Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama Has Already Appealed The Indefinite Detention Ruling

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 14, 2012, 2:56 p.m. EST by john23 (-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

those currently being held would have to be released

and that could further expose the indiscretions of our opaque government

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Good luck trying to figure out the truth about this one.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

What do you mean?

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

It's impossible to get to the bottom of many issues/events. It's my understanding that McCain/Levin authored the new NDAA. I don't trust either one of them. It's getting to the point where most major events seem staged and we should just file it under the 'X-files'. The NDAA is just a show for the 2 major political parties. The same could be said of the bailout of GM and the recent Chicago teachers strike. We should be thankful that we have OWS, the Arab Spring and even the Tea Party. TPTB have their their illusions and we have ours.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

To call a stripping of the constitution an illusion is both dangerous and foolish

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I didn't mess with the constitution. If you think someone else did then take it up with them. I don't speak 'lawyer' so if they mess with the constitution I'd never know.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

NDAA 1021-31

[-] 1 points by Lokibro57 (-4) 1 year ago

WOW, Obama is appealing the recent indefinite detention ruling?!

Does this mean that all of us dem shills, and anti dem partisan shill trolls can now join forces and get on with the revolution??

Just wondering

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Of course he did, it was his admin that requested that specifically be in there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO23HoRv6Ms

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

The funny thing is VQkag2 just said that since obama is not fighting the ruling that is proof he doesn't support the ndaa. How much do you want to bey obama partisans willfind an excuse for this.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

When you put it into law without a veto... you're supporting it.

VQ also thinks Obama was forced into signing the Patriot Act.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I believe he was

and if that is the case, striking down the law without Congressional Authorization to proceed to trial doesn't make any sense.

The admin probably thinks it is easier to appeal to the court than it is to start a new fight with Congress while the election is under way.

Tell you what - you get enough OWS supporters to protest Congress persons who have fucked this whole thing up, and I'll be there. Then when Congress reverses itself, we'll see whether the President signs the law or not.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Or else obama is working for his corporate masters who want the law in place to supress dissent.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol Forced into voting for the patriot act too?

How come Barack Obama hasn't told this to the public? Are THEY holding his family for ransom too?

And congress is at fault too of course. But saying "Obama was forced" into signing/voting for this crap... is a bold face lie

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

who? What?

What are you talking about? who was forced to vote for the patriot act?

I was referring to NDAA

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You replied to my comment mocking the "Obama was forced to do things we don't like" people. Which included the NDAA and the Patriot Act.

Did Obama have the option to veto? Yes. Did he hold a press conference and say "I am choosing to veto this bill because it contains provisions that are unconstitutional and are a direct violation to the standard of human rights and due process and this congress is corrupt for passing it" ??

No he did not. Obama has actually taken advantage of provisions like these. Am I wrong or did Obama sign for drones killing American citizens in non-battle zones? No charges ever filed. No evidence of crimes ever presented. ACLU is trying to get a day in court but abuse of power is getting it pushed back over and over.

This guy works directly side by side with the pentagon and the CIA and the war profiteers... and the profits don't lie.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

No he did not.

you have to be able to understand what not signing the National Defense Authorization Act would have done, practically speaking, to both the economy and to matters affecting national defense.

You cannot.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol okay mr excuse maker for indefinite detention laws

Why this then "Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody."

In regards to 2012 NDAA provisions.

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't know - I'm not among the President's inner circle -

at a guess I would say it may have a lot to do with both the public reaction to trials in NY and to the bipartisan support for the original - 2010 - NDAA bill.

By PETER LANDERS

Congress on Wednesday passed legislation that would effectively bar the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trial, rejecting pleas from Obama administration officials who called the move unwise.

A defense authorization bill passed by the House and Senate included the language on the offshore prison, which President Barack Obama tried unsuccessfully to close in his first year in office.

The measure for fiscal year 2011 blocks the Department of Defense from using any money to move Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for any reason. It also says the Pentagon can't spend money on any U.S. facility aimed at housing detainees moved from Guantanamo, in a slap at the administration's study of building such a facility in Illinois.

. . .

Republicans and some Democrats say the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which the government has spent millions of dollars upgrading, is the most secure place to keep terror suspects.

By banning transfers to the U.S., Congress is blocking trials of detainees in U.S. civilian courts. Proponents of the ban say military tribunals, not civilian courts, are the proper forum for bringing to justice suspects accused of trying to attack the U.S.

Those contentions grew stronger last month when a New York federal jury acquitted a former Guantanamo detainee of all but one count in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. The defendant, Ahmed Ghailani, still faces 20 years to life in prison.

I don't know why I am posting parts of the article - I'm sure you can read it for yourself if you are so inclined.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Again you try to divert blame for actions done by this administration.

I know congress is at fault for a majority of problems in the government.... but I'm not blind from mistakes, corruption, and violence that have happened under this administration.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

but I'm not blind from mistakes, corruption, and violence that have happened under this administration.

no of course not.

you're just completely ignorant of the positive things he has attempted to do or actually done . . . and I find that a tad hypocritical . . .

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Obama supports a system that wants to put people like me in prison.

No good thing Obama does outweighs that.

There is no excuse for signing indefinite detention laws and using them.

There is no excuse for bombing innocent civilians.

There is no excuse to spy on the American populace.

There is no excuse.

anymore excuses?

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Obama supports a system that wants to put people like me in prison.

ad hominem and unsupported - the fact that you are free seems to indicate something . . .

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

this is where you are just being ignorant.

They support laws that put people like me in prison.

1 of 6 people in prison actually.

According to their laws I should be in prison. Luckily I don't do that anymore but I am an advocate to end the war on drugs. Instead we could use the money to put people in college.

[-] -3 points by roboProg (-56) 1 year ago

bama only reads the scripts off the teleprompter that is written by George Soros. Obama is Soros "little howdy doody" puppet master

[-] -3 points by roboProg (-56) 1 year ago

Personally I think you would be better off in a "mental institution" rather than prison

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Not a valid argument. What if a bill came along that had a bunch of wonderful things in it but took away your right to free speech? Is that acceptable? No....these are foundational principles of this country that shouldn't negotiated with...no matter how good the "other" benefits of the bill are.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Well said. The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". That is exactly what Section 1021 does.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I agree 100%

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

man - you guys are as dense as a post

National Defense Authorization Act

It was passed in 2010 - the 2011 version reiterated provisions contained the year before. both bills passed just a few days before the deadline.

I don't care who you elect to office - they would have signed that bill.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Why is it that when bush violated our rights you get angry, rightfully so, but when obama doubles down on the violations you go to great trouble making excuses for him.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you don't have any idea what I was doing when shrub got . . .

  • appointed

In fact - I watched the new years events from Nectar's in Burlington as the millennium ended - I was 21 months early - but never mind.

Shrub was nothing but a face, a mask, he was a goddamned rubber stamp.

Congress didn't even write the patriot act. It was signed by Shrub on October 26, 2001 - and at 363 pages in length it is highly unlikely that many members of Congress actually read the damn thing before passage.

And no - I didn't get all that angry when that bill was passed - that bill simply legitimized shit I had already experienced. It made it all nice and legal . . .

He tried to get trials going in NY - where the fuck were you when everyone screamed no?

[-] 3 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I was a couple years out of high school and to my regret wasn't worried about politics until I saw history repeating itself with the republicans went crazy in 2010. I'm sorry if I jumped to a false conclusion. I also thought obama was our only hope until OWS made me check my assumptions and I started to notice things I didn't see because cable news is a joke. When obama signed the ndaa and said he wouldn't use it's power that proved he knew what he was signing. That is unforgivable and I realized obama is as bad as bush because they both work for the same people.

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

the military industrial complex

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"I don't care who you elect to office - they would have signed that bill."

No way...not buying that at all. If you're talking about Mccain and Obama...then yes you're right....the two clowns put forth by the major institutions everyone hates here so much. There are plenty of people if elected would have vetoed that no question though. Example on both sides....Ron Paul and Kucinich

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

VQgag knows that's a lie and he's been repeating it for months - after the motion for reconsideration of the initial ruling, and after he filed the appeal of the temporary injunction, so I would imagine he'll keep lying now. (Unless by "fighting it" he means Obama hasn't put the plaintiffs on his kill list yet and is just defending it in court.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

exactly

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Let me save the Obamabots some time: "You sound like an anti-Dem partisan" "The Republicans made him do it" "Bush started it" "It's Nader's fault" blah blah blah.

[-] 1 points by Lokibro57 (-4) 1 year ago

No fair...I wanted to hear him say it.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I'll put it in a context that is probably foreign to you.

When a president makes a decision, what do you believe gets more weight; the interests of the nation, the office of the Presidency, or the political fallout from the decision?

I would hope the latter would get the least weight, and weight would ascend from right to left.

I don't look at the political progression as a good and evil plight but rather see it as action and reaction, cause then effect.

Although I don't believe Obama is doing enough to keep such a power out of the hand of the executive, i'm more hung up on why the Congress gave the Presidency such power.

Shouldn't their actions be electorally campaigned against, more so than the President?

[-] 0 points by Lokibro57 (-4) 1 year ago

This is a defiant movement that knows that there will be no systemic coming from the voting booth any time soon. The office of the Presidency has been corrupted

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

And what the fuck is an anti Dem partisan?!!

Where did this freak of a poster come from?!!! hahahaha