Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Federal Court Rejects NDAA's Indefinite Detention, Issues Injunction

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the hope-this-change-sticks dept.

Government 301

First time accepted submitter Arker writes "A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. The Obama administration had argued, inter alia, that the plaintiffs, including whistleblower and transparency advocate Daniel Ellsberg and Icelandic Member of Parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir lacked standing, but Judge Katherine Forrest didnt buy it. Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle."

cancel ×

301 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A small ray of hope (5, Insightful)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027811)

It's about time someone stood up to the nightmare of a police state.

Re:A small ray of hope (5, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027841)

I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism." Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist? You supported him therefore you supported terrorism. WAT?

Re:A small ray of hope (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40027997)

No, you bought peanuts from a vendor who contributed money to a charity organization that turned out to be funnelling money to another organization that in turn contributed to a group labeled by the US state department as "terrorist." You dern traitor! You should have bought those *patriot* peanuts with your freedom fries.

Re:A small ray of hope (2)

Wandering Voice (2267950) | more than 2 years ago | (#40029197)

Wasnt that the same group that the FBI setup as a honeypot to catch terrorists?

Re:A small ray of hope (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028087)

Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist?

My good friends call me Harry.

Re:A small ray of hope (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028297)

Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist?

My good friends call me Harry.

Damn - I have no mod points today!

Re:A small ray of hope (5, Insightful)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028143)

I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism."

To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.

Re:A small ray of hope (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028219)

I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism."

To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.

That's because what they do is knowingly support terrorism, which is completely different.

Re:A small ray of hope (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028519)

It only applies to foreign nationals who are arrested overseas (i.e. not on American soil). If you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, you're safe. If you're arrested in America, you're safe. It's not a good law, but my god, does anyone on this site have any idea what it even says?

Re:A small ray of hope (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028579)

Yes, we do. It says in very broad terms that US citizens may be detained without being charged or tried. Just because the president said it wouldn't be done does not mean that some future president would not do it. It very definitely needs to have a narrowing of the possibilities of application if its going to exist at all.

Re:A small ray of hope (2, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028645)

No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf [gpo.gov] , pg 265. Read it for yourself.

This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.

Re:A small ray of hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40029217)

Keep in mind this administration has assassinated US citizens.

Re:A small ray of hope (4, Informative)

mspohr (589790) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028783)

Even being a US citizen doesn't protect you.
Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen living in Yemen who was thought to have ties to al-Qaeda. His 16 year old son was killed a few weeks later. They were executed by the US (using unmanned drones) without a trial or even charges being brought in the US.
The Wikipedia page gives a fairly comprehensive biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki [wikipedia.org]

Re:A small ray of hope (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028815)

That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.

Re:A small ray of hope (1)

zombiechan (1979698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40029033)

"but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial."

How would you know? He's not hating Obama for the sake of hating Obama. You seem to think that if they complain about Obama they must want a republican in charge.

Re:A small ray of hope (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40029139)

That's how all the stupid Obama fans think.

Re:A small ray of hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028979)

I suspect it was to avoid ought to have known instances being argued in court. Like leaking documents could have helped, but definitely wasn't actively supporting. The way it is written though if a sleeper agent was on social assistance the government could apply to this.

Re:A small ray of hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40029037)

Does that include knowingly or unknowingly selling weapons to terrorists?

About time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40027925)

It's also about time we admit to ourselves that police state momentum (i.e. continuous expansion of government) is now in full swing and supported by ALL mainstream political interests. And the next step is admitting that those political interests work purely for themselves, and not "the people" as they claim (increasingly loudly).

Someone please free us (4, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028045)

It's about time someone stood up..

..so that we don't have to. The last thing I want in November when electing congresspeople, senators, and presidents, is to be stuck with that responsibility. It's about time someone relieved us all from having to think about the kind of relationship we want there to be, between our government and its people.

Re:A small ray of hope (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028121)

Dont worry, the judge will find himself on a free vacation at Gitmo for his crimes against the government.

Re:A small ray of hope (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028567)

Herself. The judge is a woman appointed by Obama.

Re:A small ray of hope (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40029127)

Are all the "progressive" Obama fans going to stand up here and start defending him now?

Frosty P!ss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40027821)

LOL

No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027855)

When it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll affirm the law. They've been asleep at the wheel for 10 years, why wake up now? I'm pretty sure that most of them aren't even aware that there *is* a 4th Amendment at this point. And they probably think Habeas Corpus was a Roman emperor.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (1)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027903)

Ten? Try nearly eighty.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027919)

You sure about that? I could see SCOTUS going the other way. In all likelihood, they will strike down the healthcare law due to the way in which is was codified. Hopefully they will do the same with this too.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027947)

You mean like they struck down the Patriot Act, retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping, and all the other laws that have made torture and infinite detention with no trial legal?

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (3, Insightful)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028303)

Your statement, combined with your sig, gave me a serious headache.

The Republicans are offering coporate slavery.
The Democrats are offering government bureaucrat slavery.
They both are willing to use the military, the "War on [Terror|Drugs|Poverty|Obesity|Bullying|CO2]" to get their way.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028321)

The Court can only strike-down cases brought before them, and the government (both Bush and Obama) have been very careful to make sure that doesn't happen. They drop the case before it ever has a chance to reach the justices.

BUT when the justices have reviewed cases, they've typically sided with the Constitution, such as striking down the Washington and other city's laws that effectively-forbid ownership of guns. Striking down a law that forced states to build nuclear disposal sites. Striking down warrantless searches of our cellphones. Striking down random stops along highways (unless there's a specific & urgent need: such as locating an escaped prisoner). The Court of the last ten years has done more to limit the government's power than the Court from 1940 to 2000 (which was expansionist).

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028651)

Problem is that not all of their rulings have been as good as those. One of the biggest was the Citizens United case where they seem to have produced the correct ruling for the individual suing, but screwed the nation. Yes they should have been able to produce and release their moved but rights granted to corporations is where they went wrong. In looking and reading about the case it seems to have gone wrong when Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart arguing for the Federal Elections Commission stated: [quoting from wikipedia]

the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.

This just seems like a sure fire way to get something struck down by the court which is probably why we got the ruling that we did.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028457)

>>>Libertarians think they're getting freedom by eliminating the government. They're just getting corporate slavery.

More like freedom where you choose which corporation you want to deal with. (1) Libertarians are not Anarchists. Just as Fascist/corporatists are not Communists. Libertarians don't want to eliminate government completely but instead, to quote Jefferson, "If it were possible to have no government, we would. But we need to government in order to protect our rights." He also said, "No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him."

(2) It is government that gave Comcast its monopoly over my neighborhood. If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple or MSN or Time-Warner could enter the market and give us some choice.

(3) And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028679)

(2) It is government that gave Comcast its monopoly over my neighborhood. If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple or MSN or Time-Warner could enter the market and give us some choice.

Your local municipality or county did that, not the federal goverment. That's not a "big goverment" issue. In fact, that's something that could only be resolved by the federal goverment taking the ability to make franchise agreements away from the state/local level.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028883)

"No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him."

You're kidding, right? That implies a far bigger government than libertarians think. You see, libertarians tend to be quiet a bit more clever and a bit more succesful than their neighbors, but they're no better at recognizing their own ignorance. Doing what you claim is "All the government should ever have to do" means you'll need a massive government. How about a few examples about which I know more than the avergae bear, huh?

1) Forcing pollution cleanup and levying taxes and fees on those that don't. Some of this stuff is way worse for you than you think.

2) Monitoring industry for illegal dumping and making sure they have proper waste disposal. See the CA PG&E scandal for an example of something that isn't nearly as toxic as we routinely use these days. Now go find out what "acute waste" is.

3) Enforcing standards across the board. Yes, if the state two states upstream from you is dumping really nasty stuff in the river that you rely on what are you going to do? Yes, you need a strong federal authority for relief in said situation.

4) The power to take a long term view and say, "No". Let's pretend for a second that someone wants to exploit a resource, actually no, we'll just say Tar Sands, let's pretend they'd be as environmentally disastrous as scientists claim (and they very well may be, but this is just a thought exercise), you have one body willing to borrow against the future's well being and everyone else going, "No way." What do you do? Don't give me that perfectly informed consumer garbage, we both know that doesn't work and psychologically people don't behave that way.

5) Preventing resource exhaustion. Ever wonder why we still have fish to fish and animals to hunt in the US? Yep, government.

I could go on and on, just on a single subject. Throw in a bunch of other subjects and all of the sudden you have a rather large government just so you can do what Jefferson was suggesting.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028559)

To be fair, the only provision that you mention that the SCOTUS has upheld was the "material support" provision. It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.

Most of the other Patriot Act and FISA laws get dropped by the government when they get to court. They know, for instance, that courts are not going to uphold a law that prevents people from talking about secret warrants, so they bow out instead.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028211)

Hey! He's got some serious leftist disasterbation going on. Don't crush his groove! >:-(

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (1, Redundant)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028739)

The Court can only strike-down cases brought before them, and both Bush and Obama were very careful to make sure that doesn't happen. They drop the case before it ever has a chance to reach the justices. (Note that RIAA and MPAA use the same technique, to avoid getting DMCA or ProtectIP struck down.)

When the justices have reviewed cases before them, they've typically sided with the Constitution, such as striking down the Washington's law that effectively-forbade ownership of guns. Striking down a law that forced states to build nuclear disposal sites. Striking down warrantless searches of our cellphones. Striking down random stops along highways (unless there's a specific & urgent need: such as locating an escaped prisoner). The Court of the last ten years has done more to limit the government's power than the Court from 1940 to 2000 (which was expansionist).

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028257)

Well, all Very Serious People know the Founding Fathers had their fingers crossed when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They only meant for the 2nd and 10th to be taken seriously.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028315)

No, they won't.

SCOTUS' reputation for being political is overblown. A couple of edge cases have gotten all the attention.

Consider the Obamacare situation - from a legal standpoint there's few differences with any president having the power to say: All Americans must buy one car per year for the sake of our nation. The argued differences come down to intent and effect, but intent plays a limited role in law and the limit isn't itself limited according to effect.

Indefinite detention without cause from a legal standpoint pretty much destroys both the law and the balance of power. The law becomes meaningless because you can just jail anyone for anything as long as you want and let them loose when you feel like it. Sure, it's only used in a limited way today, but if the principle becomes accepted and the entire political situation changes dramatically (let's say some global catastrophe causing a huge political upheaval) - if the principle is in place then detention becomes legal. The legal aspects of dictatorships actually do matter for the purpose of later trials by law rather than by gun. It also destroys the balance of power, because if one branch of the state can do this, then they don't need any other branches.

What has been indicated is simply limits to the power. Something that limits the _potential_ abuse. For example, "if a military tribunal (branch 1) decides to lock someone up indefinitely, then this must be reviewed by a regular judge (branch 2) within 2 months and every 6 months thereafter".

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light (0)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028333)

They've been asleep at the wheel for 10 years, why wake up now?

No they haven't been. They've had several changes to stop this train, and John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy are all happily cheering as we're charging right into police-state territory. This is exactly what those guys want.

Signing Statement? (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027863)

What about Obama's signing statement in which he decried the very power he was accepting by signing the NDAA? Do you mean to tell me Obama was dishonest in his disapproval of infinite detention? Shocking.

The crazy thing is some people actually bought the argument that this clause was forced on him by Congress. The fact that he's defending it in court makes it absolutely clear what his stance on infinite detention is.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027885)

This is something that was never 100% clear for me: where is the responsibility shared vs divided when it comes to the DOJ attorneys, or any particular area of government's own sanctioned attorneys? Is it entirely at the direction of the president that they function, or who is responsible if they are advocating a position in a particular case?

Re:Signing Statement? (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028023)

Obama directed the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He could do the same with any other law. This is why his argument that "we have to enforce the law" when it comes to Cannabis dispensaries [laweekly.com] is entirely bankrupt.

In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we're telling them, "This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way." That's not something we're going to do.

That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.

If you're someone who wants to laud Obama for his Civil Rights record, ask yourself how many gay people there are in jail for being gay. Then ask yourself how many Cannabis smokers there are in jail. Why not attack the bigger problem first?

Re:Signing Statement? (2)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028099)

I think the fact that racists, hate crimes and bigots still exist is a far larger issue than pot heads.

Re:Signing Statement? (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028259)

Yes, but anti cannabis bigotry is far, far worse than anti-gay bigotry. Around 5-10% of the population is gay. Around 10-20% of the population smokes pot. Neither of these groups pose any threat to anyone whatsoever.

Gay people might get fired because of bigotry. Worst case scenario one is lynched, once a decade or so and there's a huge outcry of sympathy.

Pot smokers on the other hand go to jail regularly. Persecution of pot smokers is official government policy. When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.

Every time a pot smoker is arrested, that's a hate crime.

Re:Signing Statement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028857)

When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.

[Citation Needed] You know better than that. With no direct and explicit threat against his life, there's no defense for lethal force, and on the rare chance some nutjob actually does gun down an unarmed, non-violent perpetrator/suspect, there are consequences up to and including manslaughter charges against him.

Every time a pot smoker is arrested, that's a hate crime.

As someone who supports legalization, this is still ridiculous. They're being arrested for breaking the current law, not because the cops hate potheads and arrest them despite any legal grounds to do so. It's perfectly reasonable to argue for legalization. It's completely unreasonable to claim that being arrested for breaking a law is a hate crime.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028957)

When the law itself is completely unreasonable, it's completely reasonable to label the valid application of the law a hate crime. It was once illegal to marry outside your race, or drink at the wrong water fountain. The valid application of those laws was a hate crime.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40029099)

The law ITSELF is based on racist (and classist) moors.

Re:Signing Statement? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028591)

Well you shouldn't. If someone calls me a "white honkey" I am not harmed by that act. It's just words and I can walk away from the idiot.

If someone beats me up, I can pull my gun and kill him. Per my natural right of self-defense.

BUT if the government has control over my body, and forbids me from smoking weed (or snorting coke) (or drinking alcohol) then that is a FAR more dangerous thing. It means the politicians and bureaucrats have control over my body, like a Middle Ages lord over his serf, and can toss me in jail any time they desire.

Re:Signing Statement? (0)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028723)

We wouldn't care if you drank yourself stupid or snorted your brains out, if you'd stay out of your damn car afterwords. I don't have a problem with weed. I don't believe weed hurts anyone. Crackheads and drunks need put down like sick dogs.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028833)

That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.

He also fails to uphold the Constitution by doing so, a clear violation of his oath of office. There is no wiggle room here, from Article II:

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Re:Signing Statement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40027909)

Exactly. If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it. It's not as if he didn't have the text before it passed.

Re:Signing Statement? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027969)

If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it.

If he wanted to reject those provisions, he should have vetoed it. Actually, if he wanted to adhere to his oath to uphold the Constitution, he is required to veto it. But he didn't, so we know how much an oath is worth to Barack Obama.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028025)

He should have vetoed it. He didn't because right wing heads would explode and it would be on 24/7 how he is "weak on terrorism". It's a shame, really. Of course he also could have chosen not to defend it in court, like he did DOMA.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028445)

First: Veto it? He don't need no stinkin' veto. He could have asked Harry Reid not to even let it come up for a vote in the Senate, like they have done with budget proposals for the last 1134 days.

Second: Really? He had to sign it, 'cause he was scared of "right wing heads"? He is so ineffectual that he can't make a cogent argument that burying the 4th amendment and shredding habeas corpus is stupid? I knew he sucked as a President, but....that's just plain scary. Damn. Just....damn.

right wing heads explode? (1)

wganz (113345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028945)

Your bias is showing. The 'right wing'(aka freedom lovers) are more vocal in their opposition to this constitutional rights killing monstrosity than all the left wing socialists that cannot say anything against their cocoa messiah since they're too busy giving him a Lewinsky.

Re:Signing Statement? (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028037)

I don't understand why so many people have trouble with the idea that Obama does all of these crazy illegal things that he hates because he's trying to win Congress's trust. Is it really that hard to remember what happened to Jimmy Carter?

Re:Signing Statement? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028283)

Just how gullible are you? Has the phrase "He beats me because he loves me" ever passed your lips?

If selling out every democratic principle is what it takes to win Congress's trust, we don't need it. We'd be better off with a president that vetos every single grab for power and gets nothing else done, than we are with this collaborater.

Re:Signing Statement? (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028537)

I don't understand why so many people have trouble with the idea that Obama does all of these crazy illegal things that he hates because he's trying to win Congress's trust.

He doesn't need Congress's trust. He needs the American people's trust. And the country needs to know that laws are being followed and enforced fairly if we don't want the place to turn into a totalitarian regime. Constitutionality is more important than law, and following the law is more important than any political jockeying.

And if you don't understand how important that is, consider how you reacted when George W Bush did all sorts of crazy illegal things. If it's ok for presidents you like to do something, it's also ok for presidents you don't like to do the same thing.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028751)

And if you don't understand how important that is, consider how you reacted when George W Bush did all sorts of crazy illegal things. If it's ok for presidents you like to do something, it's also ok for presidents you don't like to do the same thing.

Would you say that the American people frequently let Obama get away with crazy illegal things?

...and might that not imply that he already has their trust?

(Spoiler warning: I'm Canadian.)

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40029003)

Yes, he has their misplaced trust. It would be best for everyone to divest themselves of that as soon as possible.

Crossroads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028697)

In case you didn't know where the idea for this was dreamed up, it was Crossroads PAC's, Karl Rove.

The idea was simple, put an anti terror bill the President would veto, Fox would present it as 'Obama loves terrorists' and nobody would look at the detail of what he actually rejected. So instead he rejected it because 'it didn't go far enough' and got safeguards put in, then orders that this law not be used.

Politics, however it shows just how nasty Crossroads is, and the Republicans all pushed this through Congress, it was worth removing all American rights to get elected it seems.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028911)

Exactly. If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it. It's not as if he didn't have the text before it passed.

What a show. Nobody seems to have heard that those provisions, ensuring that they applied to US citizens, were included at the request of the White House [youtube.com] .

Re:Signing Statement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40027955)

I think he knew that this would happen. Having the DOJ actually dispute it in court could work out pretty well provided it gets struck down. Then he gets the NDAA without that stupid clause in it which is pretty much what he wanted.

Re:Signing Statement? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028003)

Wow. Just wow.

How does State Spooge taste, slave?

Re:Signing Statement? (3, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028057)

Having the DOJ actually dispute it in court

Where on earth did you get that from? It's the DOJ that's *DEFENDING* this law in court, not opposing it.

Re:Signing Statement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40027957)

this is partly why this fellow will not get my vote this time. he is not protecting our constitution like he swore he would.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028467)

And Romney won't either. He has already stated that he supports this travesty, so I see no reason why he wouldn't support the next one.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

zombiechan (1979698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028793)

Probably would be a good time to start voting for third parties?

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027975)

Obama's only a hero on the stump.

Re:Signing Statement? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027985)

The SCOTUS has already ruled that signing statements have no legal standing. They apply to the president currently in charge, but not future presidents.

Also Obama's white house was the source of these two sentences. His administration specifically asked Congress to add them to the NDAA. So he's trying to pretend "I don't want indefinite detainment" while working behind the scenes to add it to the bill. I thought Clinton and Bush were skilled liars/deceptors, but Obama makes them look like amateurs.

Re:Signing Statement? (1, Flamebait)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028039)

I thought Clinton and Bush were skilled liars/deceptors, but Obama makes them look like amateurs.

I dunno, it doesn't get any more amateurish than this. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks what a turncoat authoritarian bastard this mother fucker is. And yet people still fall for it.

Re:Signing Statement? (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028109)

>>>yet people still fall for it.

Exactly. Even when I post direct articles from reputable sources like NYtimes or USAtoday about Obama assassinating 3 Americans (including a 16-year-old boy) without giving them their constitutional right to a trial to prove their innocence, there are some people who refuse to believe it. And continue loving the man. (Or just call me racist against black people.)

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

zombiechan (1979698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028861)

You don't like Obama, must mean that you're a southern conservative racists who hate black and poor people.

Re:Signing Statement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028905)

Even when I post direct articles from reputable sources like NYtimes or USAtoday about Obama assassinating 3 Americans (including a 16-year-old boy) without giving them their constitutional right to a trial to prove their innocence

You've never done that. You've claimed again and again that Obama assassinated Americans, but never have you actually provided a citation.

Not on /. at least.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

davydagger (2566757) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027989)

this.

Re:Signing Statement? (4, Insightful)

marcop (205587) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028065)

What about it? He should be thrown out of office on treason against the constitution. I'm not arguing whether or not any of his other policies are good or bad, and will not state my political affiliation. However, when a president blatantly violates a basic freedom that so many Americans have fought to protect, a freedom he has sworn to protect, then he deserves treason charges. And yes, GWB deserved it also for the exact same reasons.

But the sheep that live in this country will ignore it and instead either applaud or crucify him for his social policies. Pitiful.

Re:Signing Statement? (2)

niado (1650369) | more than 2 years ago | (#40029153)

By that logic over half our presidents in the 20th century probably should have been thrown out of office.

Re:Signing Statement? (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028159)

What most people don't know or understand is that his signing statement or an executive order means nothing if the law says something else.

Re:Signing Statement? (5, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028389)

You've been tricked by a summary rife with propaganda.

The the lying demagogue who wrote the article states, "Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle." The deceitful bastard was clever enough to include a hyperlink, knowing you wouldn't click on it but would instead just accept it as gospel. But go ahead, click on it. The recent statements referred to are from a joint letter by several former officials. Their names?

Edwin Meese - Republican Attorney General under Reagan
Michael Mukasey - Republican Attorney General under George W Bush
Michael Chertoff - Republican Secretary of Homeland Security under George W Bush
Steven G Bradbury - Republican Head of the OLC under George W Bush
Daniel Dell'Orto - Republican Lawyer for the DOD under George W Bush
David Rivkin - Republican Legal Counsel to both Reagan and George HW Bush, and the guy behind the lawsuit against the ACA
Charles Stimson - Republican Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of "Detainee Affairs" under George W Bush
Paul Butler - Can't find any details on this guy, but he's definitely not the Democrat of the same name who died in the 60s.
Seven Engel - One of the lawyers in the anti-ACA lawsuit.
Paul Rosenzsweig - Member of the Heritage Foundation, a well known right-wing think tank.

Do you really think anyone on that list is speaking for the Obama administration? Sadly, the truth takes time to dig up, and in that time hundreds of people have no doubt seen the summary and your post, and fallen for the propaganda. What hope does truth have against such well-engineered lies?

Re:Signing Statement? (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028659)

Irrelevant. It was OBAMA who told Congress to add those two sentences for indefinite detainment w/o trial. The only reason he would do that is so he can use the power to grab Americans off the streets, accuse them of being terrorists, and then lock them away for 10 years w/o a trial to defend their innocence. (Probably in Guantanamo... the place Obama promised to close but never did.) Obama also assassinated 3 americans in Africa, including one 16-year-old boy, and without giving them their recognized right to trial. He is NOT the honest man you believe him to be.

Re:Signing Statement? (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028757)

So it's irrelevant that the summary is a lie? Sure, yeah, who gives a fuck about the truth when you have a political axe to grind.

Furthermore, Obama did not insist on the addition of "those two sentences for indefinite detainment". The indefinite detention section was already there, but only applied to Al Qaeda. Obama asked for it to be expanded to cover other terrorist groups. But it can't be used to "grab Americans off the streets", as you claim, because it also says:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.

But let me guess... that's also irrelevant. No truth is relevant if it goes against your limitless hatred.

Re:Signing Statement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028449)

The fact that he's defending it in court makes it absolutely clear what his stance on infinite detention is.

I'd bet he would like to extend and hold with a detent his presidency indefinitely as well.

Watch out! (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027869)

Obama is going to kick your terrorist-loving asses!!!

Where did we store the Guillotine? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027873)

When the merde hits the fan, we might need to use it on those "security officials" who wrote a PDF to Congress and the judge demanding that the NDAA indefinite clause be left untouched & enforced.

Decaying cpitalism shreds democratic rights (2)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027877)

The only solution is for the workers to smash the capitalist state and establish a dictatorship of workers' councils (Soviets) that will expropriate the bourgeoisie and open the road to a socialist future! Forge a revolutionary Leninist-Trotskyist workers party!

Constitutional rights... (4, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027905)

They apply to everyone or they mean nothing. James T. Kirk taught me that, and I agree with him.

I Feel Dirty Somehow (1)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#40027945)

I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.

Re:I Feel Dirty Somehow (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028207)

I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.

I'm fine with Ellsberg filing the lawsuit. I don't often agree with him, but he's a citizen. But an "Icelandic member of parliament" should have exactly zero standing on this unless we've snatched an Icelander, which to my knowledge, we haven't done. This reminds me of those Spanish judges issuing "international arrest warrants" for various and sundry "war criminals". There may be some rotten guys on their list, but a Spanish judge has no business issuing a warrant for an international that's never done anything to nor stepped foot in Spain.

Re:I Feel Dirty Somehow (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028419)

Actually, she does have standing. As a member of parliament, she could be expected to travel to the US for official state visits. Her records have already been subpoenaed by the DOJ because of her association with WikiLeaks. Therefore, if her simple presence in the US could make her subject to indefinite detention, she does have standing - remember, she was afraid to come to the US to testify for that exact reason. Remember, the US Constitution doesn't apply only to US citizens, it applies to anyone subject to US law, including visitors and foreign nationals wanted by US authorities...

Re:I Feel Dirty Somehow (2)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028529)

According to TFA, the government refused to say whether the Icelandic parliament member was violating the law or could be jailed. Perhaps we haven't snatched any Icelanders yet, but the government is still reserving the right to do so in the future and specifically is reserving the right to snatch this particular person.

Of course, the government probably wouldn't snatch any Icelanders, but that would be because of selective prosecution--the law lets them snatch anyone. If the law lets them snatch anyone, then anyone should have standing.

To Ms. Forrest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028005)

On behalf of /., I'd like to buy you a beer. Thank you for doing your job.

inter alia (2)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028101)

First time accepted submitter Arker writes inter alia when he meant to say either

  • "among other things"
  • "I copied and pasted from the article", or
  • "I'm a first year law student"

In context, the usage is not clear, but I'm guessing the first one. In case it helps someone who likewise wanted to know if it could possibly be used as an innuendo. I don't like learning new words that can't be innuendo'ed.

Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028171)

It's good to see that in the US there are still some judges who apply basic international rights like the "habeas corpus". And it's good to see that there are still people who are not fooled by generic and stupid excuses like "Hey, it's a matter of national security!". What is not exactly reassuring is that the obama administration - the so-called "democrats", as you name them - was defending a law which would be clearly unconstitutional in every european country, and probably also in the U.S. themselves.

Right after graduation I was tempted to move to the US for a better job, but I think I'm gonna stay in Germany if that's what you call "freedom" and "democracy" (keep them both).

What statements? (1)

noobermin (1950642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028177)

All I saw was a letter from a congressman signed by former members of staff.

Defection (1)

Jetra (2622687) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028285)

Excuse me while I renounce my citizenship. I can't take this crap any longer.

Re:Defection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40029191)

Or, try sticking around and fighting this scourge intelligently: http://poiesisresearch.com/Handbook.php

I for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40028307)

Welcome our Icelandic Parliament save the US overlords...

Helping Terrorists (1)

TC Wilcox (954812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40028341)

It kind of sounds like the judge is *knowingly helping the terrorists*. Doesn't it? Don't we have a law to deal with people who do that?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>