Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end.
So all the judge did was remove journalists, scholars, and political activists (political speech) from indefinite detention. Everyone else is free grabs for the government to haul away without trial.
This isn't a partisan attack piece. Many Obama supporters, including myself, opposed this law. It was much more like what one would have expected from Bush, not Obama. I don't know why Obama signed it.
There are a few things Obama should answer for to his liberal base, such as the signing of this law, if he wants us to get really excited and supportive of his election. I support him and will vote for him, but I really would like to understand why he has on occasion acted against liberal principles even when there did not appear to be any pressure from the right for him to do so. I can understand compromise, but this wasn't compromise. I want to give him the opportunity to explain why he did what he did.
Obama was the one who requested the language allowing for the unlimited detention of American citizens without due process. He signed it because this gives him dictatorial powers.
This is truly a great day for our country as one courageous federal judge rules that the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December violates the 1st amendment.
This act signed by Obama threatened the American public with indefinite imprisonment, at the governments will, without trial.
It is arguably the most repressive act of legislation ever passed in this country, and in complete contrast to spirit of the Bill of Rights.
This is one step back for the powers set on implementing a police state here in America, and a victory for the American people.
Now we need to set our sights on abolishing the Patriot Act.
Obama has already assassinated american citizens without the benefit of trial, why does this surprise you?
This is the problem. (not picking on you in particular) No one reads this stuff. We have got to be detail oriented to figure this stuff out.
Did anyone read the article? Because only one portion of the law was struck down.
A judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.
... "She's held that the government cannot subject people to indefinite imprisonment for engaging in speech, journalism or advocacy, regardless of how unpopular those ideas might be to some people," he said.
That's all that was struck down. The rest of the law is still in play.
It's something - but it's not like the entire law is gone from the books.
Correct. It is discretionary and protects those special interest people engaged in speech, journalism and advocacy.
Quote:
After the ruling, Mayer [attorney for the plaintiff] called on the Obama administration to drop its decision to enforce the law.He also called on Congress to change it "to make it the law of the land that U.S. citizens are entitled to trial by jury. They are not subject to military detention, policing and tribunals, all the things we fought a revolution to make sure would never happen in this land."
So despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end.
So all the judge did was remove journalists, scholars, and political activists (political speech) from indefinite detention. Everyone else is free grabs for the government to haul away without trial.
Dammed judge could have included all of us in the declaration, I think. This law, is in effect till the government's coming plea to the higher courts gets settled and that is very bad for all of us.
Well, because it's the National Defense Authorization Act, and its intended purpose is anything but sinister. It's the omnibus bill that handles appropriations for the entire freakin' department of Defense - it has over five thousand sections covering 500+ pages. It provides the DoD with legal authorization to start and stop programs, spend money with subcontractors etc. etc. - it touches on everything, from building aircraft carriers to buying Strykers to reselling spent small-arms cartridges to the adoption of service dogs. Vetoing that is a huge, huge deal with really serious economic and political implications - to say nothing of the effect on the military's basic capabilities.
So it's the perfect vehicle for inserting riders that can be used as political ammunition against the President.
In other words you are saying that the president didn't read it before he signed it? He had to sign it so he could find out what was in it?
I did - and I understand that the President didn't and couldn't read it. I am making more of a general commentary on the ridiculous game lawmaking has become in this Republic, which both parties engage in.
This is the problem. (not picking on you in particular) No one reads this stuff. We have got to be detail oriented to figure this stuff out.
Did anyone read the article? Because only one portion of the law was struck down.
A judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.
...
"She's held that the government cannot subject people to indefinite imprisonment for engaging in speech, journalism or advocacy, regardless of how unpopular those ideas might be to some people," he said.
That's all that was struck down. The rest of the law is still in play.
It's something - but it's not like the entire law is gone from the books.
Not so fast there .... "legally" the courts do not have the power to "change" laws ... only congress has the power to do that. The court can only judge whether a law is constitutionally sound or not. If one element of the law is determined to be unconstitutional, the entire law is null and void, and must go through the necessary remedies to correct the deficiencies through the appropriate legislative processes.
Now, what actually happens may be another story, since these criminals in Washington DC apparently have little respect for the constitution in general.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
