Federal Court Rejects NDAA's Indefinite Detention, Issues Injunction

First time accepted submitter Arker writes "A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. The Obama administration had argued, inter alia, that the plaintiffs, including whistleblower and transparency advocate Daniel Ellsberg and Icelandic Member of Parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir lacked standing, but Judge Katherine Forrest didnt buy it. Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle."

Comments

A small ray of hope

[colinrichardday]

It's about time someone stood up to the nightmare of a police state.

Re:A small ray of hope

[ZeroSumHappiness]

I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism." Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist? You supported him therefore you supported terrorism. WAT?

Re:A small ray of hope

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you bought peanuts from a vendor who contributed money to a charity organization that turned out to be funnelling money to another organization that in turn contributed to a group labeled by the US state department as "terrorist." You dern traitor! You should have bought those *patriot* peanuts with your freedom fries.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist?

My good friends call me Harry.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Lumpy]

Dont worry, the judge will find himself on a free vacation at Gitmo for his crimes against the government.

Re:A small ray of hope

[MisterSquid]

I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism."

To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.

Re:A small ray of hope

[WrongSizeGlass]

I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism."

To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.

That's because what they do is knowingly support terrorism, which is completely different.

Re:A small ray of hope

[redneckmother]

Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist?

My good friends call me Harry.

Damn - I have no mod points today!

Re:A small ray of hope

[artor3]

It only applies to foreign nationals who are arrested overseas (i.e. not on American soil). If you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, you're safe. If you're arrested in America, you're safe. It's not a good law, but my god, does anyone on this site have any idea what it even says?

Re:A small ray of hope

[reboot246]

Herself. The judge is a woman appointed by Obama.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we do. It says in very broad terms that US citizens may be detained without being charged or tried. Just because the president said it wouldn't be done does not mean that some future president would not do it. It very definitely needs to have a narrowing of the possibilities of application if its going to exist at all.

Re:A small ray of hope

[artor3]

No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf, pg 265. Read it for yourself.

This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.

Re:A small ray of hope

[mspohr]

Even being a US citizen doesn't protect you.
Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen living in Yemen who was thought to have ties to al-Qaeda. His 16 year old son was killed a few weeks later. They were executed by the US (using unmanned drones) without a trial or even charges being brought in the US.
The Wikipedia page gives a fairly comprehensive biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Re:A small ray of hope

[artor3]

That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.

Re:A small ray of hope

[zombiechan]

"but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial."

How would you know? He's not hating Obama for the sake of hating Obama. You seem to think that if they complain about Obama they must want a republican in charge.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Wandering Voice]

Wasnt that the same group that the FBI setup as a honeypot to catch terrorists?

Re:A small ray of hope

[colinrichardday]

No, not on this issue.

Re:A small ray of hope

[kilfarsnar]

That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.

Trials in absentia are generally illegal in the United States. In the 1993 case Crosby v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law "prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial."

Re:A small ray of hope

[Anonymous Coward]

"That had nothing to do with the NDAA" No, it was the AUMF, which the NDAA codifies into law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

The Authorization for Use of Military Force [1] is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[9] and Senate sponsors[10] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Tokolosh]

Either we (Americans) believe in our core values (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Pledge of Allegiance, due process, etc.) or we do not. Personally, I do, because these values result in desirable outcomes in the long run, even if inconvenient in the short term.

These values apply universally. There are no exemptions for non-US citizens, location outside the US or convenience to US interests.

Re:A small ray of hope

[kilfarsnar]

No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf, pg 265. Read it for yourself.

This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.

FWIW, I have seen you post that before and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention. To be fair, earlier drafts of the bill did not include such language. So there is a reason that people got upset; it wasn't that lies were being spread. However, the language was modified in the final draft and people didn't get the memo. So thanks for pointing it out.

Re:A small ray of hope

[darkmeridian]

"her"

Re:A small ray of hope

[Vancorps]

Yeah, the whole holding these truths to be self evidence bit seems to be pretty lost on most people that think it's okay as long as they aren't a citizen.

Of course I've seen video coverage of CPAC where the crowd actually cheers letting people die instead of providing healthcare for all so that's what we're up against. Dignity is only allowed if you make over a certain amount of money, nevermind the fact that success always comes from the bottom up.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Vancorps]

Except that he's wrong, as others have pointed out. The term existing laws in there is pretty powerful.

Re:A small ray of hope

[WalkingBear]

Tuttle? that you?

Re:A small ray of hope

[NeutronCowboy]

Is that why everyone was cheering when bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALS? Let's face it, we went down the slippery slope of extra-judicial killings a VERY long time ago.

Here's the deal: you either accept that we are in an actual war against people who are trying to kill any Americans they can get their hands on, and we use military methods to deal with the threat. Or you accept that we are dealing with a bunch of common criminals, and we bring in the detectives, the cops, and the judges.

One or the other. You don't send your military into a place to deal with people, and then act surprised because they shoot to kill.

Re:A small ray of hope

[rahvin112]

Buttle actually. Where's my refund?

Re:A small ray of hope

[moeinvt]

Thanks for the link.

I believe you're misinterpreting that section however. Yes, the section you cite states that it does nothing to change/affect EXISTING laws related to detention (of which there are many).

However, on the same page in section 1021, the Armed Forces are granted NEW authority to detain "covered persons" which is so vague as to mean basically anyone the government doesn't like.

The ACLU interpreted it as meaning indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, other civil liberties groups and lawyers have concluded the same, and it sure sounds like the judge in this case believed it.

Re:A small ray of hope

[RearNakedChoke]

It only applies to foreign nationals who are arrested overseas (i.e. not on American soil). If you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, you're safe. If you're arrested in America, you're safe. It's not a good law, but my god, does anyone on this site have any idea what it even says?

Oh, ok. Other governments won't reciprocate AT ALL. Nope. And I don't give a flying fuck about other completely innocent people, because only US citizens are people (and corporations, my friend ®). Everyone else can rot in detention for eternity.

Re:A small ray of hope

[drinkypoo]

If OBL had gotten a US green card first, would we just have to give up and let him have his way with us?

We'd have had to make a good faith attempt to capture him instead of moving right to assassination, if we cared about our laws.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Tokolosh]

Sorry, you have it wrong. Any "right" that is contingent on forcibly taking from another, is not a right. So you do not have a right to be provided by others for your healthcare. Dignity (whatever that means) does not enter into the equation.

Having said that, applauding death due to inability to afford healthcare is very callous.

Re:A small ray of hope

[mspohr]

I think you have a very good point.
The military is really not well suited to track down terrorists and bring them to justice. They are better suited for use where the enemy is also an army. Terrorists operate in small cells and it requires detectives and cops to track them down and bring them to justice. The invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary since they were willing to turn over al Qaeda and it baffles me why we are still there when al Qaeda has been absent for years. (Iraq was never a terrorist threat, that was just Bush and Cheny trying to take over the world's oil.)
Domestically, the FBI has been doing a good job of finding and thwarting terrorists and taking them before judges. This is the approach we should take to terrorists. "War" is the wrong term to use since the military is clumsy and ineffective against terrorists. I vote for the FBI.

Re:A small ray of hope

[snowgirl]

If OBL had gotten a US green card first, would we just have to give up and let him have his way with us?

We'd have had to make a good faith attempt to capture him instead of moving right to assassination, if we cared about our laws.

How it went down allows for the argument that we attempted to capture him. Seriously, how would anyone be able to argue that he was not shot in a justified action in the process of his capture? How would we distinguish between "we shot him on site" from "he became a lethal threat to our forces, and we shot him"?

Al-walaki at least had going that there was absolutely no ground troops involved, so there is no doubt that we didn't attempt a capture... but even then, as someone else argued, our rights should extend to non-citizens as well. Well, we violate non-citizen's US rights all the time when we shoot them in war. And what of all the people killed in the Civil War who actually WERE citizens? (By legal definitions of the Union north, not by self-classification of the Confederate south.) Should we have held a good faith attempt to capture every soldier and then hold a trial for them?

War and combat are distinctly different from civil criminal process.

Re:A small ray of hope

[snowgirl]

3) Obama tips off certain folks via other channels to challenge the law, AND,
4) He passes word to the Judge that he'd like to see that provision taken down in court.

Both of these steps are unnecessary. People were going to challenge the law regardless of if anyone tipped them off to challenge it or not. Obama already issued an executive order that bans execution of the provision already anyways. So as far the Obama executive works, it is already operating as if the law had not been passed. (Unfortunately, any new President could come in and reverse that executive order with minimal effort.) So, Obama already did better than anyone challenging the law can do: defuse it right away.

The fourth point is irrelevant, because the judge notes the reasoning behind her decision. Firstly, the government's best argument is that the NDAA provision is redundant, which even taken at full merit, allows the judge to issue an injunction without any affect on public interest.

Secondly, the judge pointed out that reading the NDAA as redundant is a mistake of legislative interpretation that holds that all actions taken by the legislative branch must have a purpose (otherwise, why would they spend the effort doing them?) So, the NDAA must be read as if it granted new powers, and since the NDAA does not have any construction to appropriately narrow its scope, such as definitions and clarifications that other laws receive, it is undeniably vague.

Seriously, any judge should have come to this decision....

Re:A small ray of hope

[rastoboy29]

You realize the administration didn't even want the addendum in there that (sort of) makes what you say true?

Our government is out of control.  And I'm a liberal.

Re:A small ray of hope

[s.petry]

Yes, we do. It says in very broad terms that US citizens may be detained without being charged or tried. Just because the president said it wouldn't be done does not mean that some future president would not do it. It very definitely needs to have a narrowing of the possibilities of application if its going to exist at all.

You mean the same President that swore he would Veto this bill but passed has no intention of taking the actions in the bill because he swears it won't happen?

The same Administration that swore the bill would not pass yet signed it at 11:59PM 12/21/12 when nobody was watching, and is fighting to keep the clauses in the Law, have no intentions of using the Law?

The terms "Gullible" and "Having the wool pulled over ones eyes" come to mind, but also "turning a blind eye" and a few others.

Re:A small ray of hope

[FriendlyLurker]

That's because what they do is knowingly support terrorism, which is completely different.

It would be even funnier... if it was not true. Better to laugh than cry I guess:

A bipartisan band of former Washington officials and politicians... have been paid large sums of money to speak at [terrorist group] MeK events and meet with its leaders

The MeK has engaged in an aggressive legal and lobbying campaign in Washington over the past two years to win its removal from the State Department’s [foreign Terrorist organization] list. . . .

Re:A small ray of hope

[The1stImmortal]

As it turned out, in 2002, the UN inspections went ahead (it just took a couple of months to happen following the passing of UN SC Resolution 1441). The inspectors considered that the disarmament programme was "going rather well".
Basically at that point I suspect Iraq & Saddam realised that the US was after an excuse to go in, and was trying desperately to avoid a war. They weren't 100% entirely into the inspections but who can blame them? It takes months to get things moving in bureaucracies and to get past decades of suspicion and resentfulness against inspectors. Unfortunately the situation got very bad very quickly not long after that and we had the war.
Also the "intel that pointed to there being some [WMDs]" wasn't just wrong, it was (a) at least partially fabricated (the "Curveball" informant) and (b) blown completely out of proportion.

Re:A small ray of hope

[demachina]

"The military is really not well suited to track down terrorists and bring them to justice."

That's why most of these activities have been moved in to the CIA. Its not exactly a secret that General Petreus took over as CIA director to run the secret wars the U.S. is waging across the Middle East, Africa and Asia. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, there are still going to be a bunch of secret little wars running all over the place that they are mostly going to be kept out of the press and away from Congress unless its in closed sessions with select committees of patsies.

These are mostly drone wars in the air and special ops on the ground. CIA gets way less scrutiny than either the DOD or DOJ since 9/11.

The CIA was hamstrung in the wake of the Church invesigations in the 70's but since 9/11 they can literally get away with murder again so that is where most of our wars will be fought from now on, including renditions and assassinations.

Re:A small ray of hope

[khallow]

Even being a US citizen doesn't protect you.

Consider the example. Anwar al-Awlaki was part of a group actively waging war on the US via bombings and other sorts of attacks. Being a combatant with US citizenship shouldn't protect you in that situation and it's wholly irrelevant to the legal problem of how and when the US decides something is "war".

Re:A small ray of hope

[drinkypoo]

If you really want to capture him (which we didn't) and you know he'll shoot at you then you have a whole bunch of options including sonic weapons, various gas weapons, robots, et cetera. We are talking about the world's most advanced and well-funded military operating on a mission planned well in advance. Are you trying to tell me they couldn't get some of the equipment they use to find mexicans hiding in boxes in a semi trailer airlifted to the region in a timely fashion so they could see who was hanging out where? Remember, this is a case where we knew right where he was.

I think that our rights should extend to non-citizens, or else they aren't human rights at all... or we're claiming them to be nonhuman and we don't want to go down that rabbit hole at all. But that's a separate argument, IMO.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Elaugaufein]

Every right is contingent on taking something from another: your rights restrict me and take from me the freedom to do whatever I please with/to you and since these things are supposed to be universally respected the forcefully taking is an implicit threat, even if in practice its usually accomplished merely by threat of societal censure.

This also works the other way too, my rights also restrict you. To make a relevant analogy your right to live prevents those people who you (seem to?) advocate letting die due to lack of health care from forming a lynch mob and hanging you from a nearby tree.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Elaugaufein]

Because the framing of the Bill of Rights says you are not providing them, you are merely recognizing as self-evident that everyone has/should have these rights. Its the difference between giving me a meal and recognizing that no one should walk up to me and take my meal way.

Re:A small ray of hope

[colinrichardday]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDAA_2012 The bill passed the House 283 to 136.[18]

The president can't flip four votes to make it 279 to 140 (overriding a veto requires a 2/3 majority)?

Re:A small ray of hope

[Prune]

Buttle is dead...

Re:A small ray of hope

[shiftless]

Yes you dumb shit, we do...and clearly you don't.

Here, I'll help you off that really tall horse.

Re:A small ray of hope

[shiftless]

"Nazi Germany" and "Adolf Hitler" are some that come to mine....since this type of stuff is exactly what he did to seize power.

Re:A small ray of hope

[shiftless]

The degree of your indoctrination into propagandistic thinking is frightening

Re:A small ray of hope

[ikeman32]

Oh for the love of Christ! Is there anyone left in this country or the rest of the world for that matter capable for reading and thinking for themselves? The NDAA of 2012 does not in any shape form or fashion authorize the in definite detention of American Citizens, legal resident aliens or anyone arrested within the United States. The right of Habeas Corpus can only be suspended by an act of Congress, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article I Section 9 US Constitution). Unless media has done a superb job of not reporting such profound events and hide from the American Populous open warfare on American Soil, it is highly unlikely that Congress with be able to get away with such action. The last rebellion was from 1861 to 1865 aka the Civil War or as the South calls it the War of Northern Aggression.

There is specific language within the so-called offending section that spells out that American Citizens, legal resident aliens and anyone arrested within the United States are exempt from such detention. And the NDAA of 2013 just passed by the House expands upon this fact. What this act does do other that appropriate funds is specifically authorized a long standing military practice of detaining enemy combatants during war time. This practice has been around since the invention of war and will continue be practiced until the end of all wars.

This anti-government propaganda makes me want to puke. If Congress would simply declare a state of war against the perceived enemy, like they did with the Barbary Pirates, much of this nonsense could probably be avoided. This would at least define an end game. It is said that the biggest threat to freedom is our own government, but I rather believe that a larger threat to freedom is ignorance and apathy. The fall of the Republic will not come with some Tyrant's mighty army but with resounding applause. Read the NDAA and see the truth for yourself. Anyone that says it authorizes the detention of American Citizens is either an ignorant buffoon and/or a liar. A little common sense and reading comprehension goes a long way.

Re:A small ray of hope

[colinrichardday]

This anti-government propaganda makes me want to puke.

So approving of a court ruling that places limits on such use of government power is anti-government propaganda?

it is highly unlikely that Congress with be able to get away with such action.

So Congress couldn't argue that terrorism is a threat to public safety? Also, the only way it would fail to get away with it(if passed) is if the courts overturn it. But then I would approve of such a ruling, and you would call that approval anti-government propaganda.

Anyone that says it authorizes the detention of American Citizens is either an ignorant buffoon and/or a liar.

The NDAA does not alter existing law in that respect. But does the AUMF permit indefinite detention of American citizens?

Re:A small ray of hope

[cmarkn]

There is still a bit of loose language here, in that it is not perfectly clear whether the last clause "who are captured or arrested in the United States" applies to "United States citizens, lawful resident alens of the United States" or only to "any other persons". Does this apply to an US citizen arrested in Colómbia or not?

Re:A small ray of hope

[ikeman32]

This anti-government propaganda makes me want to puke.

So approving of a court ruling that places limits on such use of government power is anti-government propaganda?

When such action is based upon a false premise then yes.

it is highly unlikely that Congress with be able to get away with such action.

So Congress couldn't argue that terrorism is a threat to public safety? Also, the only way it would fail to get away with it(if passed) is if the courts overturn it. But then I would approve of such a ruling, and you would call that approval anti-government propaganda.

Is there a Rebellion currently in the US? No. Is there an active Invasion upon American soil requiring massive military action to repel said invasion? No. One of these two conditions Rebellion or Invasion, must exist before the argument of a threat to public safety may be attempted on a legitimate basis. Focusing on one part of a clause while ignoring the rest is how propaganda is started and spread. This is why reading comprehension is so important.

Anyone that says it authorizes the detention of American Citizens is either an ignorant buffoon and/or a liar.

The NDAA does not alter existing law in that respect. But does the AUMF permit indefinite detention of American citizens?

It does not, it is merely a resolution that falls short of an actual declaration of war. Which hasn't occurred since WW II. In order for the indefinite detention of American Citizens without charge to occur the Writ of Habeas Corpus must be specifically suspended by Congress as require by Article I Section 9 of the Constitution. What it does do is open the door for the President to invade countries like Iran merely on the premise of Terrorism. We all know that one is coming.

Re:A small ray of hope

[colinrichardday]

When such action is based upon a false premise then yes.

Which action(s) is/are based on a false premise, the ruling itself, or my approval of it?

One of these two conditions Rebellion or Invasion, must exist before the argument of a threat to public safety may be attempted on a legitimate basis.

And how will this illegitimacy prevent Congress from legislating it?

Re:A small ray of hope

[ikeman32]

When such action is based upon a false premise then yes.

Which action(s) is/are based on a false premise, the ruling itself, or my approval of it?

Neither, the premise for the court action in the first place is false.

One of these two conditions Rebellion or Invasion, must exist before the argument of a threat to public safety may be attempted on a legitimate basis.

And how will this illegitimacy prevent Congress from legislating it?

It doesn't prevent them from attempting to legislate it, but the point is they haven't...yet.

No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[crazyjj]

When it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll affirm the law. They've been asleep at the wheel for 10 years, why wake up now? I'm pretty sure that most of them aren't even aware that there *is* a 4th Amendment at this point. And they probably think Habeas Corpus was a Roman emperor.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[medcalf]

Ten? Try nearly eighty.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[DigiShaman]

You sure about that? I could see SCOTUS going the other way. In all likelihood, they will strike down the healthcare law due to the way in which is was codified. Hopefully they will do the same with this too.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[crazyjj]

You mean like they struck down the Patriot Act, retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping, and all the other laws that have made torture and infinite detention with no trial legal?

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Hey! He's got some serious leftist disasterbation going on. Don't crush his groove! >:-(

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Hillgiant]

Well, all Very Serious People know the Founding Fathers had their fingers crossed when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They only meant for the 2nd and 10th to be taken seriously.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Shotgun]

Your statement, combined with your sig, gave me a serious headache.

The Republicans are offering coporate slavery.
The Democrats are offering government bureaucrat slavery.
They both are willing to use the military, the "War on [Terror|Drugs|Poverty|Obesity|Bullying|CO2]" to get their way.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they won't.

SCOTUS' reputation for being political is overblown. A couple of edge cases have gotten all the attention.

Consider the Obamacare situation - from a legal standpoint there's few differences with any president having the power to say: All Americans must buy one car per year for the sake of our nation. The argued differences come down to intent and effect, but intent plays a limited role in law and the limit isn't itself limited according to effect.

Indefinite detention without cause from a legal standpoint pretty much destroys both the law and the balance of power. The law becomes meaningless because you can just jail anyone for anything as long as you want and let them loose when you feel like it. Sure, it's only used in a limited way today, but if the principle becomes accepted and the entire political situation changes dramatically (let's say some global catastrophe causing a huge political upheaval) - if the principle is in place then detention becomes legal. The legal aspects of dictatorships actually do matter for the purpose of later trials by law rather than by gun. It also destroys the balance of power, because if one branch of the state can do this, then they don't need any other branches.

What has been indicated is simply limits to the power. Something that limits the _potential_ abuse. For example, "if a military tribunal (branch 1) decides to lock someone up indefinitely, then this must be reviewed by a regular judge (branch 2) within 2 months and every 6 months thereafter".

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[cpu6502]

The Court can only strike-down cases brought before them, and the government (both Bush and Obama) have been very careful to make sure that doesn't happen. They drop the case before it ever has a chance to reach the justices.

BUT when the justices have reviewed cases, they've typically sided with the Constitution, such as striking down the Washington and other city's laws that effectively-forbid ownership of guns. Striking down a law that forced states to build nuclear disposal sites. Striking down warrantless searches of our cellphones. Striking down random stops along highways (unless there's a specific & urgent need: such as locating an escaped prisoner). The Court of the last ten years has done more to limit the government's power than the Court from 1940 to 2000 (which was expansionist).

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[cpu6502]

>>>Libertarians think they're getting freedom by eliminating the government. They're just getting corporate slavery.

More like freedom where you choose which corporation you want to deal with. (1) Libertarians are not Anarchists. Just as Fascist/corporatists are not Communists. Libertarians don't want to eliminate government completely but instead, to quote Jefferson, "If it were possible to have no government, we would. But we need to government in order to protect our rights." He also said, "No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him."

(2) It is government that gave Comcast its monopoly over my neighborhood. If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple or MSN or Time-Warner could enter the market and give us some choice.

(3) And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Curunir_wolf]

To be fair, the only provision that you mention that the SCOTUS has upheld was the "material support" provision. It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.

Most of the other Patriot Act and FISA laws get dropped by the government when they get to court. They know, for instance, that courts are not going to uphold a law that prevents people from talking about secret warrants, so they bow out instead.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Problem is that not all of their rulings have been as good as those. One of the biggest was the Citizens United case where they seem to have produced the correct ruling for the individual suing, but screwed the nation. Yes they should have been able to produce and release their moved but rights granted to corporations is where they went wrong. In looking and reading about the case it seems to have gone wrong when Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart arguing for the Federal Elections Commission stated: [quoting from wikipedia]

the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.

This just seems like a sure fire way to get something struck down by the court which is probably why we got the ruling that we did.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[cpu6502]

The Court can only strike-down cases brought before them, and both Bush and Obama were very careful to make sure that doesn't happen. They drop the case before it ever has a chance to reach the justices. (Note that RIAA and MPAA use the same technique, to avoid getting DMCA or ProtectIP struck down.)

When the justices have reviewed cases before them, they've typically sided with the Constitution, such as striking down the Washington's law that effectively-forbade ownership of guns. Striking down a law that forced states to build nuclear disposal sites. Striking down warrantless searches of our cellphones. Striking down random stops along highways (unless there's a specific & urgent need: such as locating an escaped prisoner). The Court of the last ten years has done more to limit the government's power than the Court from 1940 to 2000 (which was expansionist).

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Anonymous Coward]

"No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him."

You're kidding, right? That implies a far bigger government than libertarians think. You see, libertarians tend to be quiet a bit more clever and a bit more succesful than their neighbors, but they're no better at recognizing their own ignorance. Doing what you claim is "All the government should ever have to do" means you'll need a massive government. How about a few examples about which I know more than the avergae bear, huh?

1) Forcing pollution cleanup and levying taxes and fees on those that don't. Some of this stuff is way worse for you than you think.

2) Monitoring industry for illegal dumping and making sure they have proper waste disposal. See the CA PG&E scandal for an example of something that isn't nearly as toxic as we routinely use these days. Now go find out what "acute waste" is.

3) Enforcing standards across the board. Yes, if the state two states upstream from you is dumping really nasty stuff in the river that you rely on what are you going to do? Yes, you need a strong federal authority for relief in said situation.

4) The power to take a long term view and say, "No". Let's pretend for a second that someone wants to exploit a resource, actually no, we'll just say Tar Sands, let's pretend they'd be as environmentally disastrous as scientists claim (and they very well may be, but this is just a thought exercise), you have one body willing to borrow against the future's well being and everyone else going, "No way." What do you do? Don't give me that perfectly informed consumer garbage, we both know that doesn't work and psychologically people don't behave that way.

5) Preventing resource exhaustion. Ever wonder why we still have fish to fish and animals to hunt in the US? Yep, government.

I could go on and on, just on a single subject. Throw in a bunch of other subjects and all of the sudden you have a rather large government just so you can do what Jefferson was suggesting.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Grishnakh]

I think you're mistaken.

The Republicans are offering corporate slavery.
The Democrats are offering corporate slavery.
There's some minor differences in the particular corporations they would enslave you to.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[element-o.p.]

That's a very eloquent post, but it does nothing to negate GPP's point: the government should be as big as necessary to ensure liberty, but no bigger. Even the "rather large government" you describe above is still smaller than the bloated monstrosity we have today, and quite a bit less restrictive. IMHO, while "Libertarian" covers the gamut from complete wacko anarchists to small government moderates, they are the lesser of all evils.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[SteveFoerster]

And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.

That's not what most people who identify as libertarian usually say. Much more often, libertarians say that a truly free market would lead to an increase in prosperity that would make those measures so much less necessary that voluntary charity would be sufficient to meet the needs of those who genuinely can't take care of themselves.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[DragonWriter]

When it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll affirm the law.

If they side with the administration, they'll affirm that the NDAA detention provisions are constitutional -- because it has no effect and simply restates powers already in the 2001 AUMF and already found Constitutional by the Supreme Court under the 2001 AUMF.

If they side with the challengers, they'll strike down the NDAA detention provisions as unconstitutional, which will render them without effect.

They'd have to strike out pretty far on their own to actually make the NDAA do something as regards indefinite detention power, though.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[crazyjj]

Did you take my sig as a defense of Democrats?

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[VGPowerlord]

When it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll affirm the law. They've been asleep at the wheel for 10 years, why wake up now? I'm pretty sure that most of them aren't even aware that there *is* a 4th Amendment at this point. And they probably think Habeas Corpus was a Roman emperor.

Don't forget about the sixth amendment, which would apply if people are being held indefinitely:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Incidentally, this amendment implicitly bars the government from bringing people to trial whose crimes were committed outside the US...

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[sjames]

A hand saw and a tape measure are both nearly useless for driving a nail. That does not mean you should forgo tools and bash it in with your forehead.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Nothing good from SCOTUS in 80 years?

Brown v. Board of Education?
Miranda v. Arizona?
Mapp v. Ohio?
Lawrence v. Texas?
Loving v. Virginia?
Griswold v. Connecticut?
US v Antoine Jones?
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell?

Shall I go on?

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[R3d M3rcury]

It is government that gave Comcast its monopoly over my neighborhood. If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple or MSN or Time-Warner could enter the market and give us some choice.

Well, that depends on where you live, doesn't it?

It's also quite possible that Comcast would come in and build it's network--you know, place their wires under the street--and offer service. Time-Warner would come in, look at the expense on running their own wires, see they have competition which is going to limit how much they can charge and how quickly they will make back that investment and say, "Nah. Not worth it."

On the other hand, if The Government lays down the wires and allows these companies to use them to deliver services (charging them all an equal fee for use of the wires), then you might actually have quite a bit of competition. Of course, that wouldn't be a good thing because "Government Owning Stuff Is Bad."

And, depending further upon where you live, Comcast might show up, take one look, and say, "No way would this be worth it." Then you got nothing.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Arker]

Actually there is much less space between the positions than you might think. We dont want the social safety nets to just go away. We do want to get the state out of it, AND remedy the fundamental problems that put so many people in need as well. Long term, end goal I think we could all agree would simply be a prosperous society where we are all able to pay for our own needs, including insurance to cover catastropic events, and the need for last-ditch assistance is practically zero. In such a situation private charity would indeed be more than capable of administering greatly improved versions of current programs such as were listed.

In the short term, of course, things are more delicate. But look at Ron Pauls plan for Social Security to get a clearer picture of how libertarians would rule. He doesnt cut off Social Security - quite the contrary he is the only one who actually has a realistic plan to keep it funded! At the same time, he wants to let people opt out of it from the start and send their contributions directly to a private retirement account which will give them a better return. Since the individual still has the option and there is no sunset, this plan would never actually end Social Security - not as long as there is a single living worker who prefers it to the private plans available. But it would see it wither to almost nothing in a generation, with most people voluntarily choosing to opt out of it.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[crazyjj]

It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that SCOTUS was over the 9th Circuit and had the ability to review their cases. My bad.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[blind biker]

Almost perfect, but I'll add yet another amendment:

The Republicans are offering corporate slavery.
The Democrats are offering corporate slavery.
There isn't much differences in the particular corporations they would enslave you to.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[JesseMcDonald]

... Libertarians are not Anarchists. ... Libertarians don't want to eliminate government completely.... I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.

That may be the position of the Libertarian Party—which, as a political party seeking power within the government, can't take a solidly anarchist position without imploding—but the core principle of the libertarian ideology, generally referred to as the Non-Aggression Principle or NAP, is an absolute, unconditional rejection of aggressive action[1]. The concept of "legitimate" aggression, a necessary part of things like taxes and regulations[2], is the only real difference between a government and a private co-op or other voluntary organization. Consistent, principled libertarians are, therefore, anarchists at heart. If they tolerate government at all it is only because they lack the imagination and/or faith in humanity to conceive of a society free of all aggressive influence, and thus settle for minarchism. The difference is vanishingly small, however, compared to the current size of the government.

And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment.

Endorsing any of these programs as government functions is a rather clear sign that one is no libertarian, even a minarchist "libertarian". Even your second Jefferson quote would rule that out. Of course, you may merely be pointing out that these can be provided privately, through voluntary charitable organizations with no ties to any government, which is a perfectly libertarian position.

[1] For those who have not run across this idea before, aggression defined as non-defensive coercion. Coercion is defined as the violation of others' self-ownership and/or property rights. Coercion is defensive only when the other party set out to violate your corresponding rights first. In short, so long as you follow the NAP yourself, no one else can legitimately practice aggression against you. If you break it, then you have no legitimate basis for objection should others behave the same way toward you.

[2] No, in this context "regulation" does not include self-ownership or property rights. A distinction is made between natural rights and the arbitrary rules imposed by governments which necessarily conflict with them. I'm not going to debate natural rights in a comment thread; try the link in my profile for a more involved treatment of that subject.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Curunir_wolf]

It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that SCOTUS was over the 9th Circuit and had the ability to review their cases. My bad.

Often with contentious issues, the Supreme court will wait for a case that suits well for making a clear precedent that lower courts can follow without splitting hairs over minutia. Witness, for example, Sackett v. EPA. There were many previous cases challenging the exact same implementation of law that the Sackett case addressed, but the court declined to review. But with Sackett, SCOTUS was able to create a bright line and clear guidance.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't think anyone ever said "nothing."

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[trout007]

I think it all boils down to prevention vs punishment. I don't want a government so big that it tries to prevent bad things from happening. But it has to be large enough to have a court system and police so that if someone does something bad the person harmed can take them to court, try to prove guilt, and meter out the punishment.

Take some of your examples on pollution.
You wouldn't need an EPA selectively enforcing regulations without trial. You could have people that are harmed by pollution take the defendants to court.

As for fish and animals private land does a pretty good job at maintaining hunting and fishing grounds. Most peoples private ponds are well stocked. The problem is where you have public land like rivers and oceans. By not having private owners you get the tragedy of the commons.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Rockoon]

That's not what most people who identify as libertarian usually say.

Bullshit. It is what most libertarians say. Its not what most non-libertarians claim that libertarians say... and here you are.. a non-libertarian making incorrect claims (didn't bother quoting) about what libertarians say.

You are the fucking problem.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[SteveFoerster]

I've been libertarian for twenty years.

Your turn.

Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

What about Obama's signing statement in which he decried the very power he was accepting by signing the NDAA? Do you mean to tell me Obama was dishonest in his disapproval of infinite detention? Shocking.

The crazy thing is some people actually bought the argument that this clause was forced on him by Congress. The fact that he's defending it in court makes it absolutely clear what his stance on infinite detention is.

Re:Signing Statement?

[poetmatt]

This is something that was never 100% clear for me: where is the responsibility shared vs divided when it comes to the DOJ attorneys, or any particular area of government's own sanctioned attorneys? Is it entirely at the direction of the president that they function, or who is responsible if they are advocating a position in a particular case?

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it.

If he wanted to reject those provisions, he should have vetoed it. Actually, if he wanted to adhere to his oath to uphold the Constitution, he is required to veto it. But he didn't, so we know how much an oath is worth to Barack Obama.

Re:Signing Statement?

[crazyjj]

Obama's only a hero on the stump.

Re:Signing Statement?

[cpu6502]

The SCOTUS has already ruled that signing statements have no legal standing. They apply to the president currently in charge, but not future presidents.

Also Obama's white house was the source of these two sentences. His administration specifically asked Congress to add them to the NDAA. So he's trying to pretend "I don't want indefinite detainment" while working behind the scenes to add it to the bill. I thought Clinton and Bush were skilled liars/deceptors, but Obama makes them look like amateurs.

Re:Signing Statement?

[davydagger]

this.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Just wow.

How does State Spooge taste, slave?

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Obama directed the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He could do the same with any other law. This is why his argument that "we have to enforce the law" when it comes to Cannabis dispensaries is entirely bankrupt.

In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we're telling them, "This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way." That's not something we're going to do.

That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.

If you're someone who wants to laud Obama for his Civil Rights record, ask yourself how many gay people there are in jail for being gay. Then ask yourself how many Cannabis smokers there are in jail. Why not attack the bigger problem first?

Re:Signing Statement?

[christurkel]

He should have vetoed it. He didn't because right wing heads would explode and it would be on 24/7 how he is "weak on terrorism". It's a shame, really. Of course he also could have chosen not to defend it in court, like he did DOMA.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Samantha Wright]

I don't understand why so many people have trouble with the idea that Obama does all of these crazy illegal things that he hates because he's trying to win Congress's trust. Is it really that hard to remember what happened to Jimmy Carter?

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

I thought Clinton and Bush were skilled liars/deceptors, but Obama makes them look like amateurs.

I dunno, it doesn't get any more amateurish than this. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks what a turncoat authoritarian bastard this mother fucker is. And yet people still fall for it.

Re:Signing Statement?

[crazyjj]

Having the DOJ actually dispute it in court

Where on earth did you get that from? It's the DOJ that's *DEFENDING* this law in court, not opposing it.

Re:Signing Statement?

[marcop]

What about it? He should be thrown out of office on treason against the constitution. I'm not arguing whether or not any of his other policies are good or bad, and will not state my political affiliation. However, when a president blatantly violates a basic freedom that so many Americans have fought to protect, a freedom he has sworn to protect, then he deserves treason charges. And yes, GWB deserved it also for the exact same reasons.

But the sheep that live in this country will ignore it and instead either applaud or crucify him for his social policies. Pitiful.

Re:Signing Statement?

[trum4n]

I think the fact that racists, hate crimes and bigots still exist is a far larger issue than pot heads.

Re:Signing Statement?

[cpu6502]

>>>yet people still fall for it.

Exactly. Even when I post direct articles from reputable sources like NYtimes or USAtoday about Obama assassinating 3 Americans (including a 16-year-old boy) without giving them their constitutional right to a trial to prove their innocence, there are some people who refuse to believe it. And continue loving the man. (Or just call me racist against black people.)

Re:Signing Statement?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

What most people don't know or understand is that his signing statement or an executive order means nothing if the law says something else.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Yes, but anti cannabis bigotry is far, far worse than anti-gay bigotry. Around 5-10% of the population is gay. Around 10-20% of the population smokes pot. Neither of these groups pose any threat to anyone whatsoever.

Gay people might get fired because of bigotry. Worst case scenario one is lynched, once a decade or so and there's a huge outcry of sympathy.

Pot smokers on the other hand go to jail regularly. Persecution of pot smokers is official government policy. When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.

Every time a pot smoker is arrested, that's a hate crime.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Just how gullible are you? Has the phrase "He beats me because he loves me" ever passed your lips?

If selling out every democratic principle is what it takes to win Congress's trust, we don't need it. We'd be better off with a president that vetos every single grab for power and gets nothing else done, than we are with this collaborater.

Re:Signing Statement?

[artor3]

You've been tricked by a summary rife with propaganda.

The the lying demagogue who wrote the article states, "Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle." The deceitful bastard was clever enough to include a hyperlink, knowing you wouldn't click on it but would instead just accept it as gospel. But go ahead, click on it. The recent statements referred to are from a joint letter by several former officials. Their names?

Edwin Meese - Republican Attorney General under Reagan
Michael Mukasey - Republican Attorney General under George W Bush
Michael Chertoff - Republican Secretary of Homeland Security under George W Bush
Steven G Bradbury - Republican Head of the OLC under George W Bush
Daniel Dell'Orto - Republican Lawyer for the DOD under George W Bush
David Rivkin - Republican Legal Counsel to both Reagan and George HW Bush, and the guy behind the lawsuit against the ACA
Charles Stimson - Republican Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of "Detainee Affairs" under George W Bush
Paul Butler - Can't find any details on this guy, but he's definitely not the Democrat of the same name who died in the 60s.
Seven Engel - One of the lawyers in the anti-ACA lawsuit.
Paul Rosenzsweig - Member of the Heritage Foundation, a well known right-wing think tank.

Do you really think anyone on that list is speaking for the Obama administration? Sadly, the truth takes time to dig up, and in that time hundreds of people have no doubt seen the summary and your post, and fallen for the propaganda. What hope does truth have against such well-engineered lies?

Re:Signing Statement?

[Shotgun]

First: Veto it? He don't need no stinkin' veto. He could have asked Harry Reid not to even let it come up for a vote in the Senate, like they have done with budget proposals for the last 1134 days.

Second: Really? He had to sign it, 'cause he was scared of "right wing heads"? He is so ineffectual that he can't make a cogent argument that burying the 4th amendment and shredding habeas corpus is stupid? I knew he sucked as a President, but....that's just plain scary. Damn. Just....damn.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Shotgun]

And Romney won't either. He has already stated that he supports this travesty, so I see no reason why he wouldn't support the next one.

Re:Signing Statement?

[dkleinsc]

I don't understand why so many people have trouble with the idea that Obama does all of these crazy illegal things that he hates because he's trying to win Congress's trust.

He doesn't need Congress's trust. He needs the American people's trust. And the country needs to know that laws are being followed and enforced fairly if we don't want the place to turn into a totalitarian regime. Constitutionality is more important than law, and following the law is more important than any political jockeying.

And if you don't understand how important that is, consider how you reacted when George W Bush did all sorts of crazy illegal things. If it's ok for presidents you like to do something, it's also ok for presidents you don't like to do the same thing.

Re:Signing Statement?

[cpu6502]

Well you shouldn't. If someone calls me a "white honkey" I am not harmed by that act. It's just words and I can walk away from the idiot.

If someone beats me up, I can pull my gun and kill him. Per my natural right of self-defense.

BUT if the government has control over my body, and forbids me from smoking weed (or snorting coke) (or drinking alcohol) then that is a FAR more dangerous thing. It means the politicians and bureaucrats have control over my body, like a Middle Ages lord over his serf, and can toss me in jail any time they desire.

Re:Signing Statement?

[cpu6502]

Irrelevant. It was OBAMA who told Congress to add those two sentences for indefinite detainment w/o trial. The only reason he would do that is so he can use the power to grab Americans off the streets, accuse them of being terrorists, and then lock them away for 10 years w/o a trial to defend their innocence. (Probably in Guantanamo... the place Obama promised to close but never did.) Obama also assassinated 3 americans in Africa, including one 16-year-old boy, and without giving them their recognized right to trial. He is NOT the honest man you believe him to be.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Samantha Wright]

And if you don't understand how important that is, consider how you reacted when George W Bush did all sorts of crazy illegal things. If it's ok for presidents you like to do something, it's also ok for presidents you don't like to do the same thing.

Would you say that the American people frequently let Obama get away with crazy illegal things?

...and might that not imply that he already has their trust?

(Spoiler warning: I'm Canadian.)

Re:Signing Statement?

[artor3]

So it's irrelevant that the summary is a lie? Sure, yeah, who gives a fuck about the truth when you have a political axe to grind.

Furthermore, Obama did not insist on the addition of "those two sentences for indefinite detainment". The indefinite detention section was already there, but only applied to Al Qaeda. Obama asked for it to be expanded to cover other terrorist groups. But it can't be used to "grab Americans off the streets", as you claim, because it also says:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

But let me guess... that's also irrelevant. No truth is relevant if it goes against your limitless hatred.

Re:Signing Statement?

[zombiechan]

Probably would be a good time to start voting for third parties?

Re:Signing Statement?

[Curunir_wolf]

That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.

He also fails to uphold the Constitution by doing so, a clear violation of his oath of office. There is no wiggle room here, from Article II:

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Re:Signing Statement?

[zombiechan]

You don't like Obama, must mean that you're a southern conservative racists who hate black and poor people.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Curunir_wolf]

Exactly. If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it. It's not as if he didn't have the text before it passed.

What a show. Nobody seems to have heard that those provisions, ensuring that they applied to US citizens, were included at the request of the White House.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

When the law itself is completely unreasonable, it's completely reasonable to label the valid application of the law a hate crime. It was once illegal to marry outside your race, or drink at the wrong water fountain. The valid application of those laws was a hate crime.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Yes, he has their misplaced trust. It would be best for everyone to divest themselves of that as soon as possible.

Re:Signing Statement?

[spire3661]

The law ITSELF is based on racist (and classist) moors.

Re:Signing Statement?

[niado]

By that logic over half our presidents in the 20th century probably should have been thrown out of office.

Re:Signing Statement?

[guibaby]

Who'd have thought Nixon was one of our more honest presidents?

Re:Signing Statement?

[DragonWriter]

What about Obama's signing statement in which he decried the very power he was accepting by signing the NDAA?

If you read the actual signing statement, he didn't deride the indefinite detention power, largely because the NDAA did not create any new indefinite detention power. Specifically, while he objected to earlier language regarding indefinite detention than was in the final bill which would have expanded indefinite detention power -- and objected to other provisions in the bill -- his signing statement made clear with regard to indefinite detention power that he viewed the provisions in the final bill as unnecessary because, on their own terms, they had no effect since they expressly simply restated powers which had been exercised under the 2001 AUMF and which the Supreme Court had already found had been granted by the 2001 AUMF.

The crazy thing is some people actually bought the argument that this clause was forced on him by Congress.

The President opposed any inclusion of detention power in the NDAA, and strenuously objected to to earlier language which would have extended the power. He accepted -- while still, in the signing statement, objecting to it as unnecessary -- the final version, which expressly limited itself to not expand the power already granted (as determined by the Supreme Court when previous detentions were challenged) by the 2001 AUMF.

The fact that he's defending it in court makes it absolutely clear what his stance on infinite detention is.

His stance is fairly expressly that its Constitutional within the bounds within which the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is Constitutional, but that it is, even within those bounds, generally undesirable.

Re:Signing Statement?

[fwice]

Pot smokers can choose not to smoke pot.

Gay people cannot choose not to be gay.

That is why the Gay rights issue is a higher priority.

Re:Signing Statement?

[reboot246]

Yes, the letter you refer to was written and signed by Republicans (the bad kind of Republicans).

But you failed to notice that the effort to repeal the objectionable part of the NDAA is a bipartisan effort led in part by Republicans (the good kind of Republicans), Reps. Ron Paul and Justin Amash along with help from some Democrats (the good kind of Democrats) like Rep. Adam Smith.

We don't have many friends in Congress nowadays. At least give the ones we do have some credit when they try to do the right thing.

Re:Signing Statement?

[DragonWriter]

It was OBAMA who told Congress to add those two sentences for indefinite detainment w/o trial.

There are more than two sentences about that.

The "two sentences" the administration fought to have added, once it was clear that the Congress wouldn't pass the NDAA without indefinite detention language, were the ones that provide that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA neither "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force" nor affect any "law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States".

The President stated at the time that the original language would be unconstitutional and unacceptable and require a veto, and -- in his signing statement -- that with the new language the provisions were still undesirable, and unnecessary since they had no effect beyond what had already been done by the AUMF.

The court in its preliminary injunction disagreed and said that as a principal of construction statutes should be read as doing something, and that the something that the NDAA did on this issue appears to be unconstitutional. The difference between the court on the administration isn't over whether the NDAA doing anything beyond what had been previously been found to be authorized by the AUMF and found constitutional by the Supreme Court in cases challenging actions under the AUMF would be unconstitutional, the difference is over whether the NDAA, on its own terms, actually does anything at all on the issue.

Note that this has set up a controversy under which a court siding with either the administration or those challenging the law would find no new power under the NDAA -- if the administration is right, the NDAA has no effect on indefinite detention powers regardless of its Constitutionality. If the challengers are right, the NDAA's detention provisions are unconstitutional, and, as such, have no effect.

(Probably in Guantanamo... the place Obama promised to close but never did.)

Congress blocking funds from being used for that purpose repeatedly since Obama came to office has nothing to do with that, right?

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

The law ITSELF is based on racist (and classist) moors.

It's Moops!

Re:Signing Statement?

[ifwm]

"The crazy thing is" how many people will vote for Obama anyway, while making terrible excuses for doing so?

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Pot smokers can choose not to smoke pot.

Gay people can choose not to have gay sex.

Neither group can control their desires. Any law preventing either group from persuing those desires is in direct contradiction to our self evident right to pursue happiness. In both cases, people invent imagined harms to justify their bigotry. The situations are exactly analogous.

Re:Signing Statement?

[element-o.p.]

Possession of weed or crack is still illegal in the U.S., by Federal law if not local law. Consequently, while you may not care if others "snort their brains out" I rather suspect most police departments do, whether or not the crackhead stays out of their car afterwards.

Re:Signing Statement?

[KingSkippus]

If he wanted to reject those provisions, he should have vetoed it. Actually, if he wanted to adhere to his oath to uphold the Constitution, he is required to veto it. But he didn't, so we know how much an oath is worth to Barack Obama.

That's BS and you know it. This was a military funding bill, and had he vetoed it, instead of talking about this, we'd be talking about how the U.S. military disbanded due to no one being paid. Stop pretending like this isn't how Washington works.

The last president to fight this crap, IIRC, was Bill Clinton, who fought to have line item veto power. The Republicans fought him tooth and nail because as the party that wasn't in charge, they wanted it this way so that they could put crap like this into bills and plaster it all over the next election cycle.

Re:Signing Statement?

[element-o.p.]

Constitutionality is more important than law...

Not quite, but you're close. Constitutionality IS law. Any laws that Congress passes that don't meet the requirements of the Constitution are, by definition, invalid (although, it takes a ruling by SCOTUS to officially determine if any given law meets the requirements of the Constitution). </pedantic>

Otherwise, yeah -- I'm totally with you.

Re:Signing Statement?

[kilfarsnar]

Now we're getting somewhere!

Re:Signing Statement?

[element-o.p.]

I would say that the American people have become so intellectually lazy, complacent and ignorant that they let the President -- any President -- as well as Congress get away with crazy, illegal things...and I'm an American myself, so it's incredibly frustrating to me how many people Just. Don't. Get. It: "But we're the good guys. I don't care if a terrorist is locked up indefinitely. They should be locked up, right?"

Sigh...

Re:Signing Statement?

[compro01]

The situations are not entirely analogous.

He instructed them not to defend the DOMA, not to not enforce it. His instruction came after the DOMA was already stuck down by a federal court (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services). He said not to bother appealing it.

That's a different matter from marijuana laws, which already went to the supreme court and they said that federal law prohibiting medical marijuana overrides the state laws allowing medical marijuana, so the law is still in force.

Though I'd still like to see a 0 priority on it as you suggest.

Re:Signing Statement?

[compro01]

I don't recall that working out well last time.

Re:Signing Statement?

[fwice]

Pot smokers can choose not to smoke pot.

Gay people can choose not to have gay sex.

Neither group can control their desires.

Are straight people unable to control their desires? Should they be required to? Why should it be any different for gay individuals?

That's what makes this a larger civil rights issue, one worthy of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment -- a suspect class not receiving the same rights as a majority class under the law.

While I do not disagree that federal drug law reform is necessary, I do not agree with the decision to prioritise drug reform simply because more people are effected -- that starts to delve into the tyranny of the majority realm.

Re:Signing Statement?

[MobyDisk]

What country are you in where gays are not ostracized or harmed but pot smokers are harassed and arrested daily? It surely isn't the USA, where the police don't have time to waste on pot smokers: they walk right by them in public. Go visit a construction site some day. Yet hardly a month goes by where there isn't a story of an anti-gay protest or anti-gay violence somewhere.

Re:Signing Statement?

[sjames]

So why are we flushing billions down the drain enforcing laws against pot heads? I thought we had a budget shortfall and needed to save money?

That would leave plenty of money to help combat bigotry (to the extent that money can be used to combat bigotry anyway).

Re:Signing Statement?

[shutdown -p now]

What the hell is "treason against the constitution"? Is it like "enemy of the people"?

Go ahead, look up the definition of treason in the Constitution. There's a reason why it's there.

Re:Signing Statement?

[sjames]

Actually, his first duty is to uphold the Constitution. As such, it is perfectly valid to assign a law a priority of zero if he has legitimate concerns that it is unconstitutional. Since any federal drug laws are necessarily restricted to cases of interstate commerce, he could quite reasonably instruct the DOJ to quit pretending it has jurisdiction over purely local buying and selling. That would leave him on solid Constitutional ground.

Re:Signing Statement?

[sjames]

If he's going to do whatever the Republicans want to keep their heads from exploding, what's the point in being a Democrat?

Re:Signing Statement?

[TC Wilcox]

Are you saying that being a pot smoker is genetic? Or that people are gay by choice?

Drug laws aren't enforced fairly. Someone who doesn't have white skin and uses drugs is more likely to end up being prosecuted than someone who is white and uses drugs.

Re:Signing Statement?

[NeutronCowboy]

No, it means that you have no understanding what's going on in the world, and what situation our war on terror has put us in. Anwar Al-Awlaki might be American, but you don't ask for passports when you find yourself in a firefight with people.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Arker]

Don't forget that most of the gay people who are imprisoned are there for cannabis possession.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Are straight people unable to control their desires?

No, they're not. I can't help the fact that I like to fuck women any more than I can help the fact that I like to smoke pot.

That's what makes this a larger civil rights issue, one worthy of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment -- a suspect class not receiving the same rights as a majority class under the law.

Pot smokers have every bit as good a claim to being a suspect class as homosexuals do. Let's look at a (non exclusive) list of criteria:

The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
        They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
        They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3])
        The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]

1) Pot smokers have been persecuted for 80 years now.
2) My love of cannabis is as immutable as my sexual preference.
3) This one is obvious. We've been fighting for our freedom for years, and those in power just laugh at us.
4) Pot smokers who contribute meaningfully to society range from The Beatles to Carl Sagan.

Of course, no court would ever rule that pot smokers are a suspect class. But that just goes to further support point 3. We are completely and utterly disenfranchised in the US.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Stop pretending like this isn't how Washington works.

  Washington doesn't work, that's the point. When the most promising opportunity for actual change in an entire generation comes along, and it's utterly pissed away like this, it's time to give up on working through the system. It's completly broken, and cannot be repaired.

The only chance of this getting better is for the people to take the streets, and not give them back until our Constitutional rights are restored.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Sober people cause fatal accidents too. Perhaps we should prohibit sobriety.

See what happens when you argue from emotion instead of reason? You come to idiotic conclusions.

Re:Signing Statement?

[KingSkippus]

Washington doesn't work, that's the point. When the most promising opportunity for actual change in an entire generation comes along, and it's utterly pissed away like this, it's time to give up on working through the system. It's completely broken, and cannot be repaired.

The only chance of this getting better is for the people to take the streets, and not give them back until our Constitutional rights are restored.

Either 1) it's irreparably broken and you need to stop blaming Obama for things that apparently are out of his control, or 2) instead of griping about how awful the system is, run for office and fix it yourself, or start your own PAC for change, or otherwise try to make things better.

You can't have it both ways; sit here whining about a system that doesn't work, and then whining about someone else who is doing the best job they can to work within the imperfect system to keep everything from falling apart. Well, I suppose technically you can, but it's completely unproductive and you come off as a tool.

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

Obama directed the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He could do the same with any other law. This is why his argument that "we have to enforce the law" when it comes to Cannabis dispensaries [laweekly.com] is entirely bankrupt.

No, Obama directed the DOJ to not DEFEND the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The Obama administration still ENFORCES the DOMA every year, when it refuses to allow same-sex married couples to file as married (IRS being part of the Department of Commerce).

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.

It is standard process that an officer is placed on paid administrative leave in ALL shooting deaths. So, it doesn't matter if the officer shoots a "harmless pot head" or a machine-gun-wielding terrorist roaming a college campus. They get paid administrative leave.

This is to allow them time to investigate and see if the action taken was justified. "Why don't them place them on unpaid leave during that time?" Because you cannot punish a person prior to due process taking its course.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Curunir_wolf]

That's not a bad justification. Unfortunately, because Congress has addressed the issue and SCOTUS has ruled on it, in this case it is also an expansion of federal power that tramples on the separation of powers, and ultimately erodes the rule of law.

Not that I agree with these decisions - MJ prohibition is seriously flawed for many reasons, especially with the Federal government claiming police powers that should belong solely to the states. But many people, especially those in power in Washington, don't concern themselves much with following the law unless it suits their purposes.

Since SCOTUS has failed to defend the people and the states on this issue, it falls to the states to nullify, as described by Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and used by several states to oppose slavery before the civil war.

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

If he wanted to reject those provisions, he should have vetoed it. Actually, if he wanted to adhere to his oath to uphold the Constitution, he is required to veto it. But he didn't, so we know how much an oath is worth to Barack Obama.

You can't veto the NDAA, because then how are you going to pay the troops without authorization? That's why the NDAA always contains crap like this, because it's "must pass" legislation.

However, Obama did the right thing in this case. He gave a signing statement that had no power, but puts his views on the matter on record. He then signed an Executive Order baring the execution of the law, as he deemed it unconstitutional.

BTW, who's fucking complaining about the Republicans breaking their own legislative rules that acts of congress have to be specific. This shouldn't have been attached as a rider to must-pass legislation at all.

Honestly, it's like Congress made a law saying that you cannot kill babies, and then attached a rider saying "OBTW, we can detain you for anything at anytime, for any reason, for any length of time", and when the people fail to vote for the bill, because who wants to be branded as a person who is for baby killing? (Theo de Radt?)

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

Just how gullible are you? Has the phrase "He beats me because he loves me" ever passed your lips?

If selling out every democratic principle is what it takes to win Congress's trust, we don't need it. We'd be better off with a president that vetos every single grab for power and gets nothing else done, than we are with this collaborater.

"Even when it means that our own troops won't get paid for waging war!" ... this is the necessarily implication of "The President should have vetoed the 2012 NDAA".

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

Exactly. Even when I post direct articles from reputable sources like NYtimes or USAtoday about Obama assassinating 3 Americans (including a 16-year-old boy) without giving them their constitutional right to a trial to prove their innocence, there are some people who refuse to believe it. And continue loving the man. (Or just call me racist against black people.)

Exactly. Even when I point out to people from numerous reputable sources (every US History textbook) that Abraham Lincoln assassinated THOUSANDS of Americans in the 1860's without giving them their constitutional right to a trial to prove their innocence, there are some people who refuse to believe it. And continue loving the man. (Or just calling me racist against black people.)

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Either 1) it's irreparably broken and you need to stop blaming Obama for things that apparently are out of his control

Obama has the power to fix a lot of problems with the country. The problem with the system is that no one who actually wants to fix the problems can ever get elected.

2) instead of griping about how awful the system is, run for office and fix it yourself, or start your own PAC for change, or otherwise try to make things better.

Are you stupid? PACs are useless without major corporate donors. No major corporation is going to donate to a cause that would destroy their political power if successful.

I am doing what I can to make things better. Like I said, the only way anything is going to change for the better is if the people take the streets and refuse to give them back until our rights are given back. The more people that realize this fact, the closer we get to that day.

You can't have it both ways; sit here whining about a system that doesn't work, and then whining about someone else who is doing the best job they can to work within the imperfect system to keep everything from falling apart.

He's not doing the best job he can, not by a long shot. When authoritarians push, push back harder. Call them out on it. Use the bully pulpit to explain to the people why authoritarianism will not make them safe. Use every power you have, vetoes, government lawyers, the entire DOJ, to oppose authoritarianism.

Obama has done none of this. Why not? As far as I can tell it's because he's complicit in it.

Well, I suppose technically you can, but it's completely unproductive and you come off as a tool.

Not as big of a tool as the jackasses voting for "their guy" and thinking they're doing the right thing when "their guy" is as big of a corporate fascist as anyone in Washington.

Re:Signing Statement?

[mr.mctibbs]

I wouldn't call it a firefight when the CIA uses a robot piloted from Virginia to incinerate an unarmed American child thousands of miles away. I would call that murder.

I think it is you who have no understanding of what's going on in the world if you think this is defensible behaviour for anyone, especially our government.

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

He should be thrown out of office on treason against the constitution.

So, your argument is that he should be thrown out of office without due process?

Or are you arguing that he should be properly impeached, placed on trial for treason, at which point, where are the constitutionally necessary two people attesting to the treason that they themselves also committed? As well, there's this little stickler that requires that treason is constitionally defined to be "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

You're no better than the purported hypocrite that you detest.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

It must be nice living in California or Colorado, but in the rest of the country it's open season on pot smokers. Barely a week goes by without seeing reports of troopers on I-80 ruining someone's life. Just last week here a guy was busted after visiting a garden shop and being trailed back home by police. It's really dangerous out here.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Since SCOTUS has failed to defend the people and the states on this issue, it falls to the states to nullify

One of the states with legal medical marijuana needs to arrest some federal agents committing a raid. That would be exactly the kind of constitutional crisis we need.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Not his fault the republicans tied an unconstitutional provision to the NDAA. It is his fault for negotiating with terrorists.

Re:Signing Statement?

[guises]

Did you read the article you linked? Or even that single sentence that you quoted? The NDAA does not apply to Americans.

Are you criticizing the NDAA because it did not include special provisions to protect Americans from other laws? That doesn't seem reasonable. Certainly the NDAA is bad - I think that the president should have line-item vetoed the whole section about indefinite detention, but he's got this whole thing about "following the legislative process" and "not abusing power." Sissy.

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

Not his fault the republicans tied an unconstitutional provision to the NDAA. It is his fault for negotiating with terrorists.

Except that the courts are well prepared to challenge and dismiss unconstitutional government actions...

Why veto a whole mess of a bill over a single clearly unconstitutional provision, when instead you can issue an executive order to stop anyone from using the provision, until such time as the courts strike it down?

Re:Signing Statement?

[cheekyjohnson]

It's difficult, so just give up. That'll solve the problem.

Re:Signing Statement?

[guises]

Hm. I should correct myself - line-item vetoes are (thankfully) not permitted. Bush was trying to push through legislation to give himself that power, but failed.

Since passing the NDAA was necessary, and since congress wouldn't let it pass without the indefinite detention crap, Obama seems to have done as much as he was able to do to counter the problem.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Except that the courts are well prepared to challenge and dismiss unconstitutional government actions...

You haven't been paying attention to the SCOTUS lately, have you? That's the last place I'd look for any relief from corporate fascism.

Why veto a whole mess of a bill over a single clearly unconstitutional provision

There is the little matter of the Oath of Office, and something I like to refer to as "personal integrity".

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

You haven't been paying attention to the SCOTUS lately, have you? That's the last place I'd look for any relief from corporate fascism.

Except that this SCOTUS is massively against the government trampling unnecessarily over personal liberties.

And as I said elsewhere, the decision that this court made was founded upon a simple and clear judicial matter: the government is arguing that the provision effects no new powers. If so, why pass it in the first place? So, it has to be interpreted as effecting new powers, and since it doesn't have the proper scope limitations on it, it is unconstitutionally vague.

SCOTUS would bat this down in a 9:0 decision I think. (You know the liberal justices will vote against it. And the conservative justices could only vote for it if it effects now powers, and is not vague.)

You're a little TOO untrusting...

There is the little matter of the Oath of Office, and something I like to refer to as "personal integrity".

Ok, let me rephrase this. Why veto a whole mess of a bill that allows us to pay our soldiers and the rest of our defense and neglect that duty of the President over a matter that is trivially unconstitutional or irrelevant/redundant?

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Except that this SCOTUS is massively against the government trampling unnecessarily over personal liberties.

This is the same Supreme Court that upheld cavity searches for overdue traffic fines.

And as I said elsewhere, the decision that this court made was founded upon a simple and clear judicial matter: the government is arguing that the provision effects no new powers.

So what you're saying is that Obama claims he can detain you indefinitely without any specific statutory authority, and you're OK with that.

You're a little TOO untrusting...

You're a little TOO gullible. If you want to see the real Barack Obama, look at what he does with the powers he has, and can't blame on Congress. He's already assassinated an underaged American citizen without any due process whatsoever. He's whitewashed unconstitutional wire taps. He's prosecuted more legal dispensers of medical Cannabis than he has prosecuted fraudulent bankers. He's prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined. So much for the "most transparent administration in history", huh?

Face it, Obama is a straight up fascist. If you vote for him, you're voting for fascism.

Ok, let me rephrase this. Why veto a whole mess of a bill that allows us to pay our soldiers and the rest of our defense and neglect that duty of the President over a matter that is trivially unconstitutional or irrelevant/redundant?

Because 1) The Republicans would never let the military go unpaid. Veto it and they'll come crawling back with a constitutional bill. 2) it brings attention to one of the ways our legislature abuses its duties. Bring attention to the problem of riders, and then you can try to do something about it. 3) it allows you to co-opt the Republican's faux constitutionalism. 4) just have some fucking integrity already! is that too much to ask?!

BTW, there is no such thing as "trivially unconstitutional". Such a concept is incompatible with the rule of law. But the rule of law went out the window a long time ago.

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

This is the same Supreme Court that upheld cavity searches for overdue traffic fines.

No, the SCOTUS held that a prison/jail is a secure facility, and that the people administrating that facility have a reasonable responsibility to ensure that the safety of the prison/jail is not compromised, and in some cases, it is reasonable and possible to believe that a person would get themselves arrested for a minor crime in order to smuggle a weapon or other item into such a secure facility.

So what you're saying is that Obama claims he can detain you indefinitely without any specific statutory authority, and you're OK with that.

The statement which I made contains no personal opinion nor implies anything. I have merely stated what THE GOVERNMENT is arguing. And yes, the government has been arguing that it already had this authority since the time of GW Bush.

Face it, Obama is a straight up fascist. If you vote for him, you're voting for fascism.

You apparently do not understand what fascism means, otherwise you would not have posted this.

He's already assassinated an underaged American citizen without any due process whatsoever.

Killed != assassinated. The US was not targeting that individual and had no intention of killing that individual. That individual happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Assassination requires the INTENT to kill THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. I will give you Anwar al-Awlaki, and Osama were "assassinated", but al-Awlaki's son certainly doesn't meet the bar necessary to justify the use of that term.

The US simply does not "assassinate" when it kills innocents in collateral damage from warfare. Is it right? No. Is it wrong? Absolutely. But the US is not INTENDING to do it, and would make a different decision if they had foreknowledge of the consequences. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not targeted in the assault, this is undeniable fact. And thus had no position to claim "due process", because there was no intent of the US government to harm him in any way shape or form.

If an FBI agent is raiding a house that I just happen to be near, and a gun battle erupts, and I end up killed by an FBI bullet even though I am an innocent bystander, THAT WAS NOT AN ASSASSINATION. That was an ACCIDENT. A tragic accident indeed, and one that is upsetting and morally unjustifiable, but as it was not intentional, there is a different position to everything.

Why didn't Abdulrahman al-Awlaki not get due process? Because he was an ACCIDENT.

BTW, there is no such thing as "trivially unconstitutional". Such a concept is incompatible with the rule of law.

You're wrong there. If a state passed a bill allowing them to print their own non-precious-metal money, then that would be stricken down so fast it would make ones head hurt. Even a first year law student could look at such a provision and go "no."

But then you don't seem to understand various details of politics, so, why start there?

Re:Signing Statement?

[dryeo]

Better example is tired people. I know some of the times I've been the biggest danger on the road is when over-tired. Worst is the mental state includes being blind to how tired you are.

Re:Signing Statement?

[dryeo]

And the law was pushed to protect a failed business model, by a media company even.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

This is the same Supreme Court that upheld cavity searches for overdue traffic fines.

No, the SCOTUS held that a prison/jail is a secure facility, and that the people administrating that facility have a reasonable responsibility to ensure that the safety of the prison/jail is not compromised, and in some cases, it is reasonable and possible to believe that a person would get themselves arrested for a minor crime in order to smuggle a weapon or other item into such a secure facility.

That's the same thing in more words. The fact remains that if a cop wants to arrest you for any reason, and have you sexually abused by jail guards, he can and you have absolutely no recourse.

The statement which I made contains no personal opinion nor implies anything. I have merely stated what THE GOVERNMENT is arguing. And yes, the government has been arguing that it already had this authority since the time of GW Bush.

Fair enough. Would it be more accurate if I said "So what you're saying is that Obama claims he can detain you indefinitely without any specific statutory authority so you must recognize he is nothing more than a thug with no respect for the rule of law."?

You apparently do not understand what fascism means, otherwise you would not have posted this.

You wouldn't recognize fascism if it detained you indefinitely.

The US was not targeting that individual and had no intention of killing that individual

You don't actually know that, since there have never been any hearings into the issue. Another strike for the "most transparent administration in history". If it was truly an accident, lets an investigation, some hearings, and let the truth come out. The fact that there are none speaks a lot louder than whatever propaganda you're buying into.

BTW, there is no such thing as "trivially unconstitutional". Such a concept is incompatible with the rule of law.

You're wrong there. If a state passed a bill allowing them to print their own non-precious-metal money, then that would be stricken down so fast it would make ones head hurt. Even a first year law student could look at such a provision and go "no."

Oh, I understand that. I just don't think the difference is whether the violation of the constitution is "trivial" or not. There are no trivial violations of the constitution. There are only violations of the constitution that powerful allow, and other violations that the powerful do not allow. All violations of the constitution are equally unconstitutional and invalid.

Re:Signing Statement?

[cpu6502]

>>>Possession of weed or crack is still illegal in the U.S., by Federal law if not local law.

The Federal law is nullified by the Constitutional law which gives the power to ban weed/crack to the People and their Legislatures. In other words, just like the European Union, it is the responsibility of the member states.

Re:Signing Statement?

[element-o.p.]

We have departed quite a ways from the original design for this country, haven't we?

Re:Signing Statement?

[poetmatt]

Music affects your mental state. Breathing affects your mental state. Ban breathing, lest you cause a fatal accident.

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

Fair enough. Would it be more accurate if I said "So what you're saying is that Obama claims he can detain you indefinitely without any specific statutory authority so you must recognize he is nothing more than a thug with no respect for the rule of law."?

Except that Obama never claimed this. Bush II did.

Re:Signing Statement?

[snowgirl]

You don't actually know that, since there have never been any hearings into the issue. Another strike for the "most transparent administration in history". If it was truly an accident, lets an investigation, some hearings, and let the truth come out. The fact that there are none speaks a lot louder than whatever propaganda you're buying into.

And neither are you certain that he was intentionally targeted. However, since there were a number of adult high-level Al Qaeda leaders also killed in the same strike, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the adult high-level level Al Qaeda leaders were the intentional target, and the 16-year-old boy was an unintentional casualty.

Believe it or not, there is not a good reason to launch an investigation into every missile strike that kills an innocent person, even if they're only 16-years-old, or an American citizen. The strike was intended to take out Al Qaeda leaders, collateral damage may and often does occur. This is not a surprising result.

Oh, I understand that. I just don't think the difference is whether the violation of the constitution is "trivial" or not. There are no trivial violations of the constitution. There are only violations of the constitution that powerful allow, and other violations that the powerful do not allow. All violations of the constitution are equally unconstitutional and invalid.

I think there is a misunderstanding in the usage of "trivial" here. I intend the term to mean that the unconstitutionality can be demonstrated trivially. A better word her would have been "patently". As in "The right to indefinite detention of American citizens was patently unconstitutional." I agree that all violations of the constitution are equally unconstitutional and invalid, however some are easier to show than others.

Watch out!

[Vinegar Joe]

Obama is going to kick your terrorist-loving asses!!!

Where did we store the Guillotine?

[cpu6502]

When the merde hits the fan, we might need to use it on those "security officials" who wrote a PDF to Congress and the judge demanding that the NDAA indefinite clause be left untouched & enforced.

Constitutional rights...

[spidercoz]

They apply to everyone or they mean nothing. James T. Kirk taught me that, and I agree with him.

About time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also about time we admit to ourselves that police state momentum (i.e. continuous expansion of government) is now in full swing and supported by ALL mainstream political interests. And the next step is admitting that those political interests work purely for themselves, and not "the people" as they claim (increasingly loudly).

Re:About time

[Grishnakh]

Not just "political interests" (which I assume you mean political parties and candidates and other well-connected people or organizations), it's the regular American people too. Anyone who votes Republican, except maybe the die-hard Ron Paul people who aren't also Tea Party supporters, obviously supports a police state. And then anyone who supports Obama (which is most Democrats) strongly supports a police state too, because they're so dumb that they support anything Obama supports, even if back during Bush's reign they were fervently opposed to that exact same thing.

It's looking more obvious to me that Obama was a plant by the powers-that-be to get the American people on board with their schemes. Before, it was only the Republican voters who were easily duped into supporting this crap, and the Democrat voters were generally against it. So they realized all they had to do was come up with a Democrat candidate who said nice-sounding things to get these peoples' support, then when he was in office he'd just copy all of Bush's policies, and since the voters are such dumb sheep, most of them would simply change their opinions to match the policies of the guy they voted for. I believe psychologists would classify this behavior as "cognitive dissonance". There's still some Obama voters and other Democrats who are pissed at him, but most of them support him and shout down the disgruntled ones.

Re:About time

[Grishnakh]

Obama has gone along with the Republican agenda in the name of "compromise". If he were actually honest and principled, he would have opposed them at every turn, even if it meant getting nothing done and not getting re-elected.

1. Why didn't he close Guantanamo? It was his campaign promise. It doesn't matter what Congress says, he's the executive. He's enforcing an unconstitutional law in holding people there without trial, and that deserves impeachment. If he has to just let them go, even onto American soil, that's better than violating the Constitution and peoples' rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/notes-from-a-guantanamo-survivor.html?_r=1

2. The healthcare bill was his and Pelosi's baby, not the Republicans', and it's a pile of corporatist horseshit that enriches giant insurance companies instead of providing healthcare. If he couldn't get a real reform bill passed, he shouldn't have done anything at all, or just tried and pointed out he was prevented by the Republicans.

3. What's Obama doing about the TSA? Nothing, they're totally out of control with him in charge of them. It isn't Congress that's directing them to set up roadblocks and molest small children.

Re:About time

[zzsmirkzz]

I am greatly saddened by flagrant disregard for history these days, especially recent history. Explain to me how Obama wasn't undermined by a Republican agenda at every turn to do the right thing?

I'm sorry but with a democrat majority in both houses for 2 years, this statement does not pass muster. he was just too busy working on his POS healthcare bill that does anything but provide affordable healthcare.

Re:About time

[nomadic]

http://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/the-democratic-super-majority-myth/

Re:About time

[MobyDisk]

The step after that, is admitting that this is also supported by mainstream Americans. Here at Slashdot we would like to think that it is the people -vs- the politicians. But in reality the people support this too. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, most Americans trust the government and the military to look out for them, and so they support warrant-less wiretapping and infinite detention because they perceive that it protects them from terrorists.

I'm sorry, but the enemy is us.

Re:About time

[blackraven14250]

A mathematical majority (half plus one) doesn't mean you can pass a bill in Congress; 50 and 60 are far different in their power in the Senate. If you don't have 60, you're basically unable to pass legislation without someone from the other side helping you.

Re:About time

[Vancorps]

You are correct, Obama caved to Republicans who were unwilling to compromise on any issue, even issues they proposed which Obama supported as a public good. Your personal attacks on his character are unwarranted as well as unknown. A principled person, even the President only has so much power. He cannot just enact laws. Even when the dems had a majority, they never had a super majority across both the house and senate, republicans were still filibustering and obstructing the whole process.

Note, Obama did try to close Gitmo, the republicans and really a lot of democrats too couldn't decide what to do with the prisoners, that is outside the powers of the executive office to determine. The issue was politically very controversial and I agree, he should have stuck to his guns since the republicans couldn't have made it even harder for him than they already have. That's hindsight though, it's hard to throw away future chances at compromise when you don't yet know what those chances are. I suspect we'll look back at Gitmo with great embarrassment, much like the Japanese internment camps during WW2.

The healthcare bill originally contained a public option, why do you think that option was struck down and who do you think did it?

You're absolutely right about the TSA, it's outragious the amount of money they throw away in times where we are cutting funding for education to help balance our budget.If they were at all effective you could make a case for a smaller budget, as I see it, the times before the TSA had the same track record for safety without all of the extra spending.

Re:About time

[Grishnakh]

A: Because congress would not give him the funds to close it. Congress 'controls the purse'. It is a basic check/balance in our government.
They also would not allow any detainees to be transferred to the US.

Sorry, that's all bullshit. The President doesn't have to ask Congress for permission to do simple things like move people around; Bush did stuff like that on his own all the time. Again, holding them there is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and traitorous. If he has to defy Congress and do it with funds against their authorization, that's what he has to do. He won't do it.

A simple budget does not prevent the President from doing things. He has people under his command, and he has money. He is the Commander-in-Chief, and the military has to follow his orders. If he orders them to fly a plane to Gitmo, load up everyone, then fly to D.C. and drop them all off, they have to obey that order. The Generals don't go running off to some Congressional committee to see if they agree with every order they're given by the Commander.

Re:About time

[Grishnakh]

The healthcare bill originally contained a public option, why do you think that option was struck down and who do you think did it?

Irrelevant. If they couldn't pass a good bill, they shouldn't pass one at all. Instead, they got a bill that Pelosi told them they needed to pass without even reading it.

Re:About time

[lgw]

The passage of the healthcare bill was just about the slimey-est piece of politics I have ever seen. Almost no one had read it, there was no effort made to explain it to the people (even to the extent of cancelling town hall mettings), no concern at all was had for the welfare of the people. It was passed entirely to try to get a mark in the win column: "see we passed something and the mean old GOP couldn't stop us", without any concern for how people would be affected by what they passed. Heck, without any concern for how they temselves would be affected, as they effectively canceled their own healthcare until 2014 by accident!

Regardless of which side of the "public option" debate you are (the debate we never had) , this health care bill wasn't about that - it was instead the single worst excercise in governing the nation I've seen in America in my lifetime.

Re:About time

[shentino]

Not to mention that closing the place will save money in the long run.

Doesn't it cost money to *keep it open*?

Re:About time

[Vancorps]

Sorry, but you're confused, Bush could do these things because Congress moved in lock step with him. That is not the case with Obama who was and is currently fighting republicans who publicly state that their goal is for the President to fail. It's one thing to disagree with someone on principle, that is not the case. Republican proposals such as cap n trade are now vilified because it was proposed by Obama.

The President is not a dictator, he does NOT have his own money, and it would take an act of Congress to close Gitmo. These are no opinions, they are the reality of the situation and rightfully so. The President has broad powers but they do have limits, especially when their is direct opposition to the action taken. The generals on the ground take orders from the President but also report to the Senate.

Re:About time

[Vancorps]

I don't disagree with this, I think more people read the healthcare bill than most of bills that have been passed recently. Unfortunately there isn't a whole lot beside the individual mandate that people can argue against. Republicans can and do though even when they have to make stuff up.

Re:About time

[Vancorps]

Where were you where town hall meetings were cancelled? It was big news tea parties shouting everything down causing a huge scene. There were even a few instances of violence. I'll even site a source. There was a lot of scrutiny, there were many many polls performed and lots of the bill was read aloud on tv.

Lots of people read the bill,it was one of the most read out there, and it was over 1,000 pages! There was huge concern for the people who were affected, like my sister who how has healthcare due to the pre-existing condition clause so again I'm not sure where you were when all of this happened.

I'm also confounded how you can say there was no debate. There was so much debate in fact that it took a long time to finally pass.

Re:About time

[Vancorps]

What's your question? What's your rebuttal here?

Re:About time

[Vancorps]

Blackraven already pointed out the flaw in your argument so I'll just add that there was a whole lot of legislation that passed during those two years. Way more was passed in those two years compared to the last two years where the Republicans our outspoken about making Obama fail. If Obama is working to improve the country which ostensibly is the goal, then Republicans are actively trying to make this country fail. This is pretty obvious when you talk about the debt ceiling suddenly being an issue.

Re:About time

[MechaStreisand]

Why the fucking hell were you modded Troll? This is how it is! This is exactly how it is!

Re:About time

[Grishnakh]

It happens to me every time I say something negative about Obama. There's tons of Obama fans here on Slashdot (though obviously, they're a different group of people than the libertarians that hang out here), and whenever they got mod points they use them against anyone who criticizes their savior. On other Internet forums, they're especially rude against obvious left-wingers who don't toe the Democrat party line and criticize Obama. I don't consider myself a left-winger by any means, but the attitude among Obama supporters to the left-wingers is that they need to shut up and toe the line because it's more important that Obama be re-elected than the people who elected him actually get anything they wanted.

I Feel Dirty Somehow

[medcalf]

I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.

Re:I Feel Dirty Somehow

[DesScorp]

I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.

I'm fine with Ellsberg filing the lawsuit. I don't often agree with him, but he's a citizen. But an "Icelandic member of parliament" should have exactly zero standing on this unless we've snatched an Icelander, which to my knowledge, we haven't done. This reminds me of those Spanish judges issuing "international arrest warrants" for various and sundry "war criminals". There may be some rotten guys on their list, but a Spanish judge has no business issuing a warrant for an international that's never done anything to nor stepped foot in Spain.

Re:I Feel Dirty Somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, she does have standing. As a member of parliament, she could be expected to travel to the US for official state visits. Her records have already been subpoenaed by the DOJ because of her association with WikiLeaks. Therefore, if her simple presence in the US could make her subject to indefinite detention, she does have standing - remember, she was afraid to come to the US to testify for that exact reason. Remember, the US Constitution doesn't apply only to US citizens, it applies to anyone subject to US law, including visitors and foreign nationals wanted by US authorities...

Re:I Feel Dirty Somehow

[Jiro]

According to TFA, the government refused to say whether the Icelandic parliament member was violating the law or could be jailed. Perhaps we haven't snatched any Icelanders yet, but the government is still reserving the right to do so in the future and specifically is reserving the right to snatch this particular person.

Of course, the government probably wouldn't snatch any Icelanders, but that would be because of selective prosecution--the law lets them snatch anyone. If the law lets them snatch anyone, then anyone should have standing.

Re:I Feel Dirty Somehow

[Grishnakh]

Given that the US government has a proven record of operating in foreign, sovereign countries and kidnapping people from them, without authorization by the governments in those countries, I think at this point anyone in the world has sufficient standing to sue the US government in court.

Someone please free us

[Sloppy]

It's about time someone stood up..

..so that we don't have to. The last thing I want in November when electing congresspeople, senators, and presidents, is to be stuck with that responsibility. It's about time someone relieved us all from having to think about the kind of relationship we want there to be, between our government and its people.

inter alia

[b4dc0d3r]

First time accepted submitter Arker writes inter alia when he meant to say either

• "among other things"
• "I copied and pasted from the article", or
• "I'm a first year law student"

In context, the usage is not clear, but I'm guessing the first one. In case it helps someone who likewise wanted to know if it could possibly be used as an innuendo. I don't like learning new words that can't be innuendo'ed.

Re:inter alia

[snowgirl]

First time accepted submitter Arker writes inter alia when he meant to say either

• "among other things"
• "I copied and pasted from the article", or
• "I'm a first year law student"

In context, the usage is not clear, but I'm guessing the first one. In case it helps someone who likewise wanted to know if it could possibly be used as an innuendo. I don't like learning new words that can't be innuendo'ed.

As well, "et cetera" should never be used, because we speak English, not Latin!

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to see that in the US there are still some judges who apply basic international rights like the "habeas corpus". And it's good to see that there are still people who are not fooled by generic and stupid excuses like "Hey, it's a matter of national security!". What is not exactly reassuring is that the obama administration - the so-called "democrats", as you name them - was defending a law which would be clearly unconstitutional in every european country, and probably also in the U.S. themselves.

Right after graduation I was tempted to move to the US for a better job, but I think I'm gonna stay in Germany if that's what you call "freedom" and "democracy" (keep them both).

Re:Good

[Grishnakh]

Yes, there are still some judges and citizens who believe in basic international rights like habeus corpus and don't buy the B.S. "national security" excuses, but they're a minority and have little power. I expect this judge to be overruled, and probably replaced whenever the political establishment can manage it.

As an American, I advise you to stay in Germany, or any other country that isn't firmly in the US's pocket (e.g., UK). If I could find jobs for myself and my wife in Germany now, I'd move there in a heartbeat. Heck, I could finally put my 4 years of German classes I took in high school to good use.

What statements?

[noobermin]

All I saw was a letter from a congressman signed by former members of staff.

The actual ruling

[Bob the Super Hamste]

For those who would like to read the actual 68 page ruling from Judge Katherine Forrest.

Defection

[Jetra]

Excuse me while I renounce my citizenship. I can't take this crap any longer.

Re:Defection

[Grishnakh]

Don't do that unless you've already got new citizenship somewhere else. You don't want to be stateless.

Re:Defection

[Jetra]

No, I'm leaving cause of the stupiditiy of our politicians and the sheer brazenness they have for passing insane laws.

Helping Terrorists

[TC Wilcox]

It kind of sounds like the judge is *knowingly helping the terrorists*. Doesn't it? Don't we have a law to deal with people who do that?

Re:Helping Terrorists

[Tokolosh]

We don't need one.

right wing heads explode?

[wganz]

Your bias is showing. The 'right wing'(aka freedom lovers) are more vocal in their opposition to this constitutional rights killing monstrosity than all the left wing socialists that cannot say anything against their cocoa messiah since they're too busy giving him a Lewinsky.

Re:right wing heads explode?

[shutdown -p now]

The right wing doesn't care for your constitutional or natural rights. They want the government just small enough to fit into your bedroom.

You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a brilliant lie" Nope, sorry chief, you fail. Read it AGAIN "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law" EXISITING LAW. Which in this case is the AUMF, already allowed indefinite detention by Presidential fiat. This law just codifies it. You are EXACTLY wrong.

(a) In General. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the [AUMF] includes the authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons. A covered person under this section is any person as follows . . . (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) Disposition Under the Law of War. The disposition of a person under the law of war as described un subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities authorized by the [AUMF].

The AUMF is the "existing law" the NDAA codifies, you simply have chosen to misread the statute.

Re:You're wrong

[artor3]

If that's true, then what is the NDAA doing that you're so worked up about? The NDAA says it doesn't change the law regarding US citizens. You say that the law already allows for indefinite detention of citizens. So why is everyone bitching about the NDAA and not the law that is actually, according to you, the problem?

Re:You're wrong

[snowgirl]

The AUMF is the "existing law" the NDAA codifies, you simply have chosen to misread the statute.

The AUMF is not what the NDAA provision codifies, the AUMF is what codifies the AUMF.

As the court properly noted in its decision, if the Government's argument is that the NDAA merely affirms the AUMF, or codifies powers the Executive already had, then that would require a rejection of standard legal theory that each legislative act must be considered on its own, as a wholly separate action.

Also, the preliminary injunction granted, given the Government's arguments are taken at full merit, would be irrelevant anyways, as it would take away no ability that the Government has at its disposal.

The problem is that in the argument to retain the law, the Government is making an egregious error... they're arguing that the NDAA is redundant.

Re:You're wrong

[DaleSwanson]

The AUMF is the "existing law" the NDAA codifies, you simply have chosen to misread the statute.

I don't see how he is wrong, nor how the NDAA changes anything for US citizens in the US. If the AUMF already allowed indefinite detention then the NDAA doesn't change anything. If it didn't then NDAA doesn't allow it.

Re:Crossroads

[Grishnakh]

Who cares what Fox presents it as? It's not like any Fox News viewers are going to vote for Democrats anyway.

Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[SteveFoerster]

Exactly so. Anyone who's not part of the mainstream political establishment, including Tea Partiers, Occupiers, and libertarians, should be working together to fight the corporatism that strangles us all. Instead, activists on the left and the right are assiduously kept distracted by hating the other side, often by being fed caricatures of the other side's motivations.

Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[SydShamino]

Tea Partiers want the social safety net slashed (because they think that's the source of most wasteful government spending) and then the savings used to eliminate the deficit and lower taxes on the middle class.

Occupiers want taxes for the rich jacked up (because they think that's the source of the deficit) and then the income used to beef up the social safety net and lower taxes on the middle class.

The only thing I think both groups agree upon is that middle class taxes are too high, but I don't think either group would compromise to find a funding source for that tax cut, since their other goals are almost completely opposite.

Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[SteveFoerster]

Both also talk about how bank bailouts are a bad idea, and are rightfully skeptical of the influence of those in the financial system on government. I'm not saying they'll skip hand in hand into the sunset, but there are a few big areas of commonality.

Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[Grishnakh]

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the Tea Partiers at all. It was probably accurate back when that group first got started, but they were very quickly co-opted by corporate interests, so nowadays they're just the more extreme wing of the (corporatist) Republican party. It's sad, because they had some good principles at the very beginning, but just like how easily the Obama voters were led into accepting and backing Bush policies just by having "their guy" parrot them, the TPers were easily led into pushing for tax cuts for the ultra-rich and corporations by some politicians claiming to be for them.

Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[Vancorps]

The only people I hear asking for a tax cut are Republicans and its not for the middle-class. Everyone else thinks we should go back to the tax structure we had in the 90s when we were, you know, successful and had a balanced budget.

It would be great if we could afford to reduce sales tax but we've learned to live with it. For now, we just have to get the balance sheet under control which will require both cuts in spending as well as increases in taxes.

Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[LordLimecat]

If you think the Tea Partiers or Libertarians could ever work together with the Occupiers, you have a serious misunderstanding about what those groups are all about.

Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[SteveFoerster]

This is why I merely said they should work together on the most pressing issue that they have in common, opposition to corporatism, rather than claim they could ever form any sort of long term coalition, which I realize they couldn't.

Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[LordLimecat]

Youll have to define what you mean by corporatism. I dont believe Tea Partiers or Libs are against people making money, if thats what you mean.

"unknowingly"?

[jweller13]

Holy crap! I can be indefinitely detained for "unknowingly" supporting terrorism?! How can I prevent myself from doing something I don't know I'm doing? I'm confused o.O

Uphold the law

[KingSkippus]

He swore an oath to uphold the law even if he doesn't agree with it.

Scalia and his shadow

[ThatsNotPudding]

Worst pack of scumbags in robes since the Dredd Scott decision.

Dissonance

[ThatsNotPudding]

If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple...

/head explodes

Re:Dissonance

[drinkypoo]

If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple...

/head explodes

Apple enjoys the ability to wield the courts against competitors. HTH.

It's inevitable

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

Stop struggling. The government will be allowed to imprison anyone for no reason and monitor everything everyone does for no reason. There's no point trying to stop it. Your vote doesn't matter because if the Government doesn't like your vote they'll just change it. We're in a sick downward spiral that will result in revolt, genocide and eventually mass destitution. Already a majority of Americans are out of jobs. The only reason government statistics don't consider a majority of people to be unemployed is because you're only considered unemployed if you can be verified as currently looking for work. According the the US government, you're not unemployed if you've given up looking for a job. Also, if you have a mortgage, the government considers you a small business owner and thus employed. We will only start to recover when the money being hoarded by the obscenely rich is no longer worth anything.

Never forget

[J'raxis]

And let's not forget that people elected this administration because it was supposed to stop all of the Bush administration's abuses. Instead it merely built upon them, nearly every single one.

Small indeed

[shiftless]

Dude.....these fucking assholes are playing law enforcement commercials on Youtube now. You know, the kind where they show a cop car with flashing lights, then some homey sittin in the driver's seat relating his sob story of how he didn't think he would get busted not wearing his seat belt, but the cops "radioed ahead" and he got busted.

.....WHAT THE FUCK?

....on so many different levels....

This shit has got to fucking END. SOON.

Ruling Probably Won't Matter

[hidave]

Obama ignores court orders which he doesn't like, so it won't make any difference what the court finally decides.

Hope and Change

[HArchH]

How could the Obama administration ever sign such an act into law and how could they possibly defend it in court? They have betrayed everything they said they stood for.