Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: White House Says It's Unconstitutional To Strike Down The NDAA

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 17, 2012, 6:07 p.m. EST by john23 (-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

67 Comments

67 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

One of the most notable aspects of the NDAA is frequently overlooked: the NDAA makes it virtually mpossible for Obama to keep his promise to close down Guantanamo. But he signed it anyway.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Why would Obama close Guantanamo? As any fool could plainly see, closing Guantanamo was never an option.

[-] 2 points by jemandunerkant23 (5) from San Antonio, TX 1 year ago

True but, Obama SHOULD close Guantanamo 1rst because he said he would. Secondly, The Right of America to even HAVE Guantanamo has always been dubious. America finagled and insinuated their way into the Cuban independence and arbitrarily TOOK the property that became Guantanamo. Yet America maintains a 47 year embargo that does no one any good.

http://www.toddpnyc.com/bloqueo/main.html

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Well, I agree, we should be commercializing Cuba - it's beachfront belongs to us. But it was apparently deemed more important to deny our enterprise; therefore an embargo with intent not to do good but rather to inflict harm.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

closing gitmo is the only option - only a fool would insist otherwise

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Of course you mean the 2010 NDAA. Like the 2011 NDAA bill, both of which were Defense Authorization Acts - or spending bills, the 2010 NDAA passed and was ready for signature just days before deadline.

If the President had not signed the bill - either time - paychecks for a lot of government employees wouldn't have gone out - people would have been told to stay home - contract payments would not have been made - it would have been a nightmare.

Not signing it wasn't an option. Usually a bill not signed becomes law anyway, unless the President vetoes it. But the deadline would have passed before the bill could become law without his signature.

Congress was clever. They held onto that bill until the very last minute.

Where were all of you guys when the President insisted on having trials in NY and everyone else was screaming it would cost too much?

Huh? Huh? Where were ya?

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

Excuses

There is no excuse for signing indefinite detention into law for American citizens.

That goes for congress too.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I agree it was indefensible for Congress to insert that language into the 2010 NDAA.

[-] 1 points by jemandunerkant23 (5) from San Antonio, TX 1 year ago

specifically the trouble with the #NDAAis the section(s) 1021, 1031,1032.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest issued a permanent injunction against section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act. Forrest has said that the NDAA “violates the First and Fifth Amendments” and “fails to pass constitutional muster and that the legislation had a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights.”

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't argue with any of Forrest's points regarding NDAA - these are the sections in the 2011 bill.

Trevor was referring to the 2010 version of the bill.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Uhh, well, we were right here in NY; where were you?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I was probably up here in Vermont, totally oblivious to the fact that all of the hoopla over cost necessitated swift and overwhelming push back from the public, combined with advocacy of reasonable cost saving alternatives . . .

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

There are no cost saving alternatives when you introduce attorneys, the media, and a military presence - we don't want these murdering bastards in NY, let alone as protected under OUR Constitution.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

it is to protect our Constitution and the rights embodied by it that these murderous bastards must face trial.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

The Constitution was intended to federate all to provincial concerns while limiting governmental interference; it was never intended to afford protections to our foreign enemies.

The Geneva Convention descends to us directly from Washington and yet I think if you review, you'll find that he strongly disagrees with you; the Bill of Rights was never intended to allow anti-war demonstrators the right of public display, to sensationalize the vulgarity of war, or to mock American jurisprudence, civil or military; it was never intended to politicize war or to dull or chill the blade of the warrior who must defend his country.

This is war and our enemies are either going to rethink their position or they are going to die; if it is not war then it is posturing at the expense of the people, and that is wrong - which is it? Does Obama even know?

[-] 1 points by jemandunerkant23 (5) from San Antonio, TX 1 year ago

I beg to differ on some key points:

http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html

You speak as if you GNOW (sic) the mind of the Founding Fathers-yet, just WHAT is to be read 'between the lines' of the constitution has been a debate since its inception. Today we are going through a paradigm shift in terms of ideas on war, civil disobedience etcetera.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

If you spend enough time studying their published writings, that's exactly what happens - you, as intended, develop the ability to read their minds. And those grey areas are greatly diminished.

That site is very poorly written: in 1774, there were over 200 riots (acts of civil disobedience) in Boston alone. This is what they deemed to be "active democracy." The paradigm shift, if there was one, occurred over 200 years ago when, with the explosion of the Tory mercantile oppressor, mob action fell out of favor to gradually embrace the new hope of a peaceful civility.

You can't teach civil disobedience to a population that is not aggrieved.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Does Obama even know?

Does the Pentagon? They have sought some new status - neither prisoner of war nor criminal

this is insane

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Yea but it's a whole lot better than murdering those you have disarmed; the warrior must do one or the other; can the enemy disarmed faithfully be "paroled"? That is not a pentagonal question, it's not multifaceted; it's a question posed to those whom they endanger.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Is Ted Kaczynski ever getting out? He is not only an American, there are perhaps mitigating circumstances in his case - it is known he was subjected to MKULTRA.

Certainly Timothy McVeigh is never getting parole.

The question as it is posed is disingenuous, and completely ignores the cost to the institutions and that contract that either serve the public or that the public holds.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

If I was a soldier who knew the enemy was to be afforded so much courtesy, I'd kill them all.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Courtesy? Kaczynski is locked up in a supermax facility - * in isolation . . . and McVeigh was executed* . . .

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

How do you try an alleged war criminal in a civil venue without compromising intelligence? How do you deal with a mere declaration of intent, as free speech, protected under our Constitution?

Do we kill them all or simply set them free after capture? Is this a political war, hopefully if we beat them up a little they will acquiesce? Or are we engaged in "war" against terrorism?

We are either playing to win at any and all cost or the American military should not be involved in the war on terrorism - it should become a national police matter.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That is a bullshit argument - demonstrated by the sheer volume of terrorist cases tried by U.S. courts.

.

U.S. courts convict 91 percent in terrorism trials: study

'EFFECTIVE AND FAIR'

Among the 171 who had been sentenced, 151 got prison terms and 20 were put on probation or sentenced to time already served. The average sentence was 8.4 years, and 11 got life terms, said the study by Human Rights First, a U.S.-based nonprofit group that promotes international freedoms.

It concluded that the existing court system is up to the task of trying terrorism cases and there is no need to create new Guantanamo tribunals or a new national security court, as some have proposed.

"While new systems have failed and new 'fixes' have been floated, the criminal justice system has continued to build on its long record of being an effective and fair tool for incapacitating terrorists," it said.

The authors said the Classified Information Procedures Act, which protects secret information used as evidence, appears to be working because they could find no instance where there was a substantial leak of sensitive information as a result of terrorism prosecutions.

Nor had interrogation or criminal prosecution in the studied cases been hampered by the Miranda rule, which requires that suspects be told their words could be use as evidence against them and that they are entitled to lawyers before questioning.

The courts have ruled that the warning is not required in certain circumstances involving interrogation by foreign officials, and can be applied flexibly "to accommodate the exigencies of local conditions," the study noted in an apparent reference to battlefield captures.

The study said a rash of recent proposals by U.S. elected officials trying to keep Guantanamo prisoners from being incarcerated in their communities seemed to be based more on fear than fact.

"The United States justice system has a long and successful history of prosecuting suspected terrorists by generally achieving just results without causing danger to the nation's or local communities' safety and security," it said.

.

[-] 2 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

In 1918, my German great-grandfather, then serving as French interpreter at the HQs of General Pershing in France, which conducted some 250+ intelligence investigations during its brief history, was accused of espionage and labeled an enemy alien. He was arrested, sent to Hoboken, and then transported to Oglethorpe where he was not only interned for the remainder of the war but actually detained until after the AEF was fully disbanded, before being "paroled" to CA.

He was not a terrorist - not a killer - but a suspected double agent.

This present "war" has not been concluded; why an average of only eight years? Why have we usurped military powers to afford "rights" and courtesies to the enemy? And if they are not the "enemy," then we are not at "war" - why then are we using the military to play around in the Middle East? The military is not a presidential play toy and they are not a civil "police force" - it is a killing machine and not treating it as one needlessly costs American lives. Some of those lives will come from your very neighborhood.

It's one thing to say young males, and today, females, are expendable to the national defense, it's another to say they are expendable to our whim-of-the-moment national politics and political posturing.

This is just one more element of that wishy-washy posturing which it presently appears has taken a decided turn for the worst.

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

The military paychecks went out on time. Why is Obama fighting so hard to get the injunction overturned?

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

they went out on time because he signed the bill.

Look, you can argue it two ways - you can claim the President and Congress cooked it up together, or you can argue that the Congress fucked him. Given his track record on promises kept which is just under 200, I tend to suspect he really wanted to close Gitmo.

then - my guess - the Pentagon got out their PR people and got everyone screaming about the cost of security if they held trials in NY.

I bet if he gets reelected he will revisit this issue - and the court is pushing it before the election. It would have been better if their decision had been issued after the election - we don't really know if the appeal process is simply running out the clock, or if the administration really intends to accept that Congress has had the last word on this.

I don't believe we will have indefinite detention by the time his second term is up - but, I could be wrong. It does happen.

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

If Obama didn't want the 1021 indefinite detention provisions included, (but signed it anyway), all he had to do when Hedges, et. al sued, was to not defend. He continues to fight very hard to be able to enforce those provisions.

Obama is now seeking an emergency stay of the injunction while the appeal. is pending. Evidently he wants to detain some Americans and soon. I don't know how you could argue that the president is not in favor of the 1021 provisions.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm just guessing it may have to do with the timing, the election, and allowing the clock to run out . . . . like I said, I could be wrong. But I would point out, since many are convinced that both sides are the same, one might expect them to arrest me based on some of my posts here, and yet - I have not been arrested yet - that must mean something.

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

I don't understand what you mean by "allowing the clock to run out". On what?

I don't think Obama is going to arrest one of his most vocal supporters.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

an appeal process takes time - time for the election to be over, time for Congress to return and consider if or how they will proceed.

IF the President and conservatives are all working together as some here suggest, certainly I have provided ample opportunity for a demonstration of that cooperation . . . .

here for example

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

I don't think the appeal on the statute would be decided before the election. The emergency petition asking for a stay of the injunction is what will force another hearing on the issue before the election.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13623) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

if that is true then I neither clearly understand the process or why it is taking place.

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

more likely already has some detained

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

Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

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

Don't you know obama promised not to use the power granted. Just because he doesn't mind assassinating americans doesn't mean he will lock us up. Or does it?

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

it's like player characters saying they will only use their unbalanced extra powers in an emergency

[-] 3 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Next up, strike down the Patriot Act.

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

Wow, Obama claiming the injunction is unconstitutional because it infringes on the president's power to lock people up as long as he wants without any due process. How anyone could vote for this man is beyond me. This is some scary shit.

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

I don't know how peoplecan support him. He says a judge stricking down a law that is clearly unconstitutional is an unconstitutional act. The arrogance of the man is astounding. The really sad thing is that so called progessives (not allbut enough) will make excuses for him. If you don't believe me I recently read a comment that obama openly assassinated us citizens because he was against assassination and wanted to start a national debate. I'm still furious whenever I think about that comment.

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

excuses can be so lame

war is peace

truth is lies

freedom is jobs

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

I saw the film "Compliance" this weekend. http://www.magpictures.com/compliance . It is based on real events and shows how far people will go in deference to authority, and how few people will say "no". It is disturbing and difficult to watch but I think everyone should see it. Maybe awareness of this dynamic can lead to fewer people going along with things that are wrong.

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

looks good...will def check it out.

[-] 0 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 1 year ago

No surprise really. That mans whole life is based on hubris, arrogance, and a free ride.

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

That is a perfect description of the ruling class.

[-] 2 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

bam has no use for the constitution. he sees it as an impediment to him having total power .

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

"he sees it as an impediment to him having total power"

Well yeah, it's supposed to be.

[-] 1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

yes, its supposed to be which is why he goes around it. bypassing congress .

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

Actually congress voted for the bill with overwhelming bi-partisan support. It's gotten to the point that I cringe whenever I hear anything is supported by both parties.

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

I think the fact Pres Obama hasn't used this authority, and only republicans (who created it) have (sonce 2002) is the overriding fact to remember.

The case will be thrown out! It is unconstitutional. The Admin has put up not witnesses or evidence. They are clearly pushing it to the Supreme court for a show down with the right wing.

We must protest against the Pres and all pols against this and the patriot act and every repub created civil rights violation that they came up with after they (repubs) exploited the 9/11 attacks to fear monger through this fucked up agenda.

Attacking 1 politician for this decades long republican created obscenity is just a partisan attack.

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

The statute already was ruled unconstitutional. The pres is asking the 2nd circuit for an emergency stay of the injunction so he can use it asap. Sorry, you can't blame just the Republicans for this one.

I'm attacking Obama because he is the president. He is the named defendant. He is in charge of these decisions right now, not a president from the other party. Unlike you, I base my objections on principle, not party.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You attack only one & neglect the fact the repubs created the policy 10 years ago, wrote the law last year, defeated the dem attempt to repeal this past May, Only party to use it, You neglect also the fact that it is a dem appointed judge who has struck it down, and that this Dem Pres HAS NOT USED IT!

So pretend if you want but you are clearly partisan by ignoring sall these pertinent facts.

I mean Lets get Real!

Peace

And good luck in all your good efforts

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

Section 1021 goes beyond previous statues and policy. Judge Harris's opinion explains it quite clearly. She's great. I'm very glad she was appointed. Did I also mention that I am supporting my representative, Martin Heinrich-Democrat, in his race for the senate? I support him because he voted against the NDAA. You are the partisan, not me.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I never said I wasn't partisan. I am proudly anti repub partisan!

Your ignoring of the pertinent facts I mentioned clearly betray a partisanship in your presentation of this critical issue.

Sorry. that's my opinion.

That's real!

Peace.

And good luck in all your good efforts.

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

You're ignoring the fact that obama is the one who is fighting the ruling that section 1021 is unconstitutional. If he was against the provision all he had to do was not appeal the ruling.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He hasn't used the authority! Only your repubs have! Your repubs created the policy 10 years ago, wrote the law last year, defeated dems attempted appeal this past may.

I'm against indef detention, I have protested this Pres & all pols against it! I have signed petitions as well. I will continue to.

Unlike you I won't limit my complaints to one individual. I will not ignore the decade old fear mongering that allowed this. I won't give the party that created it a pass.

If you really are against this obscenity, you would also include fair criticism of the repubs who created and used the authority.

Instead you use this as a partisan bludgeon against one pol/party & cover for the real criminals!

Transparent, political, partisan attack!

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

I don't care if he used the power only that he supports it. As for not bashing reps I haven't seen people on this site supporting romney so I haven't seen the point of attacking him. Maybe I'm being unfair not attacking them. It's just that I supported obama in 2008 and I feel betrayed by his attack on my rights such as being able to face my accuser in open court in front of my peers.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Romney? What does he have to with anything? HE would use it That's all we should say about him and indef detention.

So you only criticize Obama 'cause pro Obama people comment here.? You criticism isn't about being against indef Detention.? I guess you don't really care about the issue. Only it's value in bashing Obama (cause he has supporters here).

Leaving out repubs in your criticism betrays your partisanship.

Unlike you I won't limit my complaints to one individual. I will not ignore the decade old fear mongering that allowed this. I won't give the party that created it a pass. Because I care about the ending indef detention. not just bashing the guy that has support on this site.

If you really are against this obscenity, you would also include fair criticism of the repubs who created and used the authority.

Instead you use this as a partisan bludgeon against one pol/party & cover for the real criminals!

Transparent, political, partisan attack!

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

I'll attack any mainstream politician who has support because we need to people who care about the constitution in office. The reps definatly don't care about it and new years eve convinced me the dems don't either. This was a bi-partisan bill yet I see you attacking reps and making excuses why we should vote dem. What we need to do is admit the 1% already won this election and try to set up the green party for wins in 2014 and 2016. If jill stein gets a large turnout this election we will be ready to take the next election because peoplewill realize you don't have to vote dem or rep. As of right now without the confidence a large otherparty turnout will bring the next elections will be won by dem/rep and our job will get that much harder.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I haven't mentioned voting for dems! That's just a bald face lie!

I said I protest this Pres and all pols! Your the partisan who only attacks one party.! What a joke. trying to twist this around.

You wanna vote green go ahead. Are you campaigning for the Green party? It's ok with me (I just saw her on S17 down at Bowling green, She's the best candidate running) but I've been told repeatedly by you and your friends not to campaign. So I don't.

But if you attack one pol/party then I'm sure it's ok for me to remind you the facts you left out. Wouldn't want you spreading the lie that Pres Obama is the only one responsible for the indef detention right.? I mean history didn't begin with Pres Obama right?

And by the way the defense bill was bipartisan but the indef detention portion was overwhelmingly republican. That's another little misleading comment from you. Still trying to coverfor your repubs huh?

Transparent, partisanship much?

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

Did the dems vote for the bill or not? If they voted for the bill they supported everything in it no matter what they say. It's like the reps leading us into iraq and saying they care for the deficit. Sorry but if you vote for a bill you are resposible for the whole bill and any consequences of it. As for me supporting reps where have I supported a rep candidate, policy, or position?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Hey if we can stay civil I'm willing to express my opinion on this issue without getting disrespectful.

I think that is the way we should disagree. In so far as the co opting of this site. That will evolve as it will no matter what you or I do.

I suggest we just stick to the truth and fairness. Certainly do not give dems a pass. Pres Obama has been profoundly disappointing. But do not give repubs a pass. That won't work. And a partisan donnybrook will ensue.

Peace, A pox on both their houses.

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

I agree.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It is your neglect at criticizing repubs for their part in these problems that represent your support for repubs

I've explained that 3 times already in THIS exchange! And every other time we've interacted. You know what my opinion is about your partisanship.

Your pretense not to be partisan and not to know why I say you are is more dishonesty.

You ain't kiddin anyone but yourself.

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

I do see where you are coming from. Its just that I am more worried about OWS being co-opted by the dems then the reps and I see OWS as the most likely to create a fundamental shift from a two party system. I do listen to advice (even if it does take a while when I am focused on something).

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

Disgusting.

[-] 1 points by jemandunerkant23 (5) from San Antonio, TX 1 year ago

Verpflügte IDIOTEN! warum wollen wir Gesetzen folgen die uns die Rechte weg nehmen?! Idiots! Why should we obey laws that strip us of our rights!