Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama appeals indefinite detention ruling

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 7, 2012, 10:16 a.m. EST by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

NEW YORK, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors on Monday appealed a U.S. judge's order barring enforcement of part of a law that permits indefinite military detention for those deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest in May ruled in favor of activists and reporters who said they feared being detained under a section of the law, signed by President Barack Obama in December.

The government says indefinite military detention without trial is justified in some cases involving militants and their supporters.

The judge's preliminary injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.

The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office, which represents the government in this case, along with named defendants Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed its notice of appeal with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The plaintiffs in the case have asked Judge Forrest to make her injunction permanent. Oral argument on the request is scheduled for Tuesday.

In court filings, prosecutors have argued that the law is neither too broad nor overly vague, and that in any event the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the case.

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," the United States said in court documents filed last month.

In issuing her ruling, the judge said she was worried by the government's reluctance at a March hearing to say whether examples of the plaintiffs' activities - such as aiding the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks in the case of Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of parliament in Iceland - would fall under the scope of the provision.

Plaintiffs also include former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges. (Reporting by Basil Katz; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

35 Comments

35 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Not even the blindness of party loyalty can overlook this travesty. Indefinite detention is the smoking gun of Obama's contempt for our constitutional rights. Anybody care to defend this action too?

[-] -1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

From a constitutional law scholar as well.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No one is going to touch that one dude.....

[-] 2 points by kaiserw (211) 2 years ago

Barak O'Romney - "The only option we've given you" - Them

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8011/7502055442_e941d00cdf_o.png

And this from Glen Greenwald: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2012/05/29/barack-oromney/

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Obama is working hard on losing my vote. Do you have a link to the original article so I can tweet it @BarackObama ?

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

tweeted, thx.

[-] 0 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Barack Obama, the US president, is running on his record as he fights for another term in the White House. It was a successful campaign based on hope and change that won him the 2008 election, persuading enough voters to believe in his "Yes We Can" pledge to alter the course of both foreign and domestic policy.

"The psychological dimension is that [Obama] had a relative lack of courage, a relative lack of backbone ... and the political dimension is that he had surrounded himself with Wall St. people to convince the establishment that he was worthy of acceptance and approval and therefore he listened very closely to what they had to say."

  • Cornel West, an author, academic and activist

Most notable were his pledges to end the war in Iraq and introduce health reform to a country where more than 50 million people have little to no access to proper medical care.

By the time he took office one of the worst financial crises was taking hold in the US and across the globe. Now more than three years have passed and the president is asking the country for another term.

His supporters argue that Obama's achievements surpass those of other first term presidents who were not even wrestling with global financial meltdown.

But his critics argue that far from delivering the social change he promised, he brought continuity with the previous administration - and worse still, he did so under the guise of progressive politics and in so doing shifted the entire political discourse even further to the right.

So with opinions about his legacy thus far divided, we ask: Has Obama fulfilled his campaign promises?

Inside Story US2012, with presenter Shihab Rattansi, takes a critical analysis of his achievements with guests: Cornel West, a professor emeritus of Princeton University, activist and author of The Rich & the Rest of Us - A Poverty Manifesto, and Paul Street, a journalist and author of Barack Obama and the future of American Politics.

"It's very odd how for some progressives and liberals in this country wars, secret detentions and bailouts and violations of habeas corpus, that were heinous and terrible and hideous when an inarticulate white Republican from West Texas does it, becomes curiously okay when a sophisticated black lawyer does it."

Paul Street, a journalist and author

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/08/20128773951170473.html

[-] -3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Pretty much. Obama better get on his big boy panties and do the right thing if he wants my vote.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Almost all of that information is available on my website http://richardkentgates.com or on one of my social network profiles. If I were concerned with people knowing who I am, I would have used a fake name. Some of us aren't afraid to stand behind what we say.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

http://blog.richardkentgates.com/2012/06/open-embezzlement.html

lol, you're just an assuming, crazy, dip shit. Can't see past your rage long enough to see that there are no absolutes. Keep on keep'n on.

Before I forget, I named my blog after a famous incident perpetrated by someone just like you. Slow down and take a breath before leaping off that ledge you're on.

[-] -2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Don't hold your breath.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28525) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

DO IT TO IT.

And Copy the link ( @BarackObama ) here so others can use it as well.

We need to fire storm all open communications to the government with our outrage - and share it out on social media for all to see and consider.

[-] -2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I also use #RNC #DNC as well.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28525) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It would be nice to post the messages sent - here on the forum to be re-tweeted or shared on other social media.

There are other contact avenues as well:

If you would like to contact the President or the Whitehouse:

http://www.barackobama.com/contact-us/ or email info2012@barackobama.com

You can also make contact here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

[-] -2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Ah, ok I gotcha now. here is the link @citizenGates/status/232854362676924418

[-] -3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Tweeters know how to tweet at them. It's just a matter of doing it, as I point to in my blog.

http://blog.richardkentgates.com/p/whats-frequency-kenneth.html

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

weebles wobble but they don't fall down

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

If you were honest, you would not state
"Obama appeals indefinite detention ruling"
especially since the article you post does NOT state that


If you were honest, you would state that Obama was against this provision - one of HUNDREDS in the bill.


If you were honest about slamming Obama for signing
this 500 section bill, you should specifically state
what would happen regarding all of the other sections
if he DID NOT SIGN THE ONE BILL


can you just choose 50 of the sections and tell us what WOULD
have happened if he did not sign?


fyi- some sections include a pay raise for our servicemen and others Iranian sanctions


Here is the truth - from the President:
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012."
_I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.__

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I understand your argument when dealing with many types of issues....you have to give a little in certain areas to get things accomplished. NDAA w/ indefinite detention without a trial isn't one of them. That's a foundation for this country to operate freely and justly. It would be like a president "giving" a little and allowing freedom of speech to be thrown out the window. There are certain foundational things in our country that must never be thrown out the window or bargained with...this is one of them. Everyone has a right to due process.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

A veto is better than a note

Also Obama along with the CIA think they can murder American citizens without due process and without presenting evidence of their alleged crimes. They targeted Americans that were staying in Yemen. It already happened. It's a fact. The ACLU is still trying to get a day in court over the issue. But apparently murdering American citizens isn't a big deal to Obama supporters. And apparently it's not something Obama has "worked tirelessly to reform or remove" that kind of abuse of power.

That's all I have to say about that.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Please don't change the subject- the OP implied Obama supported 1021
his signing statement proved that he did not
and the PeterK did not answer the question that the Rs spin machine does not want asked or answered- as long as it spins Obama
What would happen if the other 500 sections were not signed into law?


yes this is a very complex subject - that is why the Rs love to cut it into a tiny sound bite that the lemmings can understand


AND- yes I think 1021 is terrible

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Obama supports worse than 1021. Section 1021 is about indefinite detention. I'm pointing out that Obama along with the CIA has gone a step further than indefinite detention. And that step is murder.

Also on the topic of the NDAA... A VETO IS BETTER THAN A NOTE

A note does not change a law. The future presidents will have that power due to the frauds in congress and the lack of an Obama veto.

Also congress deserves just as much of the blame for 1021... actually more. This congress is beyond corrupt.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I find the whole prospect, that "progressives" tolerate these machinations from the administration on the basis that somehow Obama has been forced into his woeful inaction and even worse action by Republicans, incredible.

The excuses remind me of interviews with German citizens, who lived through the worst of World War 2. Almost all of them, when asked why they tolerated their neighbors being hauled off to concentration camps and worse, replied they hadn't known about the atrocities.

Really?

They watched as millions of people were rounded up and shipped off never to return, but didn't realize that some awful fate awaited the poor victims. So, now we read the Obama apologists pointing to all his "accomplishments" while ignoring his overwhelming failures.

[-] -2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

They like to paint him as being vicimized by the republicans but this is bullshit. You don't get to become the president of the US by being a wimp or a pushover especially if you are a black man.

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

His color is irrelevant. The country has moved far right in the last 30 years. I knew Pres Obama was a moderate, And that he couldn't nor wouldn't change all the conservative problems like NDAA, patriot act, erc. I am against continueing indef detention. I recognixe it as a failure that Pres Obama hasn't undone that particular republican created legislation.

I also KNOW that Pres Obama WILL undo it. I know there have been no new indef Detentions. Only Bushs leftovers remain. I know Pres Obama has written the signing statement to show he is against it. I know the republicans would use it (as they have).

Thats the difference.

And this case, and the appeal, is more about politics than Pres Obamas desire to indef Detain anyone.

Elect progressives. Vote out indefinate creating republicsans.

[-] -1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

You are right about there being no more indefinite detentions though. Obama isnt known for detaining people he just straight up kills them.

[-] -2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

If he was against it he wouldn't have appealed the case you jackass. Why would he undo it when he is doing everything in his power to make sure that it stands? You Obama cheer leaders are a joke.

"It's very odd how for some progressives and liberals in this country wars, secret detentions and bailouts and violations of habeas corpus, that were heinous and terrible and hideous when an inarticulate white Republican from West Texas does it, becomes curiously okay when a sophisticated black lawyer does it." Paul Street, a journalist and author

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

"jackass"? name calling is just bullying and betray weak arguments

I've already said it ain't ok. It IS a failure for Pres Obama. Still he is still light years better than your guy Bush (and any other republican).

Pres Obama WILL undo this conservative legislation, And all the rest, if the people continue rising up against them

Elect progressives! Republicans ARE the problem.

End NDAA! End the dron bombings!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Bush is not my guy and niether is Romney or any other polititian from the mainstream political parties. Explain to me why Obama would undo something he is now lobbying to keep in place? Weak argument? Your argument is completely divorced from reality! You are like a climate change denialist. No matter what atrocitiy Obama commits abroad or at home its ok because he does it and he is a democrat but if a republican was to do the exact same thing then you would be up in arms.

You liberal democrats are all full of shit. You pretend to have convictions but as soon as a democrat gets elected to office those convictions are quickly put aside and you become cheerleaders for the empire with the same enthusiasm as any republican. Much like when moveon abandoned the anti war movement in 2007.

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

Please. Your hostility is unnecessary. "full of shit" about what.? that vulgarity shows your not stable. Take a breath! Get a grip! If you can't control your emotions they will control you.!

I acknowledged Pres Obamas failure! I do the same with all the dems who fail when they cave in and vote for the republican/conservative policies you seem to be serving with these dem attacks.

I am liberal/progressive and registered independent. I identify the dems and Pres Obama as moderates. Moderates who cave in to conservative policies of the republicans.

But they are better than your republicans. And will be better still with the right kind of movement.

I know that Pres Obama and the dems WILL undo the republican conservative policies because the OWS movement will continue to grow and agitate for these changes.

I know that we will undo the consrervative policies that have screwed things up because I can see the slow progress that we are making in the face of the most powerful resistence ever seen in history!

The 1% plutocrats and their republican tools will not give up power easily or quickly. It will take years. I never expected Pres Obama to hit a magic switch and undo all the conservative problems.

It's like an aircraft carrier. turning will take time. And nothing will happen if a strong growing progressive movement isn't agitating.

It's the only way.

Elect Prpgressives. Republicans ARE the problem.

Please refrain from personal attacks on me. Perhaps we just disagree. Thats ok isn't it?

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

amen

Although making the case that you're making has wound me up with a -17 point rating on this site. Apparently people dont' like the hard truth.

[-] -2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

They don't like you because you are an austrian. I don't agree with you either when it comes to being a cheerleader for capitalism but me and you probably see eye to eye on quite a bit of forigen policy

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Actually i had over a +70 rating until the other day when i brought up the unconstitutional wars of the obama admin.

[-] -1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

That poor victim, regardless of the election results, will be set for life, while the workers still struggle to survive.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'm surprised they want to detain anyone. Usually they just drone strike them.

[-] -3 points by bearclaw (-152) 2 years ago

The Obama Admin "Hope & Change" slogan has been changed to "Poverty & Despair"