Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Federal Judge Says Americans Aren't Part of 'Homeland Battlefield': Lawsuit Against NDAA

Posted 8 years ago on July 15, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EST by SiriusBlackSun (8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


Another win for the critics of the controversial indefinitely detention law known as the National Defense Authorization Act. A federal judge has ruled that the US government cannot use the law to indefinitely detain Americans. This comes as a result of a group of activist and journalist who sued the Obama administration over the provision claiming it's unconstitutional and extremely vague.Carl Mayer, attorney for The Mayer Law Group, joins us with more on the case.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Ex-cellent. Slow progress. But real. Now let's see if Pres Obama seeks an appeal.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

Obama said he did not like this section of the 5100+ section bill
you know the republiclan game
glue something into a bill that MUST be signed

Will Obama appeal? - that will be very telling

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

can't let up the protests against drone bombings, ndaa, patriot act. etc


[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

IMHO- "anti-NDAA" may sound good but, for those who do not know the details,
it does not compute
please consider using the NDAA section number #1031 [ out of 5100+ sections ]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Please explain.


[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

I am not an expert on this - but this is what I got:
Many people are slamming the "NDAA" - "National Defense Authorization Act"
This is a multi-thousand page bill with 5100+ sections covering almost every aspect of national defence. Very often, unpopular crap is dumped (sometimes secretly ) into a very large document. ( I dont think #1031 was at all secret ) Certain bills - such as those that are used to defend the country and MUST be signed are very vulnerable to this. When section #1031 became puplicized, many people were horrified. What followed was a debate that included Obama and some senators including Levin. I'm not sure how much of the debate was sincere or just for voter consumption. I don't care.
Obama issued a signing statement stating he would never do this - but technically it is non binding on him, and completly non-binding on future presidents. So #1031 really was reprehensible - until this judge acted. I hope Obama does not appeal this

I just think the inaccurate outcry against "NDAA" deflates the real issue with "NDAA section 1031"

yeah - I know I'm nit picking

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

You are correct. I understand it as you have described it. I would add that the fed govt have been excercizing this crime of indefinate detention for 10 years at least. The only way to get a judge to strike it down is getting into a law. This law did have to be signed because it was part of defense budget, and dems are still running from the "weak on defense" label repubs have attached to them effectively for 40 years, and the defense bill passes with veto proof majorities.

So, you must get the violation into a law in order to have a court strike it down. Pres Obama then made sure the power was squarely with him specifically so that he could rescind it's use (as he did) with executive signing statement.

So clearly Pres Obamas actions were an effort to end the practice (as he has) of indefinate detention.

President Obama has ended the practice of indefinate detention! That is the point. Future Pres are not bound by Pres Obamas signing statement or his ethics/morals. A repub will certainly disregard Pres Obamas rescinding of indef det.

The court case helps. Pres Obama has not and I believe will not appeal. But really it is up to the people to vote out politicians who created and support indef detention.

House Dems attempted to repeal it in may, and the repubs defeated them

It is complicated but the republican partisans who jump on the issue do not discuss the issues that clearly show who is for indef det and who is against it.

Not nitpicking. Just searching for the truth.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8277) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

Good info throughout this site on NDAA vote as well as many others, the Ds did go about 2/3 against final passage and tried some changes that were turned down, overall a dark day and I wish the administration would make a better case against the worst parts.



[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I agree. in the end it is up to the people to change the fear mongering endless war on terror atmosphere that repubs created and prefer.

It's the only way.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

You mean, can't let up on the protests against the people who are responsible for those attacks on people and their freedoms. Drones do not kill people. Presidents who aim them kill people! NDAA does not take indefinitely detain people, but the President is the person who does detain people!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

This President has not indefinately detained anyone. We got some left over by Bush, but this Pres is against it. Done attacks must end.

When the people do their part and protest enough to move the country from the right wing fear mongerers, things will change.

Can't keep pointing fingers at dems and repubs. Gotta get out there and show them where we want the country to go.

Stop the drone bombings, End NDAA, Patriot act

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

"It has been 10 years since the United States began detaining people at its military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. We speak with someone who has worked to defend the rights of those prisoners for the last decade: Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. While dozens continue to face an unknown future at Guantánamo, we ask Ratner to comment on President Obama’s recent approval of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which some legal experts say would authorize the military to indefinitely jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect — without charge or trial. "The Center represented the first people out of Guantánamo over 10 years ago. At that time, the detention of people, the military trials, was all done by a presidential order. When Obama took office, he continued the same actions. And recently, in the NDAA, those actions, the ability to detain people, the ability to use military commissions, etc., were actually put into law, and Obama, contrary to his claim that he was going to veto it, signed it, making him the first president ever in the United States to sign into law indefinite detention as part of the policy of the United States." Ratner adds that "the NDAA puts very heavy restrictions on moving people out of Guantánamo... We are now in the longest period, almost a year, in which nobody has been transferred out of Guantánamo."


[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

It's horrible. Good thing the dem appointed judge in brooklyn struck it down.

I guess it would be difficult for a judge to strike it down if it isn't an actual law huh? Of course the fact remains Pres Obama has NOT indef detained anyone. We only have the leftovers from Bush. And Pres Obamas efforts to close gitmo have been stymied by republicans no?

Lets say it how it is. Lets be real.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Obama indefinitely detains 160 prisoners right now in Guantanamo.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Our government - our whole government and all of the rest of the allied NATO governments are detaining those prisoners.

Obama wanted to shutdown Gitmo. No one would let him.

How is that(?) you say?

Our government and the governments of the world refused to transfer those prisoners into any judicial system to be processed either as enemy combatants or as terrorists or as criminals.

So what to do? What to do?

Hhmmm - take them out into international waters and let them swim in some direction and let them hope to make landfall somewhere where they will be allowed to stay? Their own countries of origin will not take them back.


What to do?

What to do?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

They are being detained in a legal neutral zone where our laws do not fully apply. That is why Guantanamo will never be closed. It's the perfect solution. Complete control without the hindrance of legal oversight from any government.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Another sign of the spreading sickness of government/society.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

The United States does as a result of Bushs policy. pres Obama has committed to shutting it down, Has begun to, has been stopped by the repubs.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Obama makes the decision and you transfer the blame to the U.S. Do you use the same standard for Bush? Then all of Bush's decisions can be blamed on the U.S. as well.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

So now your defending Bush?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

No, you do, if you use the same standard of logic as you use for Obama.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Oh I'm defending Bush. Riiiiiight. You might not have noticed but I'm a partisan anti republican.

But ok I'll bite.

I'm against drone attacks. Pres Obama is responsible for this bad policy. The republicans in the House who have neglected to hold hearings in opposition are also responsible.

The Repubs in general are responsible because they have created,and exploited the atmosphere of fear mongering, endless war on terror that allows the drone attacks and the threats to civil liberties (ndaa, patriot act)

Bush is responsible for all the above because he is the daddy of the whole strategy.

How's dat?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago


You mean he has started the process of releasing and/or trying the prisoners on gitmo. Right?

I mean he has released some, and tried some. Much too slow, I can agree with that. I would remind you that the repubs in congress have delated the Obama policy of transfering gitmo prisoners out and trying them

No complaints about the repub delaying tactics.?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

But activists on either end of the debate over closing the prison cast the announcement as a reversal.

"It is virtually impossible to imagine how one closes Guantanamo in light of this executive order," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "In a little over two years, the Obama administration has done a complete about-face."

Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the order vindicated Obama's predecessor. "I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order," he said in a statement. "The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities."


[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Who is responsible for the drone strike on Anwar Al Awlaki, a U.S. citizen killed in Yemen?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

The United States of America killed him because he was our self proclaimed enemy. No?

We killed his 16 year old son because Al Awaki was using him as a human shield. Surely Al Awaki knew we were gonna drone his ass didn't he? I mean I knew it. So he must've.

Now in war we kill people all the time without trial. but this is a very ambiguous conflict so I think many expect us to have a trial before we kill our enemies. Who knows.

I am against drone attacks in any event.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Against the drone strikes, but not against the person that authorizes them?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Pres Obama is more than one policy, one military tactic. I take the drone strikes (that I am against) as an improvement over the republican doctrine of overwhelming force. Y'know 1/2 million troops invading a country (2 for Bush) and killing upwards of a million people.

Gotta keep it in context. The real problem is the atmosphere that allows drone attacks to exist and NDAA/patriot act to exist. That atmosphere was created by repubs and is continued by repubs.

Lets undo that. Ratchet that fear mongering down and we will see progress on drone attacks, and civil rights violations.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

You side step the question. How can a person be "Against the drone strikes, but not against the person that authorizes them?"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I didn't sidestep anything. I am against the drone strikes.

I support:

-his decision not to invade any more countries, his handling of the libyan uprising, and all the arab spring changes. A repub would have invaded and resisted the change that is going on there.

-his decision to not indef detain anyone. (only Bushs guys left) his decision not to appeal the dem appointed judges strike down of ndaa.

-his decision to define waterbaording as torture (remenber that repub goodie?), his decision to stop torture, his decision to close cia secret prisons, his decision to end extraordinary rendition.

  • his choice to end the fear mongering, endless war on terror rhetoric of calling the tactic "a war on terror" and the color coded threat level.

-his strength at resisting the calls from the right wing war mongers (here and in isreal) to invade Iran.

And much much more. That is just foreign policy. There is also domestic issues I support him on. his opposition to citizens united, his support for public healthcare option, fin regulations, taxing the wealthy, helping borrowers in foreclosure, expanding Pell grants.

I can't decide my support on one issue. Even if it is as important as killing innocent people.

I'm against drone strikes. I blame repubs more (for creating the atmosphere)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Didn't sidestep anything. I support Pres Obama overall. I disagree with the drone strike policy but I support other policies he supports.

In regards to military use. I don't support drone strikes, but I support his choice not to invade another country. I support how he handle the citizens uprising in libya, and his policy regarding all the arab spring uprising.

I know a republican would have invaded. and resisted the change that has come.

I support his goal to close gitmo,

I support his effort to stop NDAA, his non use of indef detention his progress at releasing/trying gitmo prisoners. his decision not to appeal the judges striking down of ndaa

I support his decision to definewater boarding as torture. his decision to stop torture. his decision to close secret cia prisons

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Keep dreamin...

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

" you may call me a dreamer, But I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one" JL

Stop the drone attacks, end NDAA, patriot act.


[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 8 years ago

Excellent. There are some great federal judges out there.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

makes sense

I also disagree with unlawful detention of non citizens