Federal Judge rules against Obama's NDAA

[Felya]

Signing statements are worthless. He signed the law into effect, dropped his veto threats immediately, even encouraged congress to keep the provision, and is now fighting against those who wish to repeal it in the courts. He doesn't get a pass on this one. The ACLU even called his decision horrible.

Check the party affiliation of those who drew up the bill and pushed it. Even Ron Paul did not vote against it when it passed...

[Wells]

So it doesn't matter who wanted it, it doesn't matter who created it, it just matters that the DoJ is doing its job and therefor its Obama's NDAA (who isn't the DoJ)?

Clearly we're the ones with partisan sensibilities.

[jwtelesio]

Ok, to prevent misinformation from spreading regarding this issue somethign important must be said.

Obama DID NOT create this part of the bill. It was signed in by president Bush in 2001 in the wake of the september 11th attacks and due to the current thinking of the country there was little backlash about it's wording.

Whats written in the NDAA is a Reaffirmation making it so that the information was more accessable and known. For the past 11 years the country has been able to do this.

[Porcell]

Can you read? He's fighting those who oppose it in the courts.

I was just reading what you wrote, chap. I'm going to guess it was a typo and you meant "...and he is now fighting the courts..." instead of what you wrote "... and he is not fighting the courts..."

---------- Post added 2012-09-13 at 07:52 PM ----------

Ok, to prevent misinformation from spreading regarding this issue somethign important must be said.

Obama DID NOT create this part of the bill. It was signed in by president Bush in 2001 in the wake of the september 11th attacks and due to the current thinking of the country there was little backlash about it's wording.

Whats written in the NDAA is a Reaffirmation making it so that the information was more accessable and known. For the past 11 years the country has been able to do this.

By the way, and this. If anything it is Bush's NDAA. You can call it Obama's NDAA I guess, but it's more like "Our" NDAA...

[Felya]

Ok, to prevent misinformation from spreading regarding this issue somethign important must be said.

Obama DID NOT create this part of the bill. It was signed in by president Bush in 2001 in the wake of the september 11th attacks and due to the current thinking of the country there was little backlash about it's wording.

Whats written in the NDAA is a Reaffirmation making it so that the information was more accessable and known. For the past 11 years the country has been able to do this.

People forget Guantanimo exists...

[haxartus]

I don't seem to understand the system in the US.
How can a federal judge block a law that is signed by the president ? I thought only the Supreme Court could do this.

[Reeve]

I was just reading what you wrote, chap. I'm going to guess it was a typo and you meant "...and he is now fighting the courts..." instead of what you wrote "... and he is not fighting the courts..."

---------- Post added 2012-09-13 at 07:52 PM ----------



By the way, and this. If anything it is Bush's NDAA. You can call it Obama's NDAA I guess, but it's more like "Our" NDAA...

Let's not forget that it's not the NDAA people have a problem with. It's one small section of the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA as a whole is necessary and good. The one section is what tramples our civil liberties.

---------- Post added 2012-09-13 at 07:55 PM ----------

I don't seem to understand the system in the US.
How can a federal judge block a law that is signed by the president ? I thought only the Supreme Court could do this.

Any federal judge can, but it can then be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

[GreatOak]

You said it the other way around in the post he quoted:

My mistake. I had thought I typed "now".

[Felya]

Any federal judge can, but it can then be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

I'd also point out, the plaintiff is not the court. The court's action is not as a result of a ruling, but a case being brought up.

[GreatOak]

Check the party affiliation of those who drew up the bill and pushed it. Even Ron Paul did not vote against it when it passed...

To be fair he is one of the few politicians that is openly against it. I need to specify that the NDAA is a good bill overall, it's just a small part of it that is wrong.

[Wildtree]

is it right to detain terrorists? Of course.
is it right to keep them detained without trial? of course, NOT.

[jwtelesio]

The problem is that everyone is getting worked up at the Reaffirmation that is in the NDAA (The defense budget; very important) but even if the reaffirmation was removed from the NDAA the original Bill signed in that allows this is Still active and it would change absolutly nothing.

[Bakis]

Good and civilized news, if it comes into affect that is another question. Covert ops have a habbit of ignoring congress, supreme court, any US legislation.

[Felya]

To be fair he is one of the few politicians that is openly against it. I need to specify that the NDAA is a good bill overall, it's just a small part of it that is wrong.

That's why I used him as an example. He was very against it, but when it came time for a final vote against it, even he didn't do it.

[Todgruppe]

Good and civilized news, if it comes into affect that is another question. Covert ops have a habbit of ignoring congress, supreme court, any US legislation.

If they didn't they wouldn't be, covert.

/puts on sunglasses

[The Riddler]

More freedom is good. I approve of anything that puts limits on the powers of the government.

The law of unintended consequences tells me though that instead of capturing terrorists, soldiers and drones are just going to kill them and not try to gather any intel. It was intel from captured 'suspected' terrorists that helped lead to Bin Laden's comeuppance.

[Wells]

More freedom is good. I approve of anything that puts limits on the powers of the government.

The law of unintended consequences tells me though that instead of capturing terrorists, soldiers and drones are just going to kill them and not try to gather any intel. It was intel from captured 'suspected' terrorists that helped lead to Bin Laden's comeuppance.

I think you have that confused with the "law of whatever I want to say"

[Aeluron Lightsong]

The judge prohibits the government from holding people indefinitely and without trial, now we have to see if it goes further. I can't believe they are so willing to take away the fifth amendment

I don't believe in this but as Stryker said in X-Men first class.

The price of security is Liberty

I think it's bullshit but what can you do, you can't fix stupid(I don't mean this in an insulting way)

[GreatOak]

I don't believe in this but as Stryker said in X-Men first class.

I think it's bullshit but what can you do, you can't fix stupid(I don't mean this in an insulting way)

Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.", and Madison said "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

They very much understood what would happen, and it has come to fruition.

[videotape]

Hey, how about instead of bickering about our interpretations of who we can point the finger at, we all rejoice that our judicial system is working as intended?