Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Obama administration on Tuesday, extending a temporary emergency extension of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was implemented by New York federal judge Raymond Lohier last month after an injunction was issued to hold the act by Judge Katherine B. Forrest.
The act gives the president the authority to indefinitely detain anyone in the world, including American citizens, without due process, for suspicion of supporting al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.
Hey man, the US Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations ARE people and that ObamaCare IS Constitutional. And since no one cares it should only follow that lower courts will rule against US Citizens and for our Corporate Masters.
But as it is now Americans care more about MFL Footsbawl and the skin color of the President.
What has happen in the past 10 years
Assassination of U.S. citizens
Indefinite detention
Arbitrary justice
Warrantless searches
Secret evidence
Immunity from judicial review
with Patriot Act after 9/11. Granted there's room for saying 'trauma', but the very argument made at the time by many regarding 'slippery slope' has come home to roost.
What has happen in the past 10 years
Assassination of U.S. citizens
Indefinite detention
Arbitrary justice
Warrantless searches
Secret evidence
Immunity from judicial review
Many of us consider it a 'lesson learned' that we should have known better to
Time to undo the blanket allowance.
I am very anti-authority and what not, but i have always said, when the police or FBI or whoever comes to your door, you come out with your hands up and ask to see your lawyer.
...now, i guess all bets are off. If they want the right to detain me indefinitely, then i have to re-think my policy of submitting myself to the criminal justice system.
If I have to fear that i may be taken to Gitmo never to be seen or heard from again...maybe it has to be the hard way.
Regardless of anything else, your politics, religion,etc., i think it is high time we all start pushing back on authority in this country.
Jeffrey
I am very anti-authority and what not, but i have always said, when the police or FBI or whoever comes to your door, you come out with your hands up and ask to see your lawyer.
...now, i guess all bets are off. If they want the right to detain me indefinitely, then i have to re-think my policy of submitting myself to the criminal justice system.
If I have to fear that i may be taken to Gitmo never to be seen or heard from again...maybe it has to be the hard way.
Regardless of anything else, your politics, religion,etc., i think it is high time we all start pushing back on authority in this country.
Jeffrey
Where was your concern when the Bush administration held Jose Padilla, a United States citizen, in a legal and actual black hole without charge and without access to a lawyer or anyone else for several years?
For the benefit of the history challenged, right wing ideologues, this is nothing new and it's not because Obama thought it up.
I fail to see any difference between this list and the typical behavior of any third world dictator??What has happen in the past 10 years
Assassination of U.S. citizens
Indefinite detention
Arbitrary justice
Warrantless searches
Secret evidence
Immunity from judicial review
What the fuck are you talking about liberals support it now, HOW IN THE FUCK CAN LIBERAL'S BE AGAINST IT THEN AND SUPPORT IT NOW? the only reason they didn't support it then was because of George Bush. I wasn't at first against the Patriot Act, but I ve been against long before bush left office. Especially when I found out Bin Laden wasn't wanted by the FBI for the very reason we went to war in the first place.I remember warning my RWNJ friends about this stuff back in the days when it first became "legal." Naturally, I was slapped down because they trusted George Bush with such powers. After all, those were extraordinary times and extraordinary means must be used to keep us safe and the government would not go after every day American citizens...just the "terrorist's"
Well...here we are 10 years later and those powers are now held by someone you DON'T trust. Guess what? It's too late now to feign outrage and worry. You should have done that at the very first, instead of surrendering your liberties for safety.
Don't come crying to we liberals and progressives about it now. We warned you, but you wouldn't listen. You had your chance to stand up for freedom and the rule of law, but took the narrowly focused, short-term view of giving George Bush whatever he asked for. That it may now bite you in the butt is your problem.
What the fuck are you talking about liberals support it now, HOW IN THE FUCK CAN LIBERAL'S BE AGAINST IT THEN AND SUPPORT IT NOW? the only reason they didn't support it then was because of George Bush. I wasn't at first against the Patriot Act, but I ve been against long before bush left office. Especially when I found out Bin Laden wasn't wanted by the FBI for the very reason we went to war in the first place.I remember warning my RWNJ friends about this stuff back in the days when it first became "legal." Naturally, I was slapped down because they trusted George Bush with such powers. After all, those were extraordinary times and extraordinary means must be used to keep us safe and the government would not go after every day American citizens...just the "terrorist's"
Well...here we are 10 years later and those powers are now held by someone you DON'T trust. Guess what? It's too late now to feign outrage and worry. You should have done that at the very first, instead of surrendering your liberties for safety.
Don't come crying to we liberals and progressives about it now. We warned you, but you wouldn't listen. You had your chance to stand up for freedom and the rule of law, but took the narrowly focused, short-term view of giving George Bush whatever he asked for. That it may now bite you in the butt is your problem.
BTW, i will go toe to toe with you on who is and is not "history challenged". You are a liberal, apparently. Liberals are afraid of books. So...
Jeffrey
What the fuck are you talking about liberals support it now, HOW IN THE FUCK CAN LIBERAL'S BE AGAINST IT THEN AND SUPPORT IT NOW? the only reason they didn't support it then was because of George Bush. I wasn't at first against the Patriot Act, but I ve been against long before bush left office. Especially when I found out Bin Laden wasn't wanted by the FBI for the very reason we went to war in the first place.I remember warning my RWNJ friends about this stuff back in the days when it first became "legal." Naturally, I was slapped down because they trusted George Bush with such powers. After all, those were extraordinary times and extraordinary means must be used to keep us safe and the government would not go after every day American citizens...just the "terrorist's"
Well...here we are 10 years later and those powers are now held by someone you DON'T trust. Guess what? It's too late now to feign outrage and worry. You should have done that at the very first, instead of surrendering your liberties for safety.
Don't come crying to we liberals and progressives about it now. We warned you, but you wouldn't listen. You had your chance to stand up for freedom and the rule of law, but took the narrowly focused, short-term view of giving George Bush whatever he asked for. That it may now bite you in the butt is your problem.
Who said liberals were for it then? This liberal certainly wasn't.
HOW IN THE FUCK CAN LIBERAL'S BE AGAINST IT THEN///// AND SUPPORT IT NOW?
Yes you read that right, American citizens can be indefinitely detain by the military. Those who argued that the NDAA did not pertain to Americans citizens I would like to ask if it did not affect American citizens why did a federal judge rule that it does?
A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Obama administration on Tuesday, extending a temporary emergency extension of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was implemented by New York federal judge Raymond Lohier last month after an injunction was issued to hold the act by Judge Katherine B. Forrest.
The act gives the president the authority to indefinitely detain anyone in the world, including American citizens, without due process, for suspicion of supporting al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.
Federal court rules in favor of NDAA - National Government | Examiner.com
obama's law ruled Americans can be indefinitely detain
First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'
Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('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.').
Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...
