Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   US district court judge rules against Obama administration's law that allows the suspension of civil rights and indefinite detention of citizens suspected of terrorism, because that was only okay when Bush was in office   (wnd.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic, George W. Bush, district court, President Obama, indefinite detention, U.S. Senate, civil rights, Daniel Ellsberg, ndaa  
•       •       •

888 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 May 2012 at 8:11 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-18 08:16:33 AM  
So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.
 
2012-05-18 08:16:51 AM  
Gotta come back to reality sometime. Now is always a good time.
 
2012-05-18 08:18:39 AM  
 
2012-05-18 08:18:49 AM  
Jeez, why we gotta give that creepy website page hits?
 
2012-05-18 08:19:20 AM  
For those that won't click WND articles:
Guardian article and Huffington Post

Glad to see it tossed, hope the decision stands.
 
2012-05-18 08:19:44 AM  
So this is a win for civil rights? That's nice.
 
2012-05-18 08:20:01 AM  

MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.


It wasn't in the article so you're probably just making all of that up! Obama hates our rights and wants to put us all in prison.
 
2012-05-18 08:20:12 AM  
Oops - I guess others have my concern covered. Thanks
 
2012-05-18 08:20:13 AM  

MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?


I think we're safe in focusing on the fact that Obama did not veto it.
 
2012-05-18 08:20:14 AM  
Can someone submit an article with the same information but by someone who can write well.
 
2012-05-18 08:23:57 AM  
I love this headline.

The Obama Administration is trying to further keep on eroding the civil rights of American based on horrible precedents, it is overturned by the court, and the only thing submitter can say about that is raging about 'BUUUUUSH'

Also, written by an obviously illiterate dyslexic.


Makes sense it was greenlit.
 
2012-05-18 08:24:05 AM  

MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.


[ohsnap.jpg]
 
2012-05-18 08:25:45 AM  
I'm all for the suspension of civil rights and indefinite detention of anyone involved with the production of WorldNetDaily, Bleacher Report, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, and/or any blog belonging to the far left or far right I don't like.

Course, I'm not in charge, so the best I can do is complain on the internet about it.
 
2012-05-18 08:29:43 AM  

Chagrin: MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

I think we're safe in focusing on the fact that Obama did not veto it.


Do you understand what happens when the NDAA is vetoed? The bill provides funding for the entire Department of Defense. Veto that, and payments stop because there is no money. No one's really sure what will happen when that happens; it's never happened in the US.

Blame the turds who attached the indefinite detention language to the unkillable bill, then killed an amendment to remove that language; not the person who signed the unkillable bill.
 
2012-05-18 08:32:25 AM  
I thought the whole jose padilla thing put this to bed.

Didn't that settle that you can't take a US citizen's right to trial in civilian courts.
 
2012-05-18 08:33:38 AM  

MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.


Not that I do not totally believe you on this, but in anticipation of the standard FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: I get from my nice but dim pilot friends, do you have a link to back this up?
 
2012-05-18 08:35:23 AM  

Tatsuma: The Obama Administration is trying to further keep on eroding the civil rights of American based on horrible precedents, it is overturned by the court, and the only thing submitter can say about that is raging about 'BUUUUUSH'


Yeah it's insane to bring up the administration that ushered in the policy.
 
2012-05-18 08:35:31 AM  
As established, I don't blame Obama for being forced into signing the bill so much as the people that made sure that he had to so they could crow about him being "just as bad as Bush" as if that was a win for them.

But the very idea of indefinite detention without warrant or due process was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
 
2012-05-18 08:39:53 AM  
TF(HuffPost)A suggests that only the indefinite detention part of NDAA would be killed. The military funding is safe.

Hooray?
 
2012-05-18 08:41:06 AM  

Tatsuma: The Obama Administration is trying to further keep on eroding the civil rights of American based on horrible precedents


The Obama administration demanded that the indefinite detention clause be included or else they'd veto the bill, so they're the prime mover behind this.

Oh wait, they didn't. They threatened to veto the bill if the provision was included. Then they caved, because, well, that's what they do.
 
2012-05-18 08:41:07 AM  

Tatsuma: The Obama Administration is trying to further keep on eroding the civil rights of American based on horrible precedents, it is overturned by the court, and the only thing submitter can say about that is raging about 'BUUUUUSH'


I'm assuming the correct decision would've been to veto the NDAA?

Brilliant.
 
2012-05-18 08:46:09 AM  
I want to remind everyone that we are through the looking glass and if we don't support Romney in November we will be living in a socialist muslim prison state and be forced to have gay sex with aborted fetuses.

Oh and we will also have to eat cold liberal placenta sandwiches.
 
2012-05-18 08:46:18 AM  
Can someone ask Tats if indefinite detention of citizens is allowed in Israel?

Thanks.
 
2012-05-18 08:46:19 AM  

t3knomanser: Tatsuma: The Obama Administration is trying to further keep on eroding the civil rights of American based on horrible precedents

The Obama administration demanded that the indefinite detention clause be included or else they'd veto the bill, so they're the prime mover behind this.

Oh wait, they didn't. They threatened to veto the bill if the provision was included. Then they caved, because, well, that's what they do.


Yes, signing the bill that keeps the entire DOD paid was done despite the presence of the indefinite detention clause entirely because Obama is weak and not at all because he knew that not paying the military is a Very Bad Thing.
 
2012-05-18 08:48:12 AM  

Tatsuma: I love this headline.

The Obama Administration is trying to further keep on eroding the civil rights of American based on horrible precedents, it is overturned by the court, and the only thing submitter can say about that is raging about 'BUUUUUSH'

Also, written by an obviously illiterate dyslexic.


Makes sense it was greenlit.


Hey, if it irritated you, my job is done.
 
2012-05-18 08:51:13 AM  

MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.


And if you believe passing an unconstitutional law was his only option, then you're the stupid one.
 
2012-05-18 08:51:34 AM  

Tatsuma: I love this headline.

The Obama Administration is trying to further keep on eroding the civil rights of American based on horrible precedents, it is overturned by the court, and the only thing submitter can say about that is raging about 'BUUUUUSH'

Also, written by an obviously illiterate dyslexic.


Makes sense it was greenlit.


What specific job position does Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who vocally defended the "indefinite detention" clause of the NDAA, hold within President Obama's administration?
 
2012-05-18 08:52:55 AM  
People, people: please don't feed the attention whore.
 
2012-05-18 08:53:45 AM  

King Something: Obama is weak and not at all because he knew that not paying the military is a Very Bad Thing


You're really missing the point I was actually making, in order to leap on the sarcastic joke and backhanded insult. You seem to have forgotten what website you were on.
 
2012-05-18 08:54:33 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Can someone ask Tats if indefinite detention of citizens is allowed in Israel?

Thanks.


As a matter of fact, it is! But only for those dirty Palestinians as far as I'm aware. And the vastly-better-than-Obama Israeli administration has generously allowed those "people" the right to sometimes see sunlight and their families, and that's just in the past month. We sure could learn a lot by perfectly emulating that perfect government record on human rights.
 
2012-05-18 08:56:35 AM  

Mearen: And if you believe passing an unconstitutional law was his only option, then you're the stupid one.


If he knew the law was going to get struck down by the courts (which let's be honest- so long as it never gets anywhere near Scalia, it is almost guaranteed to get struck down), why fight harder against it? His signing statement made it very clear how he felt about the law (the administration already has all the power it needs to detain people indefinitely, and that can't be done domestically).

Now, if the administration appeals this decision up to the supremes (which will likely support it, they way they've been finding, lately), then we can don our tinfoil hats again.
 
2012-05-18 08:56:54 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Can someone ask Tats if indefinite detention of citizens is allowed in Israel?

Thanks.


I'm not Tats, but wiki knows.

// short answer: not indefinite
// depending on who's ordering the detention, it's 2 days or 6 months
// you can renew the order, but it's not "indefinite" by rule
 
2012-05-18 08:57:05 AM  

eraser8: People, people: please don't feed the attention whore.


Seriously. What's wrong with all of you?
 
2012-05-18 09:02:33 AM  

Dr Dreidel: TF(HuffPost)A suggests that only the indefinite detention part of NDAA would be killed. The military funding is safe.

Hooray?


Yes, that is why severability is such an awesome thing.

This is the purpose of the courts, and I'm very glad they ruled the way they did. I know the spin wars are on, but both sides seem to at least agree it is a terrible idea to allow indefinite detention of Americans now (though I wish the same could be said about agreement on the indefinite detention issue for non-Americans.) Yes, Obama promised he wouldn't use the powers that the bill authorized, but better we throw out the section than leave it in disuse if Obama or a future president is tempted to use it.
 
2012-05-18 09:02:36 AM  

MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.


Are you ignoring the actual White House memo based on the NDAA provision? Really?!?

"While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration would have serious concerns with provisions that would: (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions; (2) impede the Secretary of Defense's ability to make and implement decisions that eliminate unnecessary overhead or programs to ensure scarce resources are directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter; or (3) depart from the decisions reflected in the President's FY 2012 Budget Request. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns, a number of which are outlined in more detail below.
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the "AUMF"). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112 / saps1867s_20111117.pdf

Those are the administration's own farking works. They supported the damn measure. They actually wanted to keep it out of the language so that a judge, such as the one in the linked article, could not strike it down. What was your biased point of view's issue again?
 
2012-05-18 09:04:35 AM  

Grungehamster: Dr Dreidel: TF(HuffPost)A suggests that only the indefinite detention part of NDAA would be killed. The military funding is safe.

Hooray?

Yes, that is why severability is such an awesome thing.

This is the purpose of the courts, and I'm very glad they ruled the way they did. I know the spin wars are on, but both sides seem to at least agree it is a terrible idea to allow indefinite detention of Americans now (though I wish the same could be said about agreement on the indefinite detention issue for non-Americans.) Yes, Obama promised he wouldn't use the powers that the bill authorized, but better we throw out the section than leave it in disuse if Obama or a future president is tempted to use it.


Frankly he should have detained everyone who voted for it, forcibly brought them to the White House and explained to them calmly why these sorts of powers are dangerous.
 
2012-05-18 09:06:39 AM  
We can still kill them though, right?
 
2012-05-18 09:08:34 AM  

t3knomanser: Mearen: And if you believe passing an unconstitutional law was his only option, then you're the stupid one.

If he knew the law was going to get struck down by the courts (which let's be honest- so long as it never gets anywhere near Scalia, it is almost guaranteed to get struck down), why fight harder against it? His signing statement made it very clear how he felt about the law (the administration already has all the power it needs to detain people indefinitely, and that can't be done domestically).

Now, if the administration appeals this decision up to the supremes (which will likely support it, they way they've been finding, lately), then we can don our tinfoil hats again.


It will have to be appealed. Either to get the portion of the bill removed outright for all districts because the administration wants it gone or to have it upheld across the different districts because they want it to stay. Either way, it is getting appealed.
 
2012-05-18 09:13:50 AM  
So the answer is that the Debul MADE him do it?
 
2012-05-18 09:14:32 AM  

Mearen: MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.

And if you believe passing an unconstitutional law was his only option, then you're the stupid one.


If you believe the president passes laws, then you're the stupid one.
 
2012-05-18 09:16:26 AM  

MithrandirBooga: Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.


Playing tardball politics isn't an excuse enough in my book. I hold my politicians to higher standards. If I didn't, I'd be a republican.

Veto it, go on TV, explain why you vetoed it and tell the American people that you'll happily sign the law when republicans stop using the military's budget as an election-year bargaining chip.

If that pisses morons off and they don't vote for him again, fine. You get the government you deserve, and if we deserve an idiot government, so be it.
 
2012-05-18 09:27:41 AM  

MyRandomName: MithrandirBooga: So I guess we're ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who wrote that part of the law, and it was the Democrats who created an amendment to repeal that part of the law, and the amendment was voted down by the Republicans?

And also the fact that had Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the military would in effect become defunded, and that the Republicans would have never stopped hounding Obama for destroying the military? And also the fact that typically in history, armies that go unpaid usually lead to a collapse of the country?

Because if you ignore all that, then you're pretty stupid.

Are you ignoring the actual White House memo based on the NDAA provision? Really?!?


Well, you are ignoring the signing statement which was Obama's last word on the matter, which includes the following.

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation."

It's seems pretty clear that Obama didn't agree with that part of the law.

Glad to see the judges ruling, and I hope it is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
 
2012-05-18 09:43:46 AM  

wrs1864: For those that won't click WND articles:
Guardian article and Huffington Post

Glad to see it tossed, hope the decision stands.


Thank's for the link. There are some sites I don't click, ever.

Z- I think Random is fully in agreement with you. Granted his sarcasm makes it a bit hard to tell.
 
2012-05-18 09:48:51 AM  
Usually my headlines suck compared to the greenlighted headline, but I think mine was better this time...

It turns out that arresting someone for what they said, then denying them a trial and keeping them in prison forever is unconstitutional. Who knew?
 
2012-05-18 09:52:12 AM  
Good. It was always wrong, and always will be wrong.
 
2012-05-18 10:11:33 AM  
If it was wrong then it is still wrong now.
 
2012-05-18 10:13:19 AM  
This ruling is extremely important because it rejects certain claims that the government has been using the past few years to get cases like this thrown out.

1) No Standing. The government's position is that unless someone is actually detained under this law, they don't have the right to sue to have the law ruled unconstitutional. The judge said merely having reasonable fears of being impacted by the law is sufficient standing.

2) No additional authority. The government's position was that the law didn't matter, since they already had all the indefinite detention powers they wanted under the 2001 AUMF. The judge has stated that the new law is so horribly vague in it's applicability that it could be used in a far more broad fashion than the AUMF, which was restricted to antagonists involved in 9/11.


This is a fantastic first step.
 
2012-05-18 10:15:23 AM  
Oh look. Tatsuma and his girlfriend/alt Liam are trolling in the same thread. How surprising.
 
2012-05-18 10:22:09 AM  
This issue brings me the closest I could ever come to agreeing with the Nut. Though something tells me that if they already had some brown people on the hook because of this law, this article wouldn't exist.

/DNR the derpy version. I'm not giving the Nut clickies.
 
2012-05-18 10:48:53 AM  

EvilEgg: So this is a win for civil rights? That's nice.


More importantly, this is a win for the press, so we'll get the impression people care about this.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report