It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:05 PM


All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:38 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
I know they've been discussed here before but I was curious if any of you have been keeping up with the court ruling on last year's NDAA's indefinite detention or this year's NDAA's domestic propaganda provisions?

To update last year's NDAA: The 4th District Court's Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the indefinite Detention sections of the NDAA as unconstitutional (citing the 1st & 4th ammendments). The Obama Administration's response was, and I quote:
Quote:
The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.

So, I guess we each have to seperately or in small groups (so as to be "named") sue for the right to not be indefinitely detained.

This year's NDAA allows our government the power to use propaganda domestically.

I find myself nauseated and chilled.

I wonder if the media would have allowed these to pass almost uncovered had there been a Republican in the White House? (not that I think Republicans would do anything different; the NDAAs were one of the few examples of congressional bipartisanship)
I wonder if we will ever wake up to what our government is doing to us in our name?
I wonder if a viable third party could be formed around these issues if the media decided to do the job they get special constitutional protections for and inform the citizenry?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:23 AM 
Avatar of War
Avatar of War

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:56 AM
Posts: 179
I asked this last time the subject came up but it wasn't answered.

Quote:
Sec. 1021(e)

AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


Please point out where the NDAA changes any existing laws or authorities regarding the indefinite detention of US citizens. There are laws/authorities that permit this, its in the Patriot Act, but people are acting like this is some new evil that has sprung from Obama.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:05 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
Here http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm

Judge Forrest clearly believes that the NDAA gives the government the power to indefinitely detain citizens as she is concerned that the language used to allow that detention is vague:

Quote:
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism.
Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects "substantially supported" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." The indefinite detention would supposedly last until "the end of hostilities."
In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to "pass constitutional muster" because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.
"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."


I don't blame the Obama Administration as you say. BOTH parties are guilty. I just wonder, as above, if a Republican Administration would have been given a pass by the media.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:07 AM 
Avatar of War
Avatar of War

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:56 AM
Posts: 179
But is this a big news story? The renewal of an act that upholds the authority granted in another act that is over 10 years old ...really this is news?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:09 PM 
Shelf is CAMPED!!
Shelf is CAMPED!!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:24 PM
Posts: 1918
Location: Location
EQ1: Binkee
WoW: Wilkins
Rift: Wilkins
LoL: ScrubLeague
Fox has been using propaganda domestically for years.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:05 PM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
Kitiari wrote:
But is this a big news story? The renewal of an act that upholds the authority granted in another act that is over 10 years old ...really this is news?


They loosened the language under which the military can detain you indefinitely and yeah, it should be a big news story or at least a little news story. Look around, it's not being covered by anyone.

randy wrote:
Fox has been using propaganda domestically for years.


When did Fox become the government?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:44 PM 
Shelf is CAMPED!!
Shelf is CAMPED!!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:24 PM
Posts: 1918
Location: Location
EQ1: Binkee
WoW: Wilkins
Rift: Wilkins
LoL: ScrubLeague
The Republican Party is an organization that controls much of the government, which uses Fox as a propaganda outlet. Sorry, guess I needed to be more clear.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:48 PM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
randy wrote:
The Republican Party is an organization that controls much of the government, which uses Fox as a propaganda outlet. Sorry, guess I needed to be more clear.


If you count "only the House" as "much of the government"; I suppose that's true, I don't watch Fox except when Sanjay Gupta is on CNN. But if you want to see a journalist who has no thoughts besides what she reads in the DEM talking points, watch Soledad O'Brien weekday mornings. I have intense hatred for John Sununu but he took her properly out to the woodshed last week some morning and it amused me greatly.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:56 PM 
Shelf is CAMPED!!
Shelf is CAMPED!!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:24 PM
Posts: 1918
Location: Location
EQ1: Binkee
WoW: Wilkins
Rift: Wilkins
LoL: ScrubLeague
Half of the legislative branch is not an insignificant portion of the government to have a partisan propaganda machine. Also, unless I'm mistaken, there are areas of government that exist below the Federal level, which also have a significant Republican population.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:55 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Quote:
If you count "only the House" as "much of the government";


Uhhh.... Yes?!?! :roll:


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:07 PM 
What? Another Expansion?!
What? Another Expansion?!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:04 PM
Posts: 93
Location: Arizona
EQ1: Tyral
WoW: Tyrak
Kulamiena wrote:
If you count "only the House" as "much of the government"; I suppose that's true

Half of our federal legislating body is a good chunk of the government, yes.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:36 AM 
Avatar of War
Avatar of War

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:56 AM
Posts: 179
Kulamiena wrote:
They loosened the language under which the military can detain you indefinitely and yeah, it should be a big news story or at least a little news story. Look around, it's not being covered by anyone.

It did? For US citizens? Please point this out in the act for me.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:56 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
I'll let the judge speak for herself:

Quote:
In essence, the Government argues that as an “affirmation” of the AUMF, § 1021 of the NDAA does nothing new; and therefore, since the type of activities in which plaintiffs are engaged were not subject to legal action under the AUMF, there is no reasonable basis for plaintiffs to assert that § 1021 could suddenly subject them to governmental action now. According to the Government, as an affirmation of the AUMF, the NDAA must be “read against the backdrop of Executive practice and court decisions”--a backdrop which clarifies the scope of § 1021. (See Gov’t’s Supplemental Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. (“Gov’t Supp. Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 33) at 1.)
For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that § 1021 is not merely an “affirmation” of the AUMF. To so hold would be contrary to basic principles of legislative interpretation that require Congressional enactments to be given independent meaning. To find that § 1021 is merely an “affirmation” of the AUMF would require this Court to find that § 1021 is a mere redundancy--that is, that it has no independent meaning and adds absolutely nothing to the Government’s enforcement powers.
In addition to rendering § 1021 meaningless, the Government’s position ignores the differences between the two statutes. 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.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:00 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
Beh, posted too soon.

For accuracy's sake, a news outlet decided it was worthy of mentioning in an editorial: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... 55409632/1


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:56 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:05 AM
Posts: 1460
Location: Seattle, WA
EQ1: Tranthas
WoW: Niali
If the worst clause you found in the NDAA from this year was about propaganda, I'm not sure you read the whole thing.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:45 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
Well, the judge has spoken again, taking the Justice Department to task for misinterpreting her ruling...

Quote:
Courthouse News Service:

“The May 16 order found Section 1021(b)(2) constitutionally infirm on two bases: the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,” Forrest wrote. “As set forth below, the law has long provided that this type of finding has provided relief to both the parties pursuing the challenge, as well as third parties not before the Court. ... Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court - or by Congress.”

Quoting the injunction, the judge added: “The May 16 order stated that there is a ‘strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.’” (Emphasis in original.)


... so I guess we don't have to individually sue to have her ruling affirm our right to not be indefinitely detained.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:19 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:05 AM
Posts: 1460
Location: Seattle, WA
EQ1: Tranthas
WoW: Niali
Well, yes and no. The Fourth Circuit only covers Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. For all the rest of us, the statute remains unchallenged.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The NDAAs
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:59 AM 
For the old school!
For the old school!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:57 PM
Posts: 1147
Tranthas wrote:
Well, yes and no. The Fourth Circuit only covers Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. For all the rest of us, the statute remains unchallenged.


Technically? Yes. However, as the precedent has been set this should be considered de facto in other districts. It can be challenged elsewhere, but it would certainly be an uphill climb, as a judge would be HIGHLY unlikely to rule against precedent, especially as this is working its way through the appeals process.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y