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.

(BusinessWeek)   Federal Judge to DOJ: You know that part of the NDA that lets you indefinitely detain anyone you think is "supporting" terrorism? Yeah, the 1st Amendment has a problem with that   (businessweek.com) divider line 29
    More: Spiffy, NDA, indefinite detention, ndaa, 1st amendment, standing to sue, indefinite imprisonment, Chris Hedges, federal judges  
•       •       •

8181 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 May 2012 at 11:29 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-18 11:36:55 AM  
3 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: dosboot: Obama got told

Silly dosboot, Obama doesn't GET told. It'll be somebody else's fault and/or what Obama personally believes. Just watch.


I'll be that person.

Repubtards wrote that part of the bill into the NDAA in the first place. All Obama did was not veto then, and then when it came up for court, his instructed his lawyers not to defend it (hence the no witnesses, no statements, no answering questions).

Heh. Nice tactic. Let the GOP pass whatever it wants, then refuse to defend it in court. A form of government nullification as opposed to jury nullification?
2012-05-18 12:59:08 PM  
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: inner ted: cameroncrazy1984: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: dosboot: Obama got told

Silly dosboot, Obama doesn't GET told. It'll be somebody else's fault and/or what Obama personally believes. Just watch.

Can you point to where Obama stated he needed and/or will use this power? I can't find it.

oh that's right... he just said he'd neeeever use it... but wanted it passed nonetheless.

totally.

If you look at the quotation above, the administration actually wanted the language out of the law, saying that detentions of terrorism suspects was already covered by the AUMF.


So that would be the same AUMF that didn't excuse Bush's actions?
2012-05-18 12:57:52 PM  
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Lady Farksalot: But, his whole campaign was dedicated to CLOSING Gitmo then backed out of it and adopted the "don't ask, don't tell" clause which you concurred above.

Huh? Who backed out of it? Congress denied funding.


Obama never even tried to close Gitmo. Instead, he tried to move Gitmo to an unused Prison in Illinois. The press quickly dubbed this plan,Gitmo North. This is what Congress denied funding for.

Here's what the ACLU had to say about it at the time:

The Obama administration announced today that it will purchase the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois for the purpose of holding some of the detainees currently remaining at Guantánamo.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"The creation of a 'Gitmo North' in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.


It must be close to an election or something since the politics tab party shills are putting in so many appearances to spread lies lately. Congress denied funding for moving Gitmo inside the US.
2012-05-18 12:41:40 PM  
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: dosboot: Obama got told

Silly dosboot, Obama doesn't GET told. It'll be somebody else's fault and/or what Obama personally believes. Just watch.

Can you point to where Obama stated he needed and/or will use this power? I can't find it.


Obama first gave a speech saying he needed the power to toss people in prison without charges and without a trial only weeks after he took office.

Here's video of Rachel Maddow ripping him a new one for it:

"A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney"

He definitely got told.
2012-05-18 11:36:21 AM  
2 votes:
I somehow doubt the folks running the detention centers care what the law says. It didn't matter before the law passed.
2012-05-18 11:34:15 AM  
2 votes:

dosboot: Obama got told


Silly dosboot, Obama doesn't GET told. It'll be somebody else's fault and/or what Obama personally believes. Just watch.
2012-05-19 03:54:50 AM  
1 votes:
That is so bogus.
So the grocer who sold them food could go to jail for the same reason- aiding terrorists.
All of a sudden, we have to know that every customer is not a terrorist or sympathizer before we can conduct our normal business.

Hey Fatherland Security, can we have a copy of your "no fly" list to give us a slight chance at knowing who you don't like?
2012-05-18 02:31:22 PM  
1 votes:

hasty ambush: anfrind: ourbigdumbmouth: no one care about the constitution anymore really. It's more of a historical document like the magna carta or the mayflower compact. Technology is moving too fast to keep up with these old philosophies.goddamn piece of paper.

FTFRepublicans.

"The Constitution is like my old blue dress ... it doesn't fit anymore." Rep. Ellen Tauscher
(Democrat, California)


Only source for that quote that pops up on Google is wingnut blogs, so, off to the ignore list with ya.
2012-05-18 01:59:54 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: Baz744: And the military tribunals which review Gitmo detentions are, contrary to your assertion, real live courts with lawfully empowered judges.

Now military tribunals are the same thing as a trial by a jury of your peers?


No, but they operate with as much legal authority as a civil judge with the power to detain you indefinitely on a finding that you pose a threat of harm to yourselves or others.

Authoritarian bootlicker much?

Trollish cocksucker much?
2012-05-18 01:16:46 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: cameroncrazy1984: Okie_Gunslinger: Reread what I wrote then explain to me how congress blocking the purchase of new facilities blocks anything.

And how would the DoJ purchase new facilities without funding from Congress?

Whoops, read that wrong.

What existing facility would they use? Please show me where an existing Federal penitentiary has room for, what, 200 more prisoners overnight?


You know how I know you're an Obama shill from the politics tab who has no idea what really happened when Obama tried to move Gitmo onto US soil?

WASHINGTON - In ordering the federal government to acquire an Illinois prison to house terrorism suspects who are currently held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, President Obama on Tuesday took a major step toward shutting down the military detention facility that its detractors say had become a potent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.

Thompson was unused at the time.

The officials, speaking on grounds of anonymity under White House rules, said that they had not yet determined how many Guantánamo detainees would be sent to Thomson, nor have they set a timetable for moving them there. But several administration officials put the probable number of transferred detainees at about 100.

There are currently about 210 detainees at Guantánamo, administration officials said. Since Mr. Obama took office, about 30 inmates have been transferred to other countries, and administration officials have said they hope that 100 more prisoners may also be sent overseas.
2012-05-18 01:01:14 PM  
1 votes:

Okie_Gunslinger: Meh Obama could simply transfer the prisoners in Gitmo to other existing federal facilities using the same funds appropriated to the DOJ for prisoner transfers, I honestly don't see how congress could block that


Uh, did you read the law?

None of the funds provided to the Department of Justice in this or any prior act shall be available for the acquisition of any facility that is to be used wholly or in part for the incarceration or detention of any individual detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of June 24, 2009," the bill says

Gee, sounds like Congress could block that.
2012-05-18 12:55:47 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: inner ted: cameroncrazy1984: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: dosboot: Obama got told

Silly dosboot, Obama doesn't GET told. It'll be somebody else's fault and/or what Obama personally believes. Just watch.

Can you point to where Obama stated he needed and/or will use this power? I can't find it.

oh that's right... he just said he'd neeeever use it... but wanted it passed nonetheless.

totally.

If you look at the quotation above, the administration actually wanted the language out of the law, saying that detentions of terrorism suspects was already covered by the AUMF.


granted, i'll have to google it, but he said that he'd "never use these powers in my administration" or there abouts.

a: bullshiat
b: what about future administrations??? apparently he felt no responsibility to our country after he's no longer running it????
2012-05-18 12:54:49 PM  
1 votes:
Didn't Obama say that he liked the provision that gave him extra powers when dealing with "terrorists"? Had he even criticized the scope even a little, we'd understand that it's a provision attached something that he really can't resist signing, but I think we all know that he kind of likes it.

That fact that only a small handful of senators voted nay and Rand Paul of all people was the biggest critic in Senate only makes me think that we won't find an ally in legislative branch either.
2012-05-18 12:51:52 PM  
1 votes:

craxyd: ourbigdumbmouth: no one care about the constitution anymore really. It's more of a historical document like the magna carta or the mayflower compact. Technology is moving too fast to keep up with these old philosophies.


Run that by me again? Explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old
/ Yeah I bit


I was being sarcastic. Sorry.

But I imagine that thought process is in play in Washington.
2012-05-18 12:50:28 PM  
1 votes:
Meh Obama could simply transfer the prisoners in Gitmo to other existing federal facilities using the same funds appropriated to the DOJ for prisoner transfers, I honestly don't see how congress could block that. He just doesn't want Gitmo closed for the same reason Bush didn't, neither of them want those people in the civil court system. Blame congress all you want but if he actually wanted those prisoners removed from there he could have it done, saying I don't have the money is an easy cope out.
2012-05-18 12:48:07 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Hyjamon: Can't you point to where Obama stated no president should ever need or want to use this power?

If this is unnecessary, then why let it come to pass?

Oh, gee, I dunno, did you read the bill that it was attached to? You know, the defense spending bill?

Sometimes you have to sign the bill, make your signing statement, and then have your DoJ refuse to defend the law.



Bullshiat. That's a complete copout. Even IF you trust any given politician to actually do that - and they hold to their promise - that still leaves the law on the books for the next president to exploit, who may not be as scrupulous. Even if we both trust Obama with that, do you really want to trust ROMNEY with that?

We actually have a mechanism for exactly these situations!! It's called a farking "veto".

If the bill contained some unconscionable provision - like allowing the federal government to secretly and indefinitely detain US citizens without a trial - then the POTUS is supposed to VETO the motherfarker. Then congress has to either rewrite the law to make it acceptable, or override him (absolving him of responsibility). Nothing stopped him from vetoing the bill but either cowardice or a lack of strong objection.
2012-05-18 12:42:01 PM  
1 votes:

Lady Farksalot: But Obama neeeeever added debt to it? m'kay


It's only bad when republicans do it.
2012-05-18 12:19:43 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: elysive: but do you know how ridiculous it sounds to say that there's no funding to cease operation of an institution?

No, I don't. Perhaps you could explain to me how to get prisoners off an island when you're forbidden by law to use any money to do so.


The President of the United States of America should be able to back himself up and say, "listen assholes, I am against this operation and it MUST cease right now!" and fund it his damn self. Don't tell me it's out of his hands.
2012-05-18 12:16:46 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: dosboot: Obama got told

Silly dosboot, Obama doesn't GET told. It'll be somebody else's fault and/or what Obama personally believes. Just watch.

Can you point to where Obama stated he needed and/or will use this power? I can't find it.



Who cares? The asshats in congress should have never added it into the defense appropriations bill, the asshats in congress should never have passed it - with broad bipartisan support - but Obama should never have signed it either.

It doesn't matter what someone in power SAYS they'll never do. History is replete with leaders who have promised never to do things that later turned out to be little more than worthless words.

And for the record, the Obama administration's complaint at the time was that it would limit his options with regard to foreign terrorism suspects, but had nary a word about the domestic implications until he signed it and "promised" not to abuse the powers. I don't trust ANY leader, regardless of how much I like them, with a promise like that.
2012-05-18 12:10:50 PM  
1 votes:

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: administrator


Errr, administration.
2012-05-18 12:06:14 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Lady Farksalot: But, his whole campaign was dedicated to CLOSING Gitmo then backed out of it and adopted the "don't ask, don't tell" clause which you concurred above.

Huh? Who backed out of it? Congress denied funding.


I get what you mean, but do you know how ridiculous it sounds to say that there's no funding to cease operation of an institution? I imagine there's some law about misuse or redirection of operations funds, but it has to cost more to keep these places open than to close them.
2012-05-18 12:04:01 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Can you point to where Obama stated he needed and/or will use this power? I can't find it.


Lol. You're SO right. Obama won't detain citizens who are suspected terrorists. He will simply have them assassinated outright. No need for that pesky unconstitutional detention at all! As he has already demonstrated.
2012-05-18 11:58:43 AM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Huh? Who backed out of it? Congress denied funding.


Never. Obama's. Fault. Ever.

/i'll admit, it makes life pretty simple having that kind of clarity.
2012-05-18 11:51:37 AM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: dosboot: Obama got told

Silly dosboot, Obama doesn't GET told. It'll be somebody else's fault and/or what Obama personally believes. Just watch.

Can you point to where Obama stated he needed and/or will use this power? I can't find it.


let's have some fun...

Can't you point to where Obama stated no president should ever need or want to use this power?

If this is unnecessary, then why let it come to pass?

If this could be abused by someone in the future, then why let it come to pass?

If I have a gun pointed at your head, can you point to where I would need and/or will use the power in my finger to pull the trigger? so why worry or call the police about me having a gun pointed at your head?

Do you know what an assist is in sports? Why should I, as a defender, worry about you passing the ball to someone who is open underneath the basket if you have no need to shoot nor the will to do so, so why do you care if you pass him the ball?

/hyperbole much?
2012-05-18 11:50:50 AM  
1 votes:

Peki: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: dosboot: Obama got told

Silly dosboot, Obama doesn't GET told. It'll be somebody else's fault and/or what Obama personally believes. Just watch.

I'll be that person.

Repubtards wrote that part of the bill into the NDAA in the first place. All Obama did was not veto then, and then when it came up for court, his instructed his lawyers not to defend it (hence the no witnesses, no statements, no answering questions).

Heh. Nice tactic. Let the GOP pass whatever it wants, then refuse to defend it in court. A form of government nullification as opposed to jury nullification?


But, his whole campaign was dedicated to CLOSING Gitmo then backed out of it and adopted the "don't ask, don't tell" clause which you concurred above.
It doesn't matter who wrote it...he was supposed to veto the bill and shut down the facility. My cousin is heading there in a few months (Army)...sounds like it's still open to me.

Obama = Same policies as Bush = FAIL
2012-05-18 11:32:41 AM  
1 votes:
Obama got told
2012-05-18 11:31:25 AM  
1 votes:
Damn those Non-Disclosure Agreements!

Somebody should write a law!
2012-05-18 11:16:29 AM  
1 votes:
Good, now soldiers can get paid without us having to worry about ass-hats throwing fascist laws into simple budget bills.
2012-05-18 11:05:12 AM  
1 votes:
DOJ: WUT constitution LOL?
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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