Obama Fights Ban On Indefinite Detention Of Americans...

paulitician

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2011
38,401
4,162
1,130
I know this isn't nearly as important as obsessing over who's rich and who's not rich, or Reality TV. But...


The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge’s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge.

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban.

The plaintiffs "cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention," Obama’s attorneys insist. With that, the White House is arguing that as long as the indefinite detention law hasn’t be enforced yet, there is no reason for a judge to invalidate it.

Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest’s injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA.

In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president’s authority to hold a terrorism suspect “without trial, until the end of the hostilities” is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Just Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later...

Read More:
Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans — RT
Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution
 
José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists.

Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb ("dirty bomb") attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" and repeatedly tortured with sleep deprivation, shackling and stress positions, the administration of psychotropic drugs and solitary confinement.[1] After pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court.

José Padilla (prisoner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I know this isn't nearly as important as obsessing over who's rich and who's not rich, or Reality TV. But...


The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge’s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge.

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban.

The plaintiffs "cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention," Obama’s attorneys insist. With that, the White House is arguing that as long as the indefinite detention law hasn’t be enforced yet, there is no reason for a judge to invalidate it.

Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest’s injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA.

In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president’s authority to hold a terrorism suspect “without trial, until the end of the hostilities” is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Just Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later...

Read More:
Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans — RT
Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Seems the right wing that insisted this wasnt the law were full of it......

Make no mistake both the left and right have supported detention without charge..
 
Suspendin' Habeus Corpus on "national security" grounds. Throwing it all the way back to the 17th century.


FORWARD!!!!

:lmao:
 
I know this isn't nearly as important as obsessing over who's rich and who's not rich, or Reality TV. But...


The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge’s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge.

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban.

The plaintiffs "cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention," Obama’s attorneys insist. With that, the White House is arguing that as long as the indefinite detention law hasn’t be enforced yet, there is no reason for a judge to invalidate it.

Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest’s injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA.

In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president’s authority to hold a terrorism suspect “without trial, until the end of the hostilities” is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Just Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later...

Read More:
Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans — RT
Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Seems the right wing that insisted this wasnt the law were full of it......

Make no mistake both the left and right have supported detention without charge..

More on the right than the left though.
Just like passing the patriot act was nearly unanimous for Republicans not so cut and dried for the Demoncrats though.
 
I know this isn't nearly as important as obsessing over who's rich and who's not rich, or Reality TV. But...


The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge’s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge.

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban.

The plaintiffs "cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention," Obama’s attorneys insist. With that, the White House is arguing that as long as the indefinite detention law hasn’t be enforced yet, there is no reason for a judge to invalidate it.

Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest’s injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA.

In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president’s authority to hold a terrorism suspect “without trial, until the end of the hostilities” is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Just Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later...

Read More:
Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans — RT
Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

Seems the right wing that insisted this wasnt the law were full of it......

Make no mistake both the left and right have supported detention without charge..

More on the right than the left though.
Just like passing the patriot act was nearly unanimous for Republicans not so cut and dried for the Demoncrats though.

Don't delude yourself. It's beneath you.
 
Seems the right wing that insisted this wasnt the law were full of it......

Make no mistake both the left and right have supported detention without charge..

More on the right than the left though.
Just like passing the patriot act was nearly unanimous for Republicans not so cut and dried for the Demoncrats though.

Don't delude yourself. It's beneath you.

You are not stupid pull up the voting records for the patriot act.
I think on the origional passage only 2-3 republicans voted against it in the senate.
I forget how the house went but near accord on the right and about 1/4? maybe of the dems voted against it.
 
Last edited:
More on the right than the left though.
Just like passing the patriot act was nearly unanimous for Republicans not so cut and dried for the Demoncrats though.

Don't delude yourself. It's beneath you.

You are not stupid pull up the voting records for the patriot act.
I think on the origional passage only 2-3 republicans voted against it in the senate.
I forget how the house went but near accord on the right and about 1/4? maybe of the dems voted against it.

The NDAA, and soon another Internet 'Security' bill. Both Parties are in on it. Don't kid yourself.
 

Forum List

Back
Top