Yup. How will you feel if someone like him had this power?


And for those who say that the DOJ is just doing it's job to defend the law, be aware that the administration has a huge say in telling the DOJ what cases to fight and which ones they shouldn't.




.

Listen to the arguments that they are making.... Http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...n_1885204.html





.

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/

"A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House?s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.

The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals court panel is expected to begin addressing the issue."



.
Why would the administration need a judge to grant "An Emergency stay" on this ruling? Are they already holding US citizens without charges, trials, or access to lawyers????







.

Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama, said Monday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they are already employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly.

“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran told Hedges for a blogpost published this week. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”

Within only hours of Afran’s statement being made public, demonstrators in New York City waged a day of protests in order to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Although it is not believed that the NDAA was used to justify any arrests, more than 180 political protesters were detained by the NYPD over the course of the day’s actions. One week earlier, the results of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union confirmed that the FBI has been monitoring Occupy protests in at least one instance, but the bureau would not give further details, citing that decision is "in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."

Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, reported on the stay late Monday and acknowledged that both Forrest and Lohier were appointed to the court by President Obama.




.

Just like when the administration appealed the ruling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, even though Obama didn't really want DADT to remain in place. Look at these quotes from this article:

source: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-13/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

Wow, sounds like a similar situation....:upsidedow

If Romney gets elected, he'll have the same power at his disposal as Obama does now.

All the more reason to vote Obama given that the third party guy doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

There's one BIG difference... Romney's a phony Bologna joke....

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...29809997_n.jpg

I don't think it's that; I think the reason for the emergency stay request (and the reason it was granted) is that the injunction was written in a way that is overly broad.

With respect to the overbreadth argument, the key phrase from the injunction is: "[T]his Court permanently enjoins enforcement of § 1021(b)(2) in any manner, as to any person." (Emphasis added)

That's a mighty, mighty broad scope, one that sure seems to cover anyone and everyone, American citizen or not, even non-combatant Taliban members who are actively providing material support to Taliban combatants in Afghanistan. This is significant from the administration and the military's perspective, because the NDAA (and the earlier AUMF it was written in order to codify) are the statutory authorities under which the military is detaining people in Afghanistan.

That's my best guess as to why the administration sought the emergency stay; not because of the hypothetical, potential 'bad applications' of the NDAA, but because the ways in which it is already actively (and openly) being used.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm no fan of the NDAA. I have a problem with detaining anybody indefinitely without due process of law, American citizen or otherwise. IMO, such a practice is an offense to the ideals we're supposed to stand for as a country (ideals I think we should strive for, even if we fail). I think the NDAA should be permanently enjoined, then sent back to Congress to be overhauled and narrowed, or just plain scrapped.

I just also happen to think the administration's defense of the law in this case has less to do with the most extreme examples of how it might be used, and more to do with how the ways in which we all know for sure that it is already being used. :2 cents:

Whether or not we approve of those uses is another question, altogether, of course, and it is sort of ironic that the injunction is being opposed on the grounds of overbreadth, when that's one of the primary problems with the NDAA itself. ;-)

All this speculation and accusation toward the administration and no mention of how the rules got there in the first place... McCain, Graham and Lieberman... that's how.

But... They really aren't coming for anyone.

How many people have been arrested under the Patriot Act? Ten? Twenty?

Sure thing. Right after Obama takes our guns away.

He is different Michael.... and 51 times worse!

LOL! :1orglaugh

It has nothing to do with this administration, it's been happening over many years,. Meanwhile it has now accelerated to the point where they are taking the constitution apart with open votes in congress and in open court.

In the meantime, you all blindly root for your parties like it's college football.....

I have to say Rochard, with no offense intended, that you sound exactly like people living in germany in 1933, or Argentina in the early 70s, or any place and time where the government is getting out of control and good people stand by and just pooh pooh any concerns..... They all said the same things you keep on saying. "Oh please! These are modern times. Nothing like that could happen here!"



:disgust



.

I'm a huge WWII buff; I'm currently reading a book about Vichy France. I'm well aware of what past governments have done.

Every four years I hear the same argument: "The government is going to take our guns away". They said this about Obama four years ago. Ironically, I am legally allowed to have multiple assault rifles in my house - I have more firepower than my local police department. Yet still we have people running around who honestly think that the government is going to take our guns away. We just had one of the worst shootings in US history, and yet gun control isn't even a point of discussion in upcoming election.

Then we have the Patriot Act. Scary stuff, gives the government big power. Yet I still don't see Stormtroopers banging on doors in the middle of night and making people disappear. How many people have been arrested under the Patriot Act?

Here's the quote I commented on, which was by you:

Do you really think that Obama is going to round up tens of thousands of Americans using the NDAA?

Be serious already.

I'm not rooting for any party; I'm a registered Independent who plans to vote for Gary Johnson this time around.

All I did was provide another possible explanation (and a reasonable one, I'd like to think) for why the administration sought an emergency stay of Judge Forrest's order.

I think the NDAA is deeply, fundamentally flawed, and I feel the same way about the stated justification for its existence. That opinion doesn't change my view that the emergency stay of the injunction is justifiable from a legal perspective, that's all.

Ultimately, I think the case will wind up in front of the Supreme Court, which I hope will issue an injunction (probably one that is narrower than the one issued by Judge Forrest) and then kick it back to Congress to more clearly define the vague terms that leave open the potential for the law to be abused.

Give it time; bad law typically isn't fixed overnight.

According to Obama's speech about Osama, the Navy Seals weren't even mentioned, he kept telling everyone "I"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_856122.html

I don't like Mitt, but anything has to be better than the President that in recent years has the record for unemployment being above 8%. And don't say that it can't improve and will stay that way, they said the same thing when Carter was in office. Reagan changed that.

I'd rather have a good economy, where the unemployment rate is around 4% and people have more income for things like paysite membership

A list obtained by the Justice Department defines only 361 cases defined as terrorism investigations from September 11, 2001 to September 2004. 31 of the entries on the list were blacked out. Only 39 of these individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism. The median sentence for these crimes was 11 months. So according to that, it's just a new tool for the government to overstep our rights. Like Obama passing that law that allows the arrest of protesters by the CIA they deem to be a threat on federal property.

No, they are just going to keep giving them to the Mexican drug cartels