Supreme Court Green-lights Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans

[Vigilante]

America’s founders, largely distrustful of centralized power, created several checks and balances into the U.S. Constitution to help ensure that one person, or one group of people, would not be able to unilaterally exert his or their will over the American citizenry. First, the federal government itself was divided into three separate and distinct branches–each holding the capability (and responsibility) to check the power of the other. Second, the Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution for the protection of individual liberties. Third, the “free and independent states” of the nation retained their sovereignty and independence after the central government was created (by the states), with the Tenth Amendment specifically recognizing their authority and jurisdiction over matters not directly delegated to the federal government.

It was also assumed that the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion would help the citizenry be sufficiently informed and inspired to keep the would-be despots at bay. And, of course, “We the People” are recognized as being the ultimate guardians of liberty by the recognition that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration) The “consent of the governed” was given teeth by the constitutional recognition of the people’s right to wield the power of the voting booth, the jury box, and, as a last resort, the cartridge box.



What has become increasingly obvious to a large segment of the American populace is the complete unwillingness of the national media to hold the federal government accountable. Neither do America’s pulpits provide the moral leadership necessary to maintain good government. The freedom of the press and religion accomplish precious little today in the safeguarding of liberty. And it is also absolutely clear that the three branches of government in Washington, D.C. adamantly refuse to use the constitutional obligations placed upon them to hold the federal government in check.

The latter was made crystal clear by a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the report:......

Supreme Court Green-lights Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans

 

[g5000]

It is amusing how the "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker sporting, flag pin wearing mentalities had no problem with indefinite detention of American citizens when their guy was in the White House, but now that the baton has been passed to the other guy, they suddenly start slapping swastikas all over the new guy.

Very, very interesting.

You dumb fucks should have said something way back when you were cheering the AUMF and the Patriot Act. The NDAA section that this topic is about simply says that it does not limit or expand the AUMF. So where the fuck were you assholes between 2002 and January 20, 2009. Were you in a fucking COMA!?!

 

[Vigilante]

It is amusing how the "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker sporting, flag pin wearing mentalities had no problem with indefinite detention of American citizens when their guy was in the White House, but now that the baton has been passed to the other guy, they suddenly start slapping swastikas all over the new guy.

Very, very interesting.

You dumb fucks should have said something way back when you were cheering the AUMF and the Patriot Act. The NDAA section that this topic is about simply says that it does not limit or expand the AUMF. So where the fuck were you assholes between 2002 and January 20, 2009. Were you in a fucking COMA!?!

Perhaps it was because.....

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
Share



December 31, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: [email protected]

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.....

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

 

[g5000]

It is amusing how the "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker sporting, flag pin wearing mentalities had no problem with indefinite detention of American citizens when their guy was in the White House, but now that the baton has been passed to the other guy, they suddenly start slapping swastikas all over the new guy.

Very, very interesting.

You dumb fucks should have said something way back when you were cheering the AUMF and the Patriot Act. The NDAA section that this topic is about simply says that it does not limit or expand the AUMF. So where the fuck were you assholes between 2002 and January 20, 2009. Were you in a fucking COMA!?!

Perhaps it was because.....

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

As I just said, that law neither limited nor expanded the AUMF. It seems you need to let that sink in: It. Did. Not. Expand. The. Powers. Provided. In. The. AUMF.

Read it for youself and see.

The source law for indefinite detention is the AUMF.

 

[g5000]

The uproar is over Section 1021 of the NDAA.

Here's an idea. Let's see what Section 1021 is called!

Sec. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

See that? Pursuant to the AUMF.

GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

Let's go down to paragraph (e) shall we?

(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.

Take away the AUMF, you take away the authority of indefinite detention.

It has been there all along. It was there under the NDAA's when Bush was President.

You are just now waking up? Really?

 

[Vigilante]

It is amusing how the "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker sporting, flag pin wearing mentalities had no problem with indefinite detention of American citizens when their guy was in the White House, but now that the baton has been passed to the other guy, they suddenly start slapping swastikas all over the new guy.

Very, very interesting.

You dumb fucks should have said something way back when you were cheering the AUMF and the Patriot Act. The NDAA section that this topic is about simply says that it does not limit or expand the AUMF. So where the fuck were you assholes between 2002 and January 20, 2009. Were you in a fucking COMA!?!

Perhaps it was because.....

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

As I just said, that law neither limited nor expanded the AUMF. It seems you need to let that sink in: It. Did. Not. Expand. The. Powers. Provided. In. The. AUMF.

Read it for youself and see.

The source law for indefinite detention is the AUMF.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes 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. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

I guess a specific incident as directed in the AUMF has NOW BEEN EXPANDED by B. INSANE... would you agree?

 

[g5000]

Journey with us now back to 2009, shortly after Obama takes office: Administration Won't Seek New Indefinite-Detention System

The Obama administration has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects and will instead rely on a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to continue to detain people indefinitely and without charge, according to administration officials.

 

[g5000]

Like I said. It is amusing to see the bumper sticker mentalities slapping swastikas on Obama for this.

 

[Vigilante]

Journey with us now back to 2009, shortly after Obama takes office: Administration Won't Seek New Indefinite-Detention System

The Obama administration has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects and will instead rely on a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to continue to detain people indefinitely and without charge, according to administration officials.

BUT FAST FORWARD TO 2011!!!!

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
Share



December 31, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

[g5000]

Perhaps it was because.....

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

As I just said, that law neither limited nor expanded the AUMF. It seems you need to let that sink in: It. Did. Not. Expand. The. Powers. Provided. In. The. AUMF.

Read it for youself and see.

The source law for indefinite detention is the AUMF.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes 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. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

I guess a specific incident as directed in the AUMF has NOW BEEN EXPANDED by B. INSANE... would you agree?

Nope. I do not agree. Read the NDAA for yourself. There is no expansion of the AUMF in it. Read the AUMF while you are at it.

The indefinite detention of detainees has been around since 2001.

Too bad it took you nearly 13 years to wake up.

 

[Vigilante]

As I just said, that law neither limited nor expanded the AUMF. It seems you need to let that sink in: It. Did. Not. Expand. The. Powers. Provided. In. The. AUMF.

Read it for youself and see.

The source law for indefinite detention is the AUMF.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes 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. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

I guess a specific incident as directed in the AUMF has NOW BEEN EXPANDED by B. INSANE... would you agree?

Nope. I do not agree. Read the NDAA for yourself. There is no expansion of the AUMF in it.

The indefinite detention of detainees has been around since 2001.

Too bad it took you nearly 13 years to wake up.

You're completely wrong, as it specified Sept. 11. 2001 only...but if you like your derangement, you can keep your derangement....PERIOD!

 

[KNB]

The AUMF allows indefinite detention and use of force against anyone involved with 9/11?

Or does the AUMF allow indefinite detention and use of force against anyone who the President determines to have been possibly involved with 9/11 or perhaps may one day be a part of something like 9/11?

Explain the assassination of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as it applies to the AUMF.

 

[Vigilante]

The AUMF allows indefinite detention and use of force against anyone involved with 9/11?

Or does the AUMF allow indefinite detention and use of force against anyone who the President determines to have been possibly involved with 9/11 or perhaps may one day be a part of something like 9/11?

Explain the assassination of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as it applies to the AUMF.

I don't owe fucking scum like you any kind of answer!

And the Teabaggers of 1773 were some RACIST ***** dressed up like Natives, hiding their identities like cowards, trying to make someone else face the consequences for their actions. In other words, pussies just like the American Talibaggers today.

Thank you for finally confirming that you are a subversive, in the style of the ones McCarthy warned America about, that cares nothing about America, just as long as your fellow subversives can plunder the citizens of the country.

 

[bravoactual]

Its called the Patriot Act and YOU PEOPLE LOVE IT.

 

[Vigilante]

Its called the Patriot Act and YOU PEOPLE LOVE IT.

As long as it follows Constitutional guidelines, but when it strays, such as what Obuma signed, apparently YOU don't have a problem with it!