US attorneys refuse to assure judge that they are not already detaining citizens under NDAA | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 10:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 10:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 10:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 10:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 15133392 United States 08/11/2012 10:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 10:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 19333122 United States 08/11/2012 10:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 21720708 United States 08/11/2012 10:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one but no one is above the law, period. This man was sworn in to uphold the Constitution of the United States so therefore he is obligated to adhere to it. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1392215 United States 08/11/2012 10:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 10:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” wrote Obama. “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” This of course was an outright lie, given the expressed meaning of the statute as Obama himself had demanded it be written. Leave it to Barack Obama to demand he be given absolute authority over the American public, yet claim in the next moment that he will not take advantage of it! The Department of Justice, which defended the NDAA before Judge Forrest, will undoubtedly appeal her ruling. It is a judicial process Americans must watch closely as the free exercise of our Constitutional rights depends upon the outcome. |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 10:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 10:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision has indeed been applied, the United States government itself will be in contempt of court. Government attorneys also, in this hearing, again presented no evidence to support their position -- and brought forth no witnesses. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 21385600 China 08/11/2012 11:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1588050 08/11/2012 11:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 11:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 16658215 United States 08/11/2012 11:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision has indeed been applied, the United States government itself will be in contempt of court. Government attorneys also, in this hearing, again presented no evidence to support their position -- and brought forth no witnesses. Quoting: WindyMind lol is that even possible? |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 11:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision has indeed been applied, the United States government itself will be in contempt of court. Government attorneys also, in this hearing, again presented no evidence to support their position -- and brought forth no witnesses. Quoting: WindyMind lol is that even possible? Sounds like there is a fight. |
warriorsbond User ID: 18677608 United States 08/11/2012 11:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.westernjournalism.com] Quoting: WindyMind “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” wrote Obama. “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” This of course was an outright lie, given the expressed meaning of the statute as Obama himself had demanded it be written. Leave it to Barack Obama to demand he be given absolute authority over the American public, yet claim in the next moment that he will not take advantage of it! The Department of Justice, which defended the NDAA before Judge Forrest, will undoubtedly appeal her ruling. It is a judicial process Americans must watch closely as the free exercise of our Constitutional rights depends upon the outcome. ya but further down the bill they put in a new provision. if you are against your country they take away your citizenship. then bam its legal cause you are no longer a citizen or what ever to appease this part of the law. |
craftybiatchytwo User ID: 1429977 Canada 08/11/2012 11:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 11:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Last Edited by WindyMind on 08/22/2012 09:43 PM |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/11/2012 11:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
FireSpirit User ID: 21654964 United States 08/12/2012 12:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The NDAA is an atrocity to checks and balances, it's an atrocity to democracy, it's an atrocity to everything it means to be American. Any questions? My question is who is the "man behind the curtain" metaphorically in this situation. Sure, we know that ALEC had a lot to do with writing this crappy legislation... but why ALEC? Corporations demanded it... why? What are the interests of these corporations? Who is pulling the money strings? Where did this NDAA come from and why is the government (and people in government who purportedly believe in freedoms like the 4th and 5th Amendments...) supporting it? Why? What? Huh? Celebrate the God Among Us ~FireSpirit |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 21640558 United States 08/12/2012 12:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one but no one is above the law, period. This man was sworn in to uphold the Constitution of the United States so therefore he is obligated to adhere to it. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely... Quoting: DC68 Notice how the Communist puke couldn't even take the oath without screwing up. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 20632801 United States 08/12/2012 12:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.westernjournalism.com] Quoting: WindyMind “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” wrote Obama. “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” This of course was an outright lie, given the expressed meaning of the statute as Obama himself had demanded it be written. Leave it to Barack Obama to demand he be given absolute authority over the American public, yet claim in the next moment that he will not take advantage of it! The Department of Justice, which defended the NDAA before Judge Forrest, will undoubtedly appeal her ruling. It is a judicial process Americans must watch closely as the free exercise of our Constitutional rights depends upon the outcome. ya but further down the bill they put in a new provision. if you are against your country they take away your citizenship. then bam its legal cause you are no longer a citizen or what ever to appease this part of the law. Being miffed at your government and being against the country are two different things. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1461956 United States 08/12/2012 12:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.westernjournalism.com] Quoting: WindyMind “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” wrote Obama. “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” This of course was an outright lie, given the expressed meaning of the statute as Obama himself had demanded it be written. Leave it to Barack Obama to demand he be given absolute authority over the American public, yet claim in the next moment that he will not take advantage of it! The Department of Justice, which defended the NDAA before Judge Forrest, will undoubtedly appeal her ruling. It is a judicial process Americans must watch closely as the free exercise of our Constitutional rights depends upon the outcome. ya but further down the bill they put in a new provision. if you are against your country they take away your citizenship. then bam its legal cause you are no longer a citizen or what ever to appease this part of the law. Bullshit, you are STILL a citizen of your State. It will become necessary for states to assert the right and responsibility to protect its' citizens Constitutional rights. There are bills in the Texas senate that are pre-emptively dealing with this, giving local sheriffs, State Troopers (Department of Public Safety) and the Texas Rangers broad authority to protect the rights of all Texas citizens. One provision prevents the removal of any Texas citizen from the state of Texas without the express written consent of the Governor of Texas. The people of Texas see the handwriting on the wall and are doing their best to get ahead of this. There are also studies that have looked at Texas using alternative currency. The only thing I can think of where that might happen is a full-blown Secession. Look up the studies of "what-ifs", if Texas reverted to a Republic. We would be fine. Texas sends almost twice the amount of tax revenue to Washington as we recieve in return in total federal dollars. And roughly 15 percent of the U.S. military are Texans. I guess they would have a choice to make if that happened. |
w00sh User ID: 1222314 United States 08/12/2012 12:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 21750891 Australia 08/12/2012 01:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An executive that's overruled the judiciary and due process is a rogue entity that's broken consitutional law and is therefore acting as a law unto itself. Such behaviour is sufficient to undermine the whole constitutional basis of America's existence as a nation, and possibly puts the US on the slippery slope to civil war and the end of the US as we know it. Such unconsitutional behaviour may result in the US being broken up into a loose federation of four or five major sub-regions of states, with a rotating presidency of three or four people, each elected from the state based sub-regions of the new American federation. This would be an extreme devolution of power away from the centre and back to a sub-grouping of different states, would run counter to the natural centrist tendancies of the US federal executive, judicial and legislative wings of government, and would radically redefine the process of federalism in the US. Hopefully it won't come to this although it seems the executive can't help itself. |
WindyMind (OP) User ID: 7244814 United States 08/12/2012 01:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An executive that's overruled the judiciary and due process is a rogue entity that's broken consitutional law and is therefore acting as a law unto itself. Such behaviour is sufficient to undermine the whole constitutional basis of America's existence as a nation, and possibly puts the US on the slippery slope to civil war and the end of the US as we know it. Such unconsitutional behaviour may result in the US being broken up into a loose federation of four or five major sub-regions of states, with a rotating presidency of three or four people, each elected from the state based sub-regions of the new American federation. This would be an extreme devolution of power away from the centre and back to a sub-grouping of different states, would run counter to the natural centrist tendancies of the US federal executive, judicial and legislative wings of government, and would radically redefine the process of federalism in the US. Hopefully it won't come to this although it seems the executive can't help itself. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21750891 So it looks bad from Australia? |
MuayThai User ID: 21774009 Philippines 08/12/2012 01:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just admit it people, most are already living on their knees out of fear. You stand up and you're gonna be identified and dealt with. No one is going to sink their own boat these days, go along to get along. Just my observations from a distance of course. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 21744695 United States 08/12/2012 01:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |