Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:53 pm

Good history of NDAA under O-Bomb-Ya.

The "work around" with regard to US citizens is simple:

By Executive Fiat, declare them an enemy combatant.

No more citizenship, therefore NDAA applies.



Supreme Court to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Published time: September 03, 2013 18:40
Edited time: September 03, 2013 21:02

http://rt.com/usa/ndaa-scotus-hedges-suit-359/

The United States Supreme Court is being asked to hear a federal lawsuit challenging the military’s legal ability to indefinitely detain persons under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, or NDAA.

According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges — a co-plaintiff in the case — attorneys will file paperwork in the coming days requesting that the country’s high court weigh in on Hedges v. Obama and determine the constitutionality of a controversial provision that has continuously generated criticism directed towards the White House since signed into law by President Barack Obama almost two years ago and defended adamantly by his administration in federal court in the years since.

Should the Supreme Court reject the plaintiffs’ plea, Hedges said it could signal the “obliteration of our last remaining legal protections.”

With the inking of his name to the annual Pentagon spending bill nearly two years ago, President Obama awarded his military the power to imprison persons suspected of ties to terrorist groups until the vaguely-defined “end of hostilities.”

Journalists and human rights workers were among those to immediately oppose the Dec. 31, 2011 signing of the NDAA — and one provision in particular, Section 1021(e) — because they said the US government could manipulate the law in order to detain anyone alleged to have “substantially supported” a group that’s considered an enemy of America, without trial, until the end of persistent and consistently expanding warfare.

“I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists … but that does not make me one,” Hedges, a long-time war correspondent for the New York Times, said when the suit was first filed in federal court in early 2012.

In an editorial published by Hedges on Monday, he wrote that he has been detained numerous times during his decades as a foreign correspondent, and in those instances was illegally held by the US government.

“In those days there was no law that could be used to seize and detain me,” he wrote. “Now there is.”

Last year, US District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York said Section 1021 was unconstitutional and ordered an immediate stay on the provision. Without delay, however, the Obama administration filed an appeal which was honored this past July when the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sided with the White House and ruled 3-to-0 that the American co-plaintiffs could not challenge the NDAA because they lacked standing.

The appellate court decided with that ruling that US citizens couldn’t fight Section 1021 in court because, “with respect to citizens, lawful resident aliens, or individuals captured or arrested in the United States, Section 1021 simply says nothing at all.”

“The court, in essence, said that because it did not construe the law as applying to US citizens and lawful residents we could not bring the case to court,” Hedges wrote this week in his op-ed.

But according to Hedges and at least one member of his legal team, the court should be clearer and opine precisely in a manner which ensures American citizens cannot be placed in indefinite military custody.

“The problem is by saying there’s no standing,” attorney Bruce Afran told Hedges, “they deprive the district court of entering an order, saying and declaring that the statue does not apply to US citizens or permanent residents, lawful residents in the US.”

“We have the absurdity of the court of appeals, one of the highest courts in the country, saying this law cannot touch citizens and lawful residents, but depriving the trial court of the ability to enter an order blocking it from being used in that way,” Afran told Hedges. “The lack of an order enables future [military] detentions. A person may have to languish for months, maybe years, before getting a court hearing. The [appellate] court correctly stated what the law is, but it deprived the trial court of the ability to enter an order stopping this [new] law from being used.”

Last year, Hedges suggested during a question-and-answer session on Reddit.com that the Obama administration may be defending Section 1021 so adamantly in federal court because it is already being used. If so, Hedges added this week, negating the power provided in that provision could lead the president to be found in contempt of court.

“If the Obama administration simply appealed it, as we expected, it would have raised this red flag,” Hedges said in 2012. “But since they were so aggressive it means that once Judge Forrest declared the law invalid, if they were using it, as we expect, they could be held in contempt of court. This was quite disturbing, for it means, I suspect, that US citizens, probably dual nationals, are being held in military detention facilities almost certainly overseas and maybe at home.”

This week Hedges wrote, “If Section 1021 stands it will mean that more than 150 years of case law in which the Supreme Court repeatedly held the military has no jurisdiction over civilians will be abolished.”

“It will mean citizens who are charged by the government with ‘substantially supporting’ al-Qaida, the Taliban or the nebulous category of ‘associated forces’ will be lawfully subject to extraordinary rendition. It will mean citizens seized by the military will languish in military jails indefinitely, or in the language of Section 1021 until ‘the end of hostilities’—in an age of permanent war, for the rest of their lives,” Hedges added.

When Pres. Obama signed the NDAA on New Year’s Eve, he added a statement in which he swore he wouldn’t use the military detention provision against Americans. Given recent revelations regarding his administration, however, another member of Hedges’ legal counsel told the journalist that he isn’t so certain that will stand true.

“First the terrorism-industrial complex assured Americans that they were only spying on foreigners, not US citizens,” Hedges quoted from another attorney on the case, Carl Mayer. “Then they assured us that they were only spying on phone calls, not electronic communications. Then they assured us that they were not spying on American journalists. And now both [major political] parties and the Obama administration have assured us that they will not detain journalists, citizens and activists”

Hedges has already been detained by the US, Hedges added, while recalling the case of Laura Poitras, an American filmmaker who also claims to have been repeatedly held and interrogated by federal officials during years of investigative work. Poitras has most recently collaborated with the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald on digesting the National Security Agency leaks attributed to former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden that have aided in disproving some of the promises already made by the Obama administration, as referenced by Carl Mayer.

Hedges is joined in the suit by a handful of plaintiffs, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, writer Noam Chomsky and independent journalist Alexa O’Brien. When the case was first brought before Judge Forrest last year, O’Brien testified that federal contractors attempted to link a group she co-founded, US Day of Rage, with Islamic organizations in an attempt to discredit, and perhaps detain, her.

O’Brien said she had interviewed former Guantanamo Bay detainees as part of her work as a journalist and feared that those conversations could be construed as giving “substantial support” to terrorist groups of “associated forces,” as described in the NDAA.

After Pres. Obama authorized the NDAA, O’Brien said in court, “I am now fearful of doing the type of reporting that I have done on individuals and organizations that are considered terrorists by the United States government and my reporting has therefore been curtailed.”

According to emails obtained by anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks that were pilfered from private intelligence firm Stratfor, government contractors attempted to connect US Day of Rage “to any Saudi or other fundamentalist Islamic movements” in late 2011 before the NDAA was autographed by Obama. O’Brien said that she later learned that her employer was asked repeatedly by US government agents for information about the journalist’s involvement with US Day of Rage and the Occupy Wall Street movement

“I have an actual and well-founded fear that the US Government will consider me a covered person under the [NDAA] and will either detain me indefinitely or subject me to a military tribunal,” she said in a sworn statement filed March 12, 2012. “Because of this fear I have substantially curtailed my journalistic and political activities.”

Joining Hedges, Ellsberg, Chomsky and O’Brien in the lawsuit are Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir, RevolutionTruth founder Tangerine Bolen, Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla and Dr. Cornel West. In the appeals ruling from July, the court said, “While Section 1021 does have meaningful effect regarding the authority to detain individuals who are not citizens or lawful resident aliens and are apprehended abroad, Jónsdóttir and Wargalla have not established standing on this record.”

According to Hedges, the Supreme Court only accepted around 100 of the 8,000-or-so requests it receives each year. “If we fail, if this law stands, if in the years ahead the military starts to randomly seize and disappear people, if dissidents and activists become subject to indefinite and secret detention in military gulags, we will at least be able to look back on this moment and know we fought back,” he wrote.
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:55 pm

Important to note the "left wing" slant of the people bringing this suit.

Occupy or Tea Party.

Guess what folks?

We're all suspects, we're all under surveillance.

It's War on Us, and to this government, we, right or left, are the enemy.

avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Donzel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:15 pm

Anti Federalist wrote:Important to note the "left wing" slant of the people bringing this suit.

Occupy or Tea Party.

Guess what folks?

We're all suspects, we're all under surveillance.

It's War on Us, and to this government, we, right or left, are the enemy.

They can suspect and put surveillance on me all they want.  I have nothing hide and will give them all the information they ask for.
There are some real nut cases in this country and I appreciate the fact that our government is trying to make it safer for all of us.

If you abide by the law of the land, then you have nothing to fear.


_________________
Hey fishead, quote this so I can't edit it.

Donzel

Posts : 297
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:45 pm

Donzel wrote:
Anti Federalist wrote:Important to note the "left wing" slant of the people bringing this suit.

Occupy or Tea Party.

Guess what folks?

We're all suspects, we're all under surveillance.

It's War on Us, and to this government, we, right or left, are the enemy.

They can suspect and put surveillance on me all they want.  I have nothing hide and will give them all the information they ask for.
There are some real nut cases in this country and I appreciate the fact that our government is trying to make it safer for all of us.

If you abide by the law of the land, then you have nothing to fear.

Spoken like a good Nazi.

LOL - You have no idea of how many laws you break every day.

I can guarantee you are doing something wrong, comrade.

Nice troll job, by the way.

Meanwhile, why don't you get better acquainted with this guy, who said the same thing.

avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Donzel on Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:00 pm

Anti Federalist wrote:Spoken like a good Nazi.

LOL - You have no idea of how many laws you break every day.

I can guarantee you are doing something wrong, comrade.

Nice troll job, by the way.

Meanwhile, why don't you get better acquainted with this guy, who said the same thing.

Spoken like a true coward that you are!
You are the Troll...47,304 posts...21.54 a day..http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?3169-Anti-Federalist
Click on the "about me" tab and you will see that this guy spends 24/7 trolling.

Sorry but this guy is nuts.

_________________
Hey fishead, quote this so I can't edit it.

Donzel

Posts : 297
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:04 pm

Donzel wrote:
Anti Federalist wrote:Spoken like a good Nazi.

LOL - You have no idea of how many laws you break every day.

I can guarantee you are doing something wrong, comrade.

Nice troll job, by the way.

Meanwhile, why don't you get better acquainted with this guy, who said the same thing.

Spoken like a true coward that you are!
You are the Troll...47,304 posts...21.54 a day..http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?3169-Anti-Federalist
Click on the "about me" tab and you will see that this guy spends 24/7 trolling.

Sorry but this guy is nuts.
Wait...are you serious about what you wrote with regard to government surveillance?

Nahhhh, can't be.

Thanks for posting my other home link, I encourage everybody to read up on freedom there.

LOL - 20 posts a day is about what me and In Harm's Way used to average on the old Wolfeboro Online forum.


Last edited by Anti Federalist on Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:12 pm

Meanwhile, you have completely ignored the fact that you have said, basically word for word, what the head Nazi propagandist said about government surveillance.

You do realize, that is not how things are supposed to work in a free country, right?

Total government surveillance?

You got the cameras in your home yet?

Is that the policy you want to follow?

You want that?

And you call me nuts...?
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Donzel on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:12 am

Anti Federalist wrote:

Wait...are you serious about what you wrote with regard to government surveillance?

Nahhhh, can't be.

Thanks for posting my other home link, I encourage everybody to read up on freedom there.

LOL - 20 posts a day is about what me and In Harm's Way used to average on the old Wolfeboro Online forum.
You and other Anti Americans are the biggest domestic threat that exist today.  The original Anti Federalist would be very disappointed to see what you and other Anti Americans are doing.

al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have probably infiltrated your group to destroy what this nation stands for.

Stop trolling this NH forum and take you hate messages somewhere else.

_________________
Hey fishead, quote this so I can't edit it.

Donzel

Posts : 297
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  WHL on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:17 am

Cut it out, Donzel. He is not a troll. Just because he is not a liberal like you, you don't like him. He is right you know. You break laws every day and any time they decided they want to come after you watch out. I have been on jury duty lots of times and I have seen how it works once someone is accused of something. I always said, I hope I never get arrested. Anti if not anti government, he just doesn't like the way THIS government it run right now. It is not the way our forefathers wanted itl
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6036
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Donzel on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:24 am

WHL wrote:Cut it out, Donzel.  He is not a troll.  Just because he is not a liberal like you, you don't like him.  He is right you know.  You break laws every day and any time they decided they want to come after you watch out.  I have been on jury duty lots of times and  I have seen how it works once someone is accused of something.  I always said, I hope I never get arrested.  Anti if not anti government, he just doesn't like the way THIS government it run right now.  It is not the way our forefathers wanted itl
It's OK for him to call me a troll though. I guess you missed that.

Anti isn't "anti government"??? My god WHL don't you read anything that people write? Educate yourself about the new anti federalist.

Being liberal has nothing to do with my concerns about forum member Anti Federalist.


_________________
Hey fishead, quote this so I can't edit it.

Donzel

Posts : 297
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  WHL on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:38 am

No, the forefathers of our country were anti federalists. They believed the power of gov. should be in the STATES not in the federal gov. I could be nasty like you and say why don't you educate yourself???
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6036
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  fshnski on Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:12 am

That's what I found too. The intent was to limit the powers of the feds and to allow the folks closest to where they live to be able to decide by themselves how they wish to live.

_________________
"If you like your health care plan … you can keep your health care plan! … Period!"

If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:16 am

Donzel wrote:
Anti Federalist wrote:

Wait...are you serious about what you wrote with regard to government surveillance?

Nahhhh, can't be.

Thanks for posting my other home link, I encourage everybody to read up on freedom there.

LOL - 20 posts a day is about what me and In Harm's Way used to average on the old Wolfeboro Online forum.
You and other Anti Americans are the biggest domestic threat that exist today.  The original Anti Federalist would be very disappointed to see what you and other Anti Americans are doing.

al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have probably infiltrated your group to destroy what this nation stands for.

Stop trolling this NH forum and take you hate messages somewhere else.
LOL - Successful troll is successful.

I suppose I'll be reported now.

Yup, smells like freedom to me. Rolling Eyes 
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:24 am

WHL wrote:Cut it out, Donzel.  He is not a troll.  Just because he is not a liberal like you, you don't like him.  He is right you know.  You break laws every day and any time they decided they want to come after you watch out.  I have been on jury duty lots of times and  I have seen how it works once someone is accused of something.  I always said, I hope I never get arrested.  Anti if not anti government, he just doesn't like the way THIS government it run right now.  It is not the way our forefathers wanted itl
If, whoever this is, is for real, he is the furthest thing from a "liberal".

He is a statist, authoritarian, tool.

He is, in fact, one of the millions of people who think just like the people who greased the wheels of some of the worst atrocities and genocides of the 20th century.

In short, people like this, (and Godwin's law be damned):


Contrary to popular belief, the Gestapo was not the all-pervasive, omnipotent agency in German society.[32] In Germany proper, many towns and cities had fewer than 50 official Gestapo personnel. For example, in 1939 Stettin and Frankfurt am Main only had a total of 41 Gestapo men combined.[32] In Düsseldorf, the local Gestapo office of only 281 men were responsible for the entire Lower Rhine region, which comprised 4 million people.[33] "V-men", as undercover Gestapo agents were known, were used to infiltrate Social Democratic and Communist opposition groups, but this was more the exception, not the rule.[34] The Gestapo office in Saarbrücken had 50 full-term informers in 1939.[34] The District Office in Nuremberg, which had the responsibility for all of northern Bavaria, employed a total of 80–100 full-term informers between 1943 and 1945.[34] The vast majority of Gestapo informers were not full-term informers working undercover, but were rather ordinary citizens who for whatever reason chose to denounce those they knew to the Gestapo.[35]

According to Canadian historian Robert Gellately's analysis of the local offices established, the Gestapo was—for the most part—made up of bureaucrats and clerical workers who depended upon denunciations by citizens for their information.[36] Gellately argued that it was because of the widespread willingness of Germans to inform on each other to the Gestapo that Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a prime example of panopticism.[37] Indeed, the Gestapo—at times—was overwhelmed with denunciations and most of its time was spent sorting out the credible from the less credible denunciations.[38] Many of the local offices were understaffed and overworked, struggling with the paper load caused by so many denunciations.[39] Gellately has also suggested that the Gestapo was "a reactive organization" "...which was constructed within German society and whose functioning was structurally dependent on the continuing co-operation of German citizens".[40]

After 1939, when many Gestapo personnel were called up for war-related work such as service with the Einsatzgruppen, the level of overwork and understaffing at the local offices increased.[39] For information about what was happening in German society, the Gestapo continued to be mostly dependent upon denunciations.[41] 80% of all Gestapo investigations were started in response to information provided by denunciations by ordinary Germans; while 10% were started in response to information provided by other branches of the German government and another 10% started in response to information that the Gestapo itself unearthed.[38]
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:48 am

Donzel wrote:Being liberal has nothing to do with my concerns about forum member Anti Federalist.
Concerned?

Why should you be concerned about me?

I want nothing from you, I want to do nothing to you, I have no desire to run your life or put you under surveillance.

I don't want your taxes, your children, your home, your life or to dictate to you, everything down to how many gallons of water you can have in your toilet.

I want nothing more than to be left in peace, privacy and liberty, to live my life and raise my family as I see fit.

If there is anybody here who we should be "concerned" about, if there is a monster in this room, it is you.
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  fshnski on Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:06 am

"I want nothing more than to be left in peace, privacy and liberty, to live my life and raise my family as I see fit."

There would be places like that in America if we were truly free.

_________________
"If you like your health care plan … you can keep your health care plan! … Period!"

If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  fshnski on Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:09 am

By the way, I think anti's a nut too. But I try to see where he is coming from. I wish he would give us the condensed version though.

_________________
"If you like your health care plan … you can keep your health care plan! … Period!"

If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:49 pm

fshnski wrote:By the way, I think anti's a nut too. But I try to see where he is coming from. I wish he would give us the condensed version though.  
Ask a few specific questions, that you think will illuminate where I am coming from in the best way, and I'll be happy to answer them, in the most "un-nutty" way I can.

Or, in short, why you think I'm a nut for wanting nothing more than peace, liberty and prosperity.


Last edited by Anti Federalist on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  fshnski on Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:15 pm

Thanks, Anti. I will. I've already learned a lot.

_________________
"If you like your health care plan … you can keep your health care plan! … Period!"

If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  News Buzzard on Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:03 pm

Donzel wrote:They can suspect and put surveillance on me all they want.  I have nothing hide and will give them all the information they ask for.
There are some real nut cases in this country and I appreciate the fact that our government is trying to make it safer for all of us.

If you abide by the law of the land, then you have nothing to fear.
I agree! The key mission here is to embarrass Obama at every turn, and the new avenue is the surveillance program.

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  fshnski on Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:13 pm

He's doing a good job all by himself.

_________________
"If you like your health care plan … you can keep your health care plan! … Period!"

If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
avatar
fshnski

Posts : 4223
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2013-02-04
Location : Woofbura

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Donzel on Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:21 pm

News Buzzard wrote:
Donzel wrote:They can suspect and put surveillance on me all they want.  I have nothing hide and will give them all the information they ask for.
There are some real nut cases in this country and I appreciate the fact that our government is trying to make it safer for all of us.

If you abide by the law of the land, then you have nothing to fear.
I agree! The key mission here is to embarrass Obama at every turn, and the new avenue is the surveillance program.
There isn't a thing that President Obama can do that will make the right wing happy...absolutely nothing.

I have never had a problem with any local, state or federal law enforcement people.  I have never had any problems with my privacy being violated by any of them either.
I pay my fair share of taxes, pay my bills on time, respect my neighbors privacy, try not to violate any road laws, etc, etc, etc.

I sleep good at night knowing that I'll be protected if my privacy is violated by anyone.  I don't dwell on what other people do or what is done against them.

What more does anyone want from this country.

_________________
Hey fishead, quote this so I can't edit it.

Donzel

Posts : 297
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:23 pm

News Buzzard wrote:
I agree! The key mission here is to embarrass Obama at every turn, and the new avenue is the surveillance program.
You were OK with Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft doing the exact same thing then?

Like I asked donzel, you do realize that in a supposedly free country, government does not have the right to do that.
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:31 pm

Donzel wrote:There isn't a thing that President Obama can do that will make the right wing happy...absolutely nothing.
Obama is following the exact same policies WRT to the warfare/surveillance state that Bush was.

In fact, NDAA was expanded under Obama.

I have never had a problem with any local, state or federal law enforcement people.
Yet.

I have never had any problems with my privacy being violated by any of them either.
You don't know that, Mundane.

I pay my fair share of taxes, pay my bills on time, respect my neighbors privacy, try not to violate any road laws, etc, etc, etc.
Irrelevant.

You are breaking a law somewhere, I'll bet hard money on it.

I sleep good at night knowing that I'll be protected if my privacy is violated by anyone.
So when did I agree to sacrifice my liberty so as not to disturb your beauty sleep?

I don't dwell on what other people do or what is done against them.
Injustice is injustice.

You should care, because after a while, it will be you.

What more does anyone want from this country.
From the FedCoats?

Honor the Bill of Rights for starters.

We'll go from there.
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Anti Federalist on Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:33 pm

fshnski wrote:Thanks, Anti. I will. I've already learned a lot.
Welcome.

I meant that in the most "un" snarky way.

Seriously, let me lay out where I am on things for you, when you feel like reading.
avatar
Anti Federalist

Posts : 1385
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court asked to rule on fate of indefinite detention for Americans under NDAA

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum