruled that Section 1021 of NDAA was facially unconstitutional — a rare finding — because of the potential that it could violate the 1st Amendment.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment,” she wrote, addressing the constitutional challenge.

Seven individuals, including Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges, MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and “Pentagon Papers” activist Daniel Ellsberg, had sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and a host of other government officials, stating they were forced to curtail some of their reporting and activist activities for fear of violating Section 1021. That section prohibits providing substantial support for terrorist groups, but gives little definition of what that means. Environmental activists were also poised to join the suit if it expanded.

Judge Forrest also found that the language of Section 1021 was too vague, meaning it was too hard to know when one may or may not be subject to detention.

“It was really unusual for a judge to declare unconstitutional a major provision of an act of Congress. I can’t remember the last time that ever happened,” said Carl Mayer, co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “The judge recognized that, but felt it was necessary to protect our constitution and to protect our democracy. There’s a lot of activists who understand how serious this is, but it’s less well known to the general public.”

The suit demands that Congress cut or reform this section of the law, which allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain without charges anyone — including U.S. citizens — who may have “substantially supported” terrorists or their “associated forces,” without defining what those terms mean. President Obama signed the bill on Dec 31, 2011, with a signing statement saying that the law was redundant of powers already provided to the government under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (passed after 9/11), and that these powers would not be used against U.S. citizens. The next administration may decide differently, however.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-national-defense-authorization-ruling-20120518,0,2046039.story

maybe LA TIMES will be an ok source

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

need to have their head examined.

Why are we being treated to the Russian government's opinion?

Sid

are right wingers. And funny, that is how they attack it also. With the old 'commie' nonsense. As Bill Clinton said about the other day, 'at least Joe McCarthy could skate on the fact that actually were a few commies around back in the fifties but no one has seen an actual commie here in decades'. Yes, Bill, finally someone addressed that tired, old, laughable rightwing scare tactic. It only works on 80 year olds who were actually around during the Cold War.

The fact is that the version of RT we see here in the US, approved btw, of the US Government, is based in the US. All of its anchors for US news are Americans, and thankfully most of them women. Very intelligent women btw, who don't just wear makeup and read memos, they actually understand the issues they report on.

RT reported correctly on this story which is no surprise. What is interesting is that the thread with the judge's actual ruling sunk without comment from any of those claiming to be so interested in the facts.

I would love to read their opinion

now that you see it in the LA Times?

Sid

source. The LA Times is right leaning. But the story has been reported elsewhere, and it's a good ruling.

the same type of people who would kill the messenger rather then disprove the message, after all they do tend to be a rather low intelligence bunch.

faith in a right leaning news source than a source that is far more credible, not just nationally but internationally? And you do understand that RT which is available here in the US with no objections from the US Government, has its offices here in the US? Is Bill Moyers a 'commie'? Thom Hartmann? How about DUer, Steve Leser?

I would not trust the LA Times when it comes to Democrats any more than I would trust Rupert Murdoch's rags.

Imagine that.

Of course, the LA times got the ruling wrong, too.

I got frustrated this morning at the lack of anything to hang your hat on. I finally came to the actual orders, which is always the best place to start.

So do the pundits.

using Right Wing sources we've seen here recently.

to keep this provision in place - a provision, we were assured, he hated and accepted with the greatest reluctance only because there was no other way to pass the rest of the NDAA which was badly needed.

Feh.

Bingo MannyGoldstein
Habeas Corpus

TERRA! TERRA!

more of the American citizen's rights.

It's the bill that funds healthcare for wounded soldiers, keeps the lights on at military bases, keeps research programs running at colleges....

"The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense.[1] Each year's act also includes other provisions."

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

be part of it, but there are some very bad things in it as well. It should never have been passed in it's current form.

I might support him in the endeavor.

then what?

Why ask the judge to review it if he wanted to fight for it? Damn I hope he doesn't.

I'm still angry that so many democratic senators voted for it.

less paperwork involved

Can you provide a link?

Seems like both were signed by the Executive.

He will fight it and lose. Therefore protecting us from having a Republican use it in the future.

I know, I have heard of this strategy before.

Though I read and more or less accepted and defended the NDAA as the usual sort of thing we have had in every war, I still welcome a clear legal ruling that limits its application. Rule of law works best when the laws are clear and clearly understood all around, which is one thing the writers of the NDAA didn't really get done right.

This is a victory for the rule if law.

A joke, but kind of a serious joke. It is good to appoint people to courts who will turn around and challenge you.

Presidents have to be watched and contained when necessary. It's a condition of the position.

I suspect the Appellate Court will overturn this judge's ruling. While the Supreme Court during Bush's years in office occasionally pushed back on Cheney's unbridled assertion of Executive Privilege (because we know it was him that was behind it), I still suspect the Supremes would uphold this. After all they have allowed the Constitution to be used as toilet paper by the President and as a lottery ticket for the billionaires.

takes a course to the dark and darker side

Yoo said torture was ok and waterboarding was ok and everybody stood back and bobbled headed

the rest of the world did not think Yoo was correct

Either that or a whollllllllllle bunch of "there isn't any indefinite detention for Americans law in the NDAA" people were wrong.

The judge explicitly says that such detention already is, and will continue to be, legal.

or anyone who is not explicitly the subject of detention under the AUMF.

NDAA has made me ashamed to be an Obama supporter.

Presidents come and go, but what should always be more important is the rule of law and the US Constitution.

If holding anyone the government labels a "suspected terrorist" indefinitely without trial is not cruel and unusual punishment and also a clear violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, I don't know what is.

I have heard Obama is worse than Bush in detaining people without due process.

glad to see this happen ....

If a provision in the NDAA says it's inapplicable to American citizens, and the judge's injunction merely prevents the Executive Branch from applying the law to American citizens, then there's no harm to the decision, right? And, more to the point, there's no valid reason for the Obama administration Department of Justice to appeal the ruling, right?

They were using different wording before, this was a minor wording tweak on the possible *reasons* for legal, indefinite, military detentions of American citizens.

The Judge's injunction does not stop such detention.

It only rules that said detention cannot reference this one small section of a defense spending bill for it's primary reason, unless said person can be connected to the WoT. The prior crieria still stand.

I think the people with the "wouldn't be applied" illusion were being placated by wording saying that the provisions don't change the law for citizens... and were under the illusion that it wasn't already totally legal.

The actual ruling has been posted elsewhere but those 'concerned' about the very credible source you used, now proven to be correct as it usually is, have not contributed to that thread. Things that make you wonder!

about silencing discussion and opposition to bad policy and not about protecting us from bad "sources".

They will claim any source is pure evil if it points out inconvenient truths, this does not make me wonder at all, I have watched the GOP do the very same thing for years. Now that the Republican purges have gifted us with these very same individuals within out party as third way saviors, one hardly expects their political views or tactics to change, except perhaps in a superficial way, like changing their Registration from R to D.

There will be more attempts to silence policies designed to make the country more corporate friendly and more authoritarian.
It will end with one party, it matters little what the new Fascist party will call themselves, it is after all merely a sales branding issue for them.

Only the foolish or blind are missing what has been going on for thirty years.
I am neither, I am instead an endangered species, a "paleo-Democrat".

made an argument that the challenge to the case, but the judge struck down Congress' interpretation.

the actions of the plaintiffs in this case were not outside of the application.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002784840

essentially made it nearly impossible for a terrorism suspect to end up in the hands of the military."

You dont have to be a lawyer to see the holes in that. "Guidelines", "essentially", "nearly impossible".

Guidelines essentially made it nearly impossible.

what happens when another president is in office?

Or is this just another disingenuous Obama-hater headline?

nt

So did the judge say that Obama cannot employ the provision, or is it a disingenuous headline?

Aren't they covered by the Constitution?

But the Bush gang ignored all of our laws, including the Constitution itself when they opened the Gulag on Cuba, cynically planned to keep the detainees out of the reach or our judicial system. Not that they were right, but who was going to fight them? Congress?

It is so obviously unconstitutional. Ridiculous affront to our civil rights.