For you Obama supporters that think he is different than Romney....Come on in, the water's FINE!!
 

Remember when Obama signed the NDAA, which allowed the indefinite detention of US citizens who were even SUSPECTED of any link to terrorism, without charges, without a trial, without a lawyer..... basically the government can come in the middle of the night and make you disappear forever?

So Obama said that he "had reservations" when he signed it, and that he "would never use that provision".


So when a court strikes down this "indefinite detention" provision as unconstitutional, WHY DOES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FILE AN APPEAL?

IF HE DOESN'T PLAN TO USE IT, WHY FIGHT FOR IT???


You all need to wake the F""K up.


http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8J6FTR20120806

"Aug 6 (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors on Monday appealed a U.S. judge's order barring enforcement of part of a law that permits indefinite military detention for those deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest in May ruled in favor of activists and reporters who said they feared being detained under a section of the law, signed by President Barack Obama in December.

The government says indefinite military detention without trial is justified in some cases involving militants and their supporters.

The judge's preliminary injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.

The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office, which represents the government in this case, along with named defendants Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed its notice of appeal with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The plaintiffs in the case have asked Judge Forrest to make her injunction permanent. Oral argument on the request is scheduled for Tuesday.

In court filings, prosecutors have argued that the law is neither too broad nor overly vague, and that in any event the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the case.

The plaintiffs "cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention," the United States said in court documents filed last month.

In issuing her ruling, the judge said she was worried by the government's reluctance at a March hearing to say whether examples of the plaintiffs' activities - such as aiding the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks in the case of Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of parliament in Iceland - would fall under the scope of the provision.

Plaintiffs also include former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges. (Reporting by Basil Katz; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)"



.



Please tell me again how the two of them are oh so different. Really?





.

More info.... (And why is NO CABLE NEWS COVERING THIS?)


In the 68-page opinion accompanying the temporary injunction order, Judge Forrest disagreed with the federal government’s argument that the relevant provisions of the NDAA merely restate existing law. She wrote: “Section 1021 is not merely an ‘affirmation’ of the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force].”



Pointing out that were Section 1021 and the AUMF identical then the former would be redundant, Judge Forrest held:



Section 1021 lacks what are standard definitional aspects of similar legislation that define scope with specificity. It also lacks the critical component of requiring that one found to be in violation of its provisions must have acted with some amount of scienter — i.e., that an alleged violator’s conduct must have been, in some fashion, “knowing.” Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little — it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass Constitutional muster.



Scienter is defined as “a state of mind often required to hold a person legally accountable for his or her acts.” In other words, the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA are too vague and aren’t specific enough to permit a person to know whether he or she has violated the law.



While admitting that preventing the federal government from enforcing a congressional act is a sober matter that must be attended to with caution, Judge Forrest writes that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.”



In its appeal, the federal government argues that in cases dealing with “militants” and those offering “substantial support” to them, indefinite detention without due process is appropriate.



The notice of appeal was filed with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals by the Manhattan office of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the branch of the Justice Department handling the case in which President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are named defendants.



As readers will recall, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges (right photo, above) is joined as a plaintiff in the suit by a coterie of other prominent writers and commentators. Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, and Icelandic politician Birgitta Jonsdottir all signed on to add their witness to that of Hedges that the fear of indefinite detention lurked within the shadows of vagueness of key terms of the NDAA.



The principal allegation made by the plaintiffs against the NDAA was that the vagueness of critical terms in the NDAA could be interpreted by the federal government in a way that authorizes them to label journalists and political activists who interview or support outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s policies as “covered persons,” meaning that they have given “substantial support” to terrorists or other “associated groups.”



According to the text of Section 1021 of the NDAA, the president may authorize the armed forces to indefinitely detain:



A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.



Fearing that this section could be applied to journalists and that the specter of such a scenario would have a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press (Naomi Wolf writes in her affidavit that she has refused to conduct many investigative interviews for fear that she could be detained under the auspices of applicable sections of the NDAA) in violation of the First Amendment, Hedges filed his lawsuit on January 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.



Hedges’ complaint claims that his extensive work overseas, particularly in the Middle East covering terrorist (or suspected terrorist) organizations, could cause him to be categorized as a “covered person” who, by way of such writings, interviews and/or communications, “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,… under §1031(b)(2) and the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force]."



Specifically, Hedges alleges in his complaint that it is precisely the existence of these “nebulous terms” — terms that are critical to the interpretation and execution of the immense authority granted to the president by the NDAA — that could allow him or someone in a substantially similar situation to be classified as an enemy combatant and sent away indefinitely to a military detainment center without access to an attorney or habeas corpus relief.



During Tuesday’s hearing, Carl Mayer, an attorney representing some of the plaintiffs, repeated his argument that the phrase "associated forces" was written by the Congress so as to be purposely ambiguous, and that it could reasonably be expected that agents of the federal government could interpret articles and statements made by journalists and activists as attempts to support armed conflict against the United States and as the offering of “substantial support” to terror organizations.



David Remes, one of the plaintiff's other lawyers, echoed that point, saying, "The danger posed by the sword of Damocles is not that it falls, but that it can fall.”



Judge Katherine Forrest then asked Benjamin Torrance, the lawyer representing the government, whether he was confident in the government’s ability to narrowly define terms and if so, why they had not done so in this statute, specifically as regards the crucial terms “covered person,” "substantial support," and "associated forces." The judge followed up by asking Torrance how he could expect ordinary citizens to properly define key terms in the law if the Congress was unable to do so.



Torrance responded by reiterating the Obama administration’s position that the NDAA does not apply to U.S. citizens residing inside the United States and that the purpose of the law was not to restrict the right of anyone to exercise his or her First Amendment right to speak or publish, including articles and speeches condemning government actions.



According to one report of the proceedings, in response to this point, Judge Forrest quoted Chief Justice John Roberts's ruling in a 2010 case: "The First Amendment protects against the government," Roberts wrote. "It does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably."



Torrance then answered that detainees would not be completely cut off from all judicial remedies as they would still be permitted to file a writ for habeas corpus.



"How long does a petition take?" Judge Forrest asked.



Torrance demurred, responding that he didn’t know the answer to that question off the top of his head.



"Several years, right?" Forrest demanded.



Torrance then admitted that that might be true, but added that since 9/11, during hearings on petitions for habeas corpus relief, most courts have found the detentions to be lawful.



At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Forrest said that she had not yet reached a decision. Hedges and the other plaintiffs were hopeful for a favorable outcome in light of the tone of the questioning and Judge Forrest’s previous injunction. In fact, Mayer reportedly said later that “he and his colleagues were considering bringing contempt of court charges over what he called an apparent disregard for the court injunction.”



.

If you are saying they are both terrible... most of the country agrees with you.

Obama's still better tho

"would never use that provision" translated into real talk is: "Don't worry baby, I'll just stick the tip in."

the beauty of an independent judiciary. that law is an embarassment to the United States.

I very vaguely remember this law, and I could care less. This is not about politics for me, it's about reality.

The United States has some very strict laws, and frankly it gets in the way of law enforcement. It gets in the way of protecting ourselves and our country. I understand there are reasons for this - legal protections. And that's fine. We passed the Patriot Act, and frankly, nothing has changed. I'm not saying we need to throw away the US Constitution, but we should could make some changes.

This is why I am fine with us holding potential terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. You might say it's "un-American", but the US Constitution does not apply to Cuba or our forces there... Or our military forces around the world. You can also say it's "un-American" to be using drones to kill suspected terrorists in other counties, and you can even say it's "un-American" for us to send a Navy SEAL Team into a foreign country to kill Bin Laden. I sleep good at night really.

I don't understand how anyone can be emotionally charged for either of these two. It's to the point where I'm just not going to vote - I really don't give a shit. Having choice in this country is a facade. We're never going to have an outright dictator, and clearly we're never going to have a good president again due to this joke of a system, so what's the point?

The irony is that the economy is probably going to be the same under either of these two, and foreign policy too most likely (except I believe Romney might be more of a pussy), so while it is ridiculous that hot button issues like abortion and gun control always take center stage over the shit that really matters and affects everyone, the shit that really matters and affects everyone is going to be the same pile of shit under either choice, so I can't really fault anyone for choosing to vote Obama for instance out of fear that some Supreme Court justices die under Romney's presidency and he gets the 5-4 majority to overturn Roe v Wade, or for choosing Romney for gun control issues or some shit. Forget people losing their homes and incomes, forget these senseless wars we're sacrificing our youth in, forget the shitty educational system keeping the new generation stupid and behind the rest of the world...shit like abortion and gun control really are the only things separating these 2 jokes of "leaders".

I just have to hope that you are simply trolling here. No one could be so blind to the lessons of history.....





.

Shhhhhhh, he's a bad bad bad bad man for doing his job!

So let's say that you love Obama and this is all ok with you. Now think about the fact that there will be an administration in control that will still have this same power. Think of the worst presidential possibility....




.

+1 :thumbsup

So let's say that you love Obama and this is all ok with you. Now think about the fact that there will be an administration in control that will still have this same power. Think of the worst presidential possibility....haTHEY WILL HAVE THIS SAME POWER!

Both non-choice parties are owned by foreign banks, doesn't make a difference.

I don't like the NDAA, either. That does not mean they are the same.

Tax policy
Middle class tax cuts
LGBT equality
Women's reproductive rights
Higher education access
Green energy
Health care initiative


Big differences between the two in those areas. Plus, Obama has shown foreign policy leadership. Has Mitt?

They are NOT the same. We're still cleaning up all the shit from the LAST elephant. We don't need another one.

Obama 2012.

http://irregulartimes.com/obama2012agedstarthumb.png

You're lost and have faith, yet still. :Oh crap

These people don't give 2 shits about you.
In fact, they think you're stupid and want you DEAD.

What's yours is Theirs :thumbsup

Well, that kind of lets you off the hook, doesn't it?

Freedom isn't free, as they say. That means more than just a strong military. Democracy is not a spectator sport. The shit doesn't just run itself. When you throw up your hands and stay home, the lobbyists blow a load.

Vote for the better option (yes, Obama IS better than Robme - in many ways). But that's not the end. Then we need to get involved. Call your congressmen. Write a letter to the editor. Those things do make a difference, but only when lots of people do it. The country has gone through profound changes in its short life - not because some perfect president was elected, but because people got pissed, and got active.

Complaining about how "they're all the same" does nothing but give people an excuse to beat off. :jerkoff

http://www.independentaction.net/wp-...3/activism.jpg

Love that song! :thumbsup

As the man in charge of DOJ it is his job to defend laws.

There was an issue with federal employee benefits for an LGBT couple legally married trying to claim them. His DOJ - since it was the law - had to fight the couple at the same time he was trying to change the law.

You should want a President that respects the law despite disagreeing with it. One that will honor it while it is law and then work on changing it if he disagrees.

They want me dead? Where do you get this shit?

I'm not lost, dude. I'm a grown up. There are two men running for president. I'm voting for the better one - not the perfect one. Then I continue to pay attention, stay in touch with my lawmakers, and push them in the direction that's best for the country. If more people did that, instead of whining, this country could change very quickly. Every positive change we've had in America has come about because people paid attention and got active. When the electorate stops paying attention, we backslide. The lobbyists in DC are thrilled that you're demoralized.

Freedom isn't free, as they say. We have to pay attention, and take part.

http://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/re...op-whining.jpg

so the argument is to vote Romney?

We passed the Patriot Act. You were all scared to death of it. What changed? Nothing. Are they dragging people out of their houses in the middle of the night and making them disappear?

Lessons of history? Please, I have more books about history in my home than you do.

Speaking of history and fearing our government... Right now I'm reading a book called "Bad Faith" by Carmen Gallil. It's about a French leader in Vichy France who deported and led tens of thousand of Frenchmen to their deaths.

I sleep well at night. I'm not worried about our government accusing me of being a terrorist.

You mean the same power they've had for the past four years? And the six or so years prior to that? Your right. Clearly Obama has abused the Patriot Act that President Bush put into place. Thousands of Americans have been arrested under this law and detained without reason.

I dont understand people who talk so openly about politics on a biz forum.

If they are the same, why is there a need to change?

Not as paranoid, I guess.

Anyone that thinks they are the same is some third party supporter that is not going anywhere. :2 cents:

Apparently they have oodles of time to waste. Talking politics here is like trying to reuse toilet paper.

Or less professional.

One disbanded the obscenity task force, one has repeatedly vowed to outlaw porn. Hmmmmmmmm

Yep people forget the industry they work in and when fucked up things happen which party is in power.

Can you vote for a third party ? or is it like here and people are too fucking stupid to vote for whats right and not for just there party ?

:2 cents:

LOL Right.. Fuck.. I going to sleep in on election day!

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.


"First They Came for the Jews"
By Martin Niemoller

You mean somebody like Romney?

Well, they are too similar for my tastes. That's not to say that one isn't clearly a poorer choice than the other however.

Though I suspect that you and I would disagree on who that would be :winkwink:

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?