**
Scotty Starnes posted: " Obama was against indefinite detention of
terrorist until he approved it for American citizens. From Reason.com: When
it comes to national security and steps towards a less dystopian United
States, there was about five minutes of good news Wednesd" Respond to
this post by replying above this line
New post on *Scotty Starnes's Blog*
<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> Obama
Administration Argues That Blocking the NDAA’s Indefinite Detainment
Provision Will Harm the
U.S.<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/obama-administration-argues-that-blocking-the-ndaas-indefinite-detainment-provision-will-harm-the-u-s/>by
Scotty Starnes <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>
<http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/obama-indefinite-detention.jpg>
Obama was against indefinite detention of terrorist until he approved it
for American citizens.
>From
>Reason.com<http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/obama-administration-argues-that-blockin>
:
When it comes to national security and steps towards a less dystopian
United States, there was about five minutes of good news Wednesday when
Federal Judge Katherine Forrest
permanently<http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/13/by-the-way-a-federal-judge-permanently-b#comment>
blockedsection
1021<http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/17/while-rep-justin-amash-pushes-his-amendm>
of
the National Defense Authorization Act, which — arguably, but it definitely
doesn't *not* — allows for indefinite military detainment of American
citizens connected to terrorism, even those captured on U.S. soil.
Sadly less than 24 hours after Forrest blocked section 1021, the Obama
administration appealed the
decision<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/u-s-appeals-order-blocking-u-s-military-detention-law.html>.
They are continuing the argument that the NDAA is simply redundant with
powers already granted in the 2001 Authorization for Military Force
Act<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists>.
Forrest disagrees, and maintains that her ruling would not conflict with
those powers, but that the NDAA unconstitutionally expands the category of
people who can be legally detained.
Under Judge Forrest's oddly
unreported<http://www.democraticunderground.com/101757869>
ruling <http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=223>,
which came after her May temporary injunction in response to a lawsuit
filed by seven civil liberties activists, the NDAA was dubbed to be a
violation of the Fifth Amendment's right to due process, as well as having
a distinct chilling effect on First Amendment rights. The latter argument
was underlined by the fact that one of the plaintiffs, Pulitzer
Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges has interviewed members of the
Taliban and Al-Qaeda nearly a score of times. This made the NDAA's vague
threat that someone who can be detained by the military is an individual
"who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or
associated forces" seem more serious, and led to Forrest ruling that the
plaintiffs indeed had standing to challenge NDAA.
The real threat of the NDAA, if not in practice for now, then definitely in
precedent, was further strengthened by the fact that the government
repeatedly refused to address Forrest's concerns and confirm that the NDAA
can or cannot be used against journalists like Hedges. Hedges was joined in
his lawsuit by rabble-rousers Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and other
opponents
of excessive government security state
madness.<https://www.stopndaa.org/aboutUs>
Today, under the shadow of massive riots throughout the Middle
East<http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/two-american-universities-receive-bomb-t>,
mostly directed toward America and its allies' embassies, the Obama
administration would like to remind us all that the power to indefinitely
detain people is vital to national security,
Continue
reading>>><http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/obama-administration-argues-that-blockin>
*Scotty Starnes
<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| September
14, 2012 at 8:21 PM | Tags: American
citizens <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=american-citizens>,
indefinite
detention <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=indefinite-detention>,
National
Defense Authorization
Act<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=national-defense-authorization-act>,
national security<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=national-security>,
NDAA <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=ndaa>, Obama
Administration<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=obama-administration>,
President Obama
<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=president-obama>, Section
1021 <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=section-1021> |
Categories: Political
Issues <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?cat=35145> | URL:
http://wp.me/pvnFC-8aY
Comment<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/obama-administration-argues-that-blocking-the-ndaas-indefinite-detainment-provision-will-harm-the-u-s/#respond>
See all
comments<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/obama-administration-argues-that-blocking-the-ndaas-indefinite-detainment-provision-will-harm-the-u-s/#comments>
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=80d8873ee52adffe4e178d01c25562cf&email=goosepickles%40gmail.com>.
*Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/obama-administration-argues-that-blocking-the-ndaas-indefinite-detainment-provision-will-harm-the-u-s/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
