“The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”
Those were the words of senior Obama administration officials when President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which included a provision authorizing the military to indefinitely detain citizens suspected of being “associated forces” of al Qaeda and affiliated groups or providing “direct” or “substantial” support to al Qaeda or affiliated groups, into law. Yet less than twenty-four hours after federal judge and Obama appointee Katherine B. Forrest issued a permanent injunction against the provision, the administration has already had its lawyers file an appeal to the ruling.
I went on RT America to talk about the significance of the permanent injunction and the Obama Administration’s decision to appeal the permanent injunction. I highlighted the fact that Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs that, given how the government was presenting the NDAA provision in court, journalists reporting on terrorist groups might find themselves subject to the provision.
On the appeal I said this just shows that this administration believes government should have the tool of preventive and/or indefinite military detention in its arsenal. It also shows how the administration does not want to let a member of the Judicial Branch check the power of the Executive Branch. It wants unconstrained power to carry out the “war on terrorism” however it pleases, regardless of whether it sets precedents that infringe upon the rights or liberties of the people.
*
After my appearance, founder of Revolution Truth and one of the plaintiffs who originally brought the lawsuit, Tangerine Bolen, was on to talk about the case. She eloquently stated: “It’s significant for all of us and actually anyone on this planet because no one anywhere at this point can be indefinitely detained on the NDAA.”
Bolen said the lawsuit is headed to the Second Circuit now, which very likely means the lawsuit is headed for the Supreme Court. She also said she has faith in “the power of people of America to come forward and restore justice and due process and our fundamental rights.” She hopes the next judge who hears the lawsuit will take Forrest’s ruling seriously.



23 Comments

Shouldn’t that be “anyone anywhere”?
Wow! Permanent Injunction.
Democrat Obama appeals.
Why I can’t I make the Obama-bots see this aspect of him?
Right now it’s no one because of the permanent injunction.
Ah, I see.
Theoretically that would mean our prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere in our Gulag of Torture and No Human Rights should go free then, but I won’t hold my breath on that.
Why don’t they just say the Constitution is null and void and get it over with already?
What’s wrong with him?
I’m curious about the practical application of this injunction.
Let’s say they kidnap someone off the street, and they disappear this person to some obscure location. No phone calls, no lawyer, no visits, no trial. What, exactly, could anyone do about it?
What’s more–they could let this person go, years later, and just deny everything. Sounds paranoid, I know, but the shroud of secrecy allows the government to do whatever it chooses.
You know things aren’t going well when you feel like you’re living in a science-fiction novel or a bad paranoid thriller.
Good perf Kevin.
As a side issue, isn’t it an ironic turnabout that Russian TV bc the voice of freedom. Ditto Iranian tv: presstv.ir.
Very schmart of both of those countries to est English language tv channels that are sooo much better than anything the U.S. produces. There may be more outlets that I am unaware of. But those efforts are important for U.S. propaganda to be countered. Can’t imagine anyone outside the U.S. and its comical sidekicks watching anything U.S., U.K put on air. BBC has joined the drivel, except with Oxbridge accents.
WRT NDAA, SCOTUS will decide in favor or prez power would be my prediction. And if they don’t, O or R will ignore the decision.
What’s that cliche quote? Where is the court’s army/police force, whatever.
With Mitt in disaster-control mode (i.e., can’t win), voting Green should be a no-brainer. Another Obysmal triumph, given the system, means as much as contemplating dandelion seeds floating away in the breeze……….. just drifting………… drifting.
Send the Harvard Law Review a message.
Ties into my more general point. Court has no ability to enforce ruling.
No court has any ability to enforce rulings. And Forrest risks being disappeared.
All those innocents in Soviet gulags or Pinochet’s extermination accomplishments, or name your worst fears, never got any any justice.
USA! USA!
Worse. It’s reality.
This is completely dishonest discussion. Hey, I am on your sides as to how I would like the law to be, but to refuse to admit, and even worse, refuse to report, what the current state of law is, and why, is bogusly dishonest.
This is the guy whose hands are always tied by those philistine Republicans. And yet, in “less than twenty-four hours” . . .
A vote for Obama is a vote for indefinite detention.
From a Machiavellian standpoint, Obama will need another 9-11 type event to get the Supremes to agree to the law. Let’s hope that that does not happen.
Silly Muppet, Laws are for little people. Kings do as they please.
I gave up after I was talking to my mother on the phone and pointed out that Obama had essentially suspended habeas corpus. It didn’t seem to bother her. And she’s a retired lawyer.
Right. The best opinions about honesty come from for-personal-profit attorneys.
Here is some honesty for all martinets in the legal field: your advocacy that the opinions of Addington and Yoo — supported by the likes of “fuck yeah” Janice Rogers Brown and verified as 100% Constitutional and Godly by Fat Tony Scalia — are in fact Constitutional and must be understood by all to be Constitutional and deserve to be adhered to rigorously without question as if they were just, honorable and honest… is pure malarkey and a travesty of justice to all decent people. You are enabling these asswipes. You are therefore part of the same problem.
I keep telling you, and you keep not understanding, almost as if your livelihood depended upon you not understanding, that the law is not justice; that people need more justice, not more laws; that two unconstitutional decisions do not make one law Constitutional; and that the law is too important to be left to lawyers.
Other than that, I salute you for taking a short vacation from your Ferengi home world to drop by and call everybody here dishonest. A summons to appear in Fuck You court has been issued in your name.
David Seaman Hour interview with Tangerine Bolen yesterday when she got the email saying that Obama administration is appealing the permanent injunction.
David Seaman makes a good point. We are patriots who love America. Why are we the focus of the new Security State’s surveillance and detention without due process laws? Because we are defending the 1st Amendment? Because we disagree with this administration’s social policy? Because we disagree with this administration’s environmental policy?
These are political laws and are meant to silence dissent.
Wish I knew the history of the discussions between you two, UCT1. All I can do is try to extrapolate what Bmaz has been pushing. But, in any event, your comment about needing more justice, not more laws…and maybe calling an extra-Unconstitutional decision…a law…was great.
Set me straight on what I haven’t got right, but that was one powerful comment in the defense of the non-Ferengis among us.
Forget the birth certificate, I want to seem Obama’s Constiutional Law test scores.