He signed it. We’ll fight it. {ACLU}

[xchrom]

https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?emsrc=Nat_Appeal_AutologinEnabled&s_subsrc=120103_NDAA_GOL&pagename=120103_NDAAGOLAsk&emissue=indefinite_detention&emtype=pledge&JServSessionIdr004=t99wh29qd6.app225a

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.

The dangerous new law can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. He signed it. Now, we have to fight it wherever we can and for as long as it takes.

Sign the ACLU's pledge to fight worldwide indefinite detention for as long as it takes.


'I’m outraged that the statute President Obama signed into law authorizes worldwide military detention without charge or trial. I pledge to stand with the ACLU in seeking the reversal of indefinite military detention authority for as long as it takes.

And I will support the ACLU as it actively opposes this new law in court, in Congress, and internationally.

Signed,
[your name]'



*** well, the ACLU seems to think there is a problem here.

[TheWraith]

1. The same ACLU who applauded the Citizens United decision as a big win for free speech.

So, you might want to not take their opinion without salt.

[bvar22]

2. Yeah! The ACLU are the Bad Guys!

<downtwinkles>

<Eye roll>

[Cali_Democrat]

3. The ACLU, Greenwald, Taibbi, Olbermann....they're all eeeeevill!!!!111!!!

I feel like I'm on Free Republic.

[frazzled]

8. No, you're on confused Libertarian Underground.

It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that people who think they are progressive or liberal are in fact operating under the rules of Libertarianism, which is very far from the core values of American liberalism.

[EFerrari]

15. Because only LIBERTARIANS care about social justice, right?

lol

[Fearless]

93. +1

[Wind Dancer]

45. Ditto!

I barely recognize the place anymore.

[RiffRandell]

12. Yeah! And if I vote for Obama in a state he has no chance of winning

I'm wasting my vote!

<downtwinkles>

As a liberal, I find that "logic" disgusting.

[myrna minx]

6. Today's enemy is the ACLU? n/t

[Dewey Finn]

18. Someone disagreeing with their position on something

is making them an "enemy"?

Could you explain how that works? Thanks.

[EFerrari]

20. It works upthread where they are smeared by association

with Citizen's United. Hope that helps you.

[Dewey Finn]

26. No, it doesn't help anything.

I agree with the ACLU on this issue, but what I saw upthread was an example cited where the ACLU was spectacularly wrong, IMHO. How does someone advising someone else to take the organization's positions with a grain of salt equate to making an "enemy" of the organization? Short answer: it doesn't. It's message board hyperbole. It's typical of the way people "discuss" things here. And I hope perhaps that helps you.

[AtomicKitten]

41. No quarter is given for a difference of opinion.

For all the accusations of walking in lockstep with this administration, lockstep is exactly what is expected when it comes to certain entities (pundits, organizations, etc.) proffering opinion around here. I generally agree with the ACLU but not always; for instance they acted in Rush Limbaugh's defense http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/aclu-stands-rush-limbaugh on drug charges. The incessant drive to maintain a division here on this basis is hyperbole alright, ridiculous childish hyperbole.

[a2liberal]

70. You thought it was ok

the way his medical records were seized without the normal (contestable) subpoena process? Would you be ok with it if it was a Democratic host or politician? Or just because he's Rush Limbaugh he doesn't deserve privacy rights? Keep in mind that the ACLU is not a part of the Democratic Party...

[AtomicKitten]

74. A search warrant WAS obtained to seize his records.

From the ACLU's website: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/seizure-rush-limbaughs-medical-records-violates-floridas-constitutional-right

// "On November 25, state law enforcement officials seized Limbaugh's medical records as part of a criminal investigation to determine whether Limbaugh illegally obtained prescriptions for pain medication from several doctors. Although officers obtained a search warrant to seize Limbaugh's medical records, the ACLU argues that a warrant fails to meet constitutional and statutory requirements necessary to preserve the right of privacy." //

At best, the ACLU's case on privacy was debatable, particularly since the crime being investigated was "doctor shopping" to obtain prescription medicines (OxyContin, etc.). And, yes, I do understand the ACLU's purview.

[a2liberal]

97. Ok but

First off, I disagree with you (strongly) on the privacy issue. That ACLU link explains it well so I won't rehash it since you seem to be familiar with their position.

Regardless, your previous post seemed to have a problem with the fact that they were defending Limbaugh, and not the particulars of the case. Do I understand correctly that you would have the same opinion if it was someone whom you supported politically that was under investigation?

[arely staircase]

83. Seems no room for nuance with some, or complex views

i support president obama very strongly in this election, disagree with him strongly on this position. i have been a long-time member of the ACLU and i hope they succeed in this lawsuit, though i disagreed with them strongly on citizens united, and yet i think they were right on the rush limbaugh business.

[EFerrari]

63. Wrong. I showed you clearly exactly what you asked for.

If you don't accept it, that's your problem.

[Dewey Finn]

65. I don't accept it

because you did nothing of the sort.

[EFerrari]

19. Today's show is brought to you by the letters A, C, L and U.

[Dewey Finn]

29. And here you're just reinforcing

what I mentioned in reply #26. What are you "helping" here?

[EFerrari]

64. And here you are missing the humor of my post

and attributing your own projections to it?

Lmao

[Dewey Finn]

67. So "humor"

is your description for passive-aggressive slagging of your fellow posters? That's informative.

[FarLeftFist]

16. Heck, I think Obama will even tout this as a way for a repeal of some of it.

They probably won't have to twist his arm too hard, especially after his signing statement. Maybe he'll even take on the case.

[treestar]

79. You know what we'll get then?

Outrage that his DOJ argues for the law in that case.

Which would of course be necessary in order to make a ruling on the case.

But most of the far left thinks that the problem is solved by the government not arguing the case and dismissing it. Then the issue never gets decided. Somehow they prefer that to anyone taking the other side for argument purposes.

[rhett o rick]

94. So you are against the "far left" and support indefinite detention?

Why do you disparage the "far left" so much. They want the Constitution upheld. Is that so wrong? What do you want?

[treestar]

103. For the case to wind its way through the courts

And be decided based on the points in legal brief. And of course that when that is done, the far left will call the government's argument for the statute a travesty and they have done before. The far left is not for the rule of law - but for the rule of the far left. If the far left thinks it is indefinite detention, the courts have no right to decide that! And only one side should get a say in the matter!

I have to say your characterization is not only a straw man, it's done in bad faith.

[rhett o rick]

104. "The far left is not for the rule of law - but for the rule of the far left. " Where do you come up

with this? Why are you intent to disparage the left? Wouldnt you agree that Democrats need to stick together?

I will agree that I for one will scream loudly if the courts rule against the freedoms I believe are afforded by our Constitution.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

35. If you have a problem with the ACLU

Then you have a problem being a Democrat, in the grandest tradition of the word.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. You've been wrong before.

So, by the same standard, we should consider all your subsequent posts worthless.

[Logical]

75. Are you clueless why they supported it? Read more. React less.

[frazzled]

4. Well, they'll have to find a case of such detention occurring in order to challenge it

And then they'll have to have someone with standing to defend.

I doubt they're ever going to find that under this administration.

[Marrah_G]

9. The problem is that we just may never know who is being held or not

This sort of thing is just as terrible now as it was under Bush/Cheney.

[sad sally]

106. All in the name of American freedom and democracy

CBS News) Updated 11/15/11

KABUL, Afghanistan - The former prisoner of the American military in his native Afghanistan entered the office leaning on a crutch. He said he had trouble walking after spending a year confined to a 35-square-foot jail cell at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, about an hour's drive north of the capital, Kabul.

He agreed to speak with us only if we kept his identity hidden. We agreed to call him just "Mohammed."

"Our cells were like cages," Mohammed spoke in Dari through a translator. "We couldn't see anything outside."

The cage-like cells for some Bagram detainees were part of a $60 million renovation in 2009. Mohammed, who was detained that June, believes disgruntled neighbors tipped U.S. troops about him following a land dispute. His family did not learn for six months why he had disappeared.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57323856/bagram-the-other-guantanamo/?du
####

$60 million renovation to build more cages for uncharged detainees. How many?

Today, there are more than 3,000 detainees at Bagram, or five times the number (around 600) when President Barack Obama took office in January 2009. There are currently 18 times as many detainees at Bagram than at the U.S. military prison at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, naval base, whose prisoner population has dwindled from a peak of 780 to 170.

[jaxx]

5. LOL sign the pledge.

Those repubs love pledges. I wonder why.

[DevonRex]

7. They say nothing about congress passing it tho. Nt

[99Forever]

11. Which single member of Congress..

.. was in the position to actually have singlehandedly stopped this assault on our Constitutional Rights from becoming the law of the land?


Please get back to me with that information as soon a s possible.

[EFerrari]

21. They ran a whole campaign for people to contact Congress

before it was passed.

[DevonRex]

23. Good to know. Nt

[ProSense]

28. Yes

"They ran a whole campaign for people to contact Congress"

...they did, but most people were focused on the veto.

<...>

But should it really come to that? Congress itself should come to its senses and ditch the indefinite detention provisions. And just as importantly, Congress should listen to you and every other American on what we all as Americans want for our country. Secret deals for indefinite military detention without charge or trial? Tell Congress we are better than that. It's not who we are as Americans, and it is not the country or the world we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/behind-closed-doors-congress-trying-force-indefinite-detention-bill-americans

[suffragette]

32. Some of our Congress members listened

Jim McDermott did and I appreciate that and I continue to appreciate and support him:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/12/20/mcdermott-on-ndaa-were-stuck-with-it

This business of giving the president the right to detain people indefinitely without review erodes what we as Americans say we are.

So I’m very concerned that we do it, and we don’t even recognize we’re doing it. That’s the thing that’s the problem for me. People just sort of don’t notice that this is happening because it isn’t happening to them. Yet, we have had already a number of people where it’s pretty clear they were picked up and abused by the system and taken away under renditions, they’ve been taken to other countries and tortured and all of this has happened. So when I see a piece of legislation like this, I look at it very carefully. And my view was that this was a bad piece of legislation.

You voted against this act, but there wasn't anyone else in the Washington State delegation who voted "No" along with you. What do you make of that?

Well, you know, we’re all elected and we do what we think is best for the people that we represent. I can’t speak for anybody else. But it’s hard for me to understand how people would not see this. I do know that Congressman Adam Smith worked very hard to try and change this. In fact, he and I had a conversation about this and he was trying to convince me that it was not something I should worry about because it didn’t do what people said it did. Well, I remain unconvinced, and I think there’s an awful lot of people like me, very substantive people who have looked very carefully at this, and that proves to me that in fact it does do some things, but other things it’s unclear.

[bvar22]

84. Yes. When President Obama promised to VETO the bill,

that took a lot of wind out of the sails for the movement to pressure Congress.

Pretty clever, Eh?




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[rhett o rick]

96. Pres Obama signed it instead of sending it back. Now some hope that Congress will fix it.

LOL. Congress strongly approved the piece of shit. And now the president signed it. One more step toward fascism.

[arely staircase]

85. yes, they certainly did. nt

[gratuitous]

10. Oh, what does the ACLU know, anyway?

The brilliant legal minds have already turned in their analysis, and indefinite military detention is now not only okey, but dokey. So there! As Britney Spears so eloquently put it back in March 2002 that we just need to trust the president, and see how well that worked out?

[EFerrari]

13. What would those libertarian repub Congress lovers know, anyway?

Lmao. How dare they protect our civil liberties just to embarrass the president?

[ProSense]

14. They

"And I will support the ACLU as it actively opposes this new law in court, in Congress, and internationally. "

...should push Congress to pass a fix. I do note that they are refraining from the claim that it authorizes indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Their language is guarded:

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.

The dangerous new law can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. He signed it. Now, we have to fight it wherever we can and for as long as it takes.

This is the same language they used to describe the existing law.

[Luminous Animal]

27. You are right. The U.S. is not part of the world.

[ProSense]

31. My bad

"You are right. The U.S. is not part of the world."

I though my words would be understood to mean not specific to U.S. citizens, U.S. soil and similar to the ACLU's description of the existing law

I do note that they are refraining from the claim that it authorizes indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Their language is guarded:

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.

The dangerous new law can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. He signed it. Now, we have to fight it wherever we can and for as long as it takes.

This is the same language they used to describe the existing law.

Now, U.S. citizens are people too and the U.S. is "far from any battlefield" so the ACLU's statement could be interpreted to allow that action.

Still, there are those who don't agree that the existing law, which NDAA doesn't change per Feinstein's clause, authorizes such action.

Sorry for the confusion.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Section 1021 obtains its scope from the 2001 AUMF.

The US is a 'battlefield'.

[Logical]

76. Wow, you never disappoint.

[treestar]

80. It doesn't contain a sweeping new anything

They hyperbole used to describe this statute is epic.

[rhett o rick]

95. Whose side do you align with on this issue? The "far left" supports the

Constitution. How about you?

[treestar]

102. I support the Constitution

Everyone does, don't they?

What a vague rejoinder. Instead of meeting the issue (that there is no major violation of the Constitution here, or, that is there is, there is still a separation of powers and the courts can hear the case on legal grounds rather than hyped up hysteria) we end up with the accusation that I supposedly don't "support the Constitution" merely for not agreeing with you on an arcane legal point.

Because believe me, nobody understands what they are talking about here, not even those with law degrees.

Read a few thick dull books on military procedures, criminal procedures, national security law and statutory construction and then get back to us.

[rhett o rick]

105. Do you believe the president should be able to arrest and detain Amerian

citizens without due process? Even if the courts rule in favor of that?

[treestar]

107. Do you think the courts would rule in favor of that?

No one should be arrested and detained without due process. The courts would not uphold that.

[rhett o rick]

108. The years it takes to get thru the courts are very damaging to the individual

that is counting on the courts to help them. Padilla went insane. Hamdi probably isnt much better off. And in both those cases the courts failed, in my opinion, to make it clear that the president doesnt have the authority to arrest and detain indefinitely. In Hamdi the court said it's ok to arrest and detain, if you can get an "impartial judge" to ok it. Who gets to choose the "impartial judge" and what court if any does the judge reside?

We need legislation to clarify this before another "test" case.

[Spazito]

17. I hope the ACLU DOES take the specific Section of the bill all the way to...

the USSC on it's constitutionality. Congress passed it, congress is answerable for it.

[EFerrari]

22. And now that Obama signed it despite his promise to veto, so is he. nt

[Spazito]

30. No, he is not...

Could he have vetoed it, yes, would the veto have been overturned, yes, ergo, veto or not, Congress is responsible.

The vote from the House on the bill was 283 - 136, more than 2/3rd voted for it.

The vote from the Senate on the bill was 93 - 7, more than 2/3rds voted for it.

To override a veto takes 2/3rds in each of the House and the Senate.

In the House, there were 15 either not present or did not vote. The break down for them is as follows:

8 Republicans

6 Democrats

A veto would have accomplished nothing in substance given the veto would have been overturned as one can see by the numbers.

The President made it clear his concerns about the section of the bill, Congress ignored those concerns in overwhelming numbers.

[theaocp]

36. Yes, he is responsible.

A veto would have had to be overridden in Congress, as you so eloquently stated. He should have stood up to them and vetoed it anyway. Instead, he's complicit and history has taken note. You can't spin this.

[Spazito]

37. So it is not the substance of the bill that is the issue...

it is the necessity to see the President in what would be, to both Repubs and some progressives, as a pretty photo-op, changing nothing at all.

The veto WOULD have been overridden, the numbers showing that are in my original post.

Congress is responsible for this and should be held accountable for it by anyone who is in opposition to the the Bill in any way.

[truebrit71]

40. Obama should still have vetoed the bill....like he said he would...

...two reasons, 1) Just for once it would be nice for the Caver-In-Chief to actually act like he has a goddamned spine and 2) He will most likely be running against the flip-flopping-est of all flip-floppers in Mittens, but it is exceedingly hard to accuse someone else of being a flip-flopper when you are in mid-back-tail-flip with a twist yourself....

Just like Harry Reid is seen as an abject and total failure for failing to make the rethuglicans ACTUALLY filibuster everytime they say they would, so Obama looks equally weak by saying he will, and then acquiescing when the time actually came to pull out the VETO stamp...

[Spazito]

42. Again, nothing but a 'pretty photo-op' which would change nothing...

it would not have removed the section/s of the bill most find offensive. I have little doubt were there to have been such an empty photo-op, it would have been followed by comments similar to when the President used the "bully pulpit" many demanded, dismissive comments like 'pretty speech' or 'yawn' and those are the comments coming from some progressives.

"Caver-In-Chief" indicates to me that regardless of what President Obama did, does or will do, your opinion of him will not change, veto or no veto.

Edited to add a missing 'to'.

[truebrit71]

43. I think you are wrong. If he had used his bully pulpit to stand up for civil liberties, knowing...

...that it would still most likely be over-ridden he would have been lauded for sticking to his principles and standing up for what some of us on the left still hold dear, the Constitution...

My opinion of him is flexible and changes based upon his actions. I've heard enough speeches, now I need to see some action...

[Spazito]

50. He did and does use the bully pulpit to stand up for civil liberties...

which, in turn, gets dismissed or mocked by far too many progressives, imo.

You can find his view of civil liberties in many of his speeches whether they be about minimum wage and overtime protections for In-Home Care Workers or whether he is speaking at the at the 2011 Tribal Nations Conference or in a Presidential Proclamation declaring September 17 as Constitution Day, Citizenship Day, Constitution Week.

He has spoken often about his belief in the Constitution, here is one example:

"Each year, thousands of candidates for citizenship commemorate Constitution Day and Citizenship Day by becoming new American citizens. These individuals breathe life into our Constitution by learning about its significance and the rights it enshrines, and then by taking a solemn oath to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America." In so doing, they voluntarily accept that citizenship is not merely a collection of rights, but also a set of responsibilities. Just as our Founders sought to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" for themselves and their posterity, these new Americans have come to our shores to embrace and impart the fundamental beliefs that define us as a Nation.

In the United States, our Constitution is not simply words written on aging parchment, but a foundation of government, a protector of liberties, and a guarantee that we are all free to shape our own destiny. As we celebrate this document's profound impact on our everyday lives, may all Americans strive to uphold its vision of freedom and justice for all."

[a2liberal]

71. So you're saying that a veto is pointless

if it seems like it might be overridden? Why has it been done in the past then? Hint: making a statement MATTERS. It might even change some congresscritters' minds. Remember the robo-signer legalization bill that the President vetoed? That was passed unanimously. The veto was not overridden.

[Spazito]

86. You just have to look at the numbers...

This bill was controversial long before the final vote, it is not that it suddenly came up and the Congress members didn't know what was in it, the key sections anyway.

President Obama made very clear his concerns yet in the Senate alone it passed 93 - 7. In order for the Senate to be unable to get the 2/3rds, the vote change would have to be reduced by 30 votes. Not going to happen.

In the House, the majority is definitely in the hands of the repubs, there would be little to no shift there.

Heads are counted multiple times during contentious bills, the White House knew full well any veto would be overturned.

If he had vetoed it it would merely be put forward as an election ploy, a photo-op for President Obama because NOTHING would change, the bill would be passed again WITHOUT any signing statement trying to mitigate the worst section.

If a bill is vetoed and then overridden, it does not go back to the President's desk for signing again.

If this Congress had been functioning in any decent capacity, the likelihood of a President's veto being overridden is much less. This Congress, as we all know and watched during the last two years, is NOT functioning in a way that one could trust common sense and sanity might prevail.

Keep in mind as well, the bill was made up of over 5000 sections, the most contentious issue is within a subsection of a section.

[plantwomyn]

98. Obama's threat - NOT promise- to veto had nothing to do with civil liberties.

There is documented proof of this FACT. Not only did Obama submit a letter to the Senate after the House bill passed, so did many of the leaders of other Executive departments like the CIA, FBI. DOJ, DOD, and the DHS.
So go read the letter. Then you may be able to recognize that they changed the bill just enough to make it pretty clear that the bill does NOT reduce or inhibit the EXISTING authority of the POTUS to do as he wishes under the AUMF.
The Administration actually doesn't like the idea that they codified authorities that the POTUS already claims to have because THEN groups like the ACLU NOW have the ability to point to words on a page that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[Xicano]

57. LOL.. I'd love to see a judge's reaction when someone says in court....

....yes that's my signature, but, I'm not responsible.

Here, lets have some fun with this using some WWII history.

Nuremberg Germany:


Prosecutor: "So commander is this your signature on these documents ordering the killing of these people in your camp?

Defendant: "Yes, but I'm not responsible for their killings because even if I didn't sign the order to kill these people, they would of been killed anyway"

Prosecutor: "But this is your signature authorizing the killing of these people, correct?"

Defendant: "It doesn't matter because....."

Prosecutor: "Objection, non responsive"

Judge: "Sustained. Answer the question commander"

Prosecutor: "Yes or no commander. This is your signature authorizing the killing of these people, correct?"

Defendant: "Yes"

Prosecutor: "Thank you no further questions. You may step down"

[Spazito]

61. wow, using nazi prosecutions as your example...

You really might want to brush up on how the THREE branches of government work in the United States, their powers AND limitations, they are not call "co-equal branches' for nothing.

[Xicano]

69. Go ahead and go to court and say your signature on a document doesn't make you responsible for....

its outcome. See what happens. n/t

[Spazito]

73. Here is how the U.S. system works....

A case very, very closely resembling what is being discussed here, decided by the USSC

It is Hamdi V. Rumsfeld

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html


"After Congress passed a resolution–the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)–empowering the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” that he determines “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” in the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks, the President ordered the Armed Forces to Afghanistan to subdue al Qaeda and quell the supporting Taliban regime. Petitioner Hamdi, an American citizen whom the Government has classified as an “enemy combatant” for allegedly taking up arms with the Taliban during the conflict, was captured in Afghanistan and presently is detained at a naval brig in Charleston, S. C."

Note it is CONGRESS that is noted, not the President and his signature.

Edited to add additional link which has more detail for those interested:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-6696&friend

[proverbialwisdom]

90. Thanks! Bookmarking.

[EFerrari]

62. He signed it. That was him, his signature on the document.

You betchur @ss he owns now.

[Spazito]

66. Okay n/t

[newspeak]

101. so what if it has to go back to congress if he vetoed it

by vetoing the bill and publicly stating that in good conscience he could not sign it because of our american principles, the bill of rights, the constitution; he would have earned major points with the plebes.

The illegal wiretapping, creating homeland security (mega taxpayer bucks), the patriot act; were never needed. We had security BEFORE 9/11, we had FBI agents attempting to give heads up to those at the top, we had an august PDB report and warnings from other countries that there was something in the works. By not reacting to those warnings, now we have intel corporations making mega bucks in the government, we have traded our civil rights for security costing us billions. One huge fubar money making business--making money and controlling the plebes by using our fear.

Oh, and I was against the ACLU for the citizens ruling and told them so, but fully support them in this endeavor.

[treestar]

82. It was changed before he signed it.

[cthulu2016]

24. du rec nt.

[Solly Mack]

25. K&R

[suffragette]

33. K&R

[quinnox]

34. Thank god for the ACLU

I signed the pledge. Anyone who doesn't see the danger of a president having unchecked powers to throw Americans into jail forever without a right to a trial should go back and read the United States Constitution and ponder the example of fascist 1930s Germany.

[Dreamer Tatum]

38. The bus is emptying out...everyone's under it

except extreme apologists, that is.

[Uncle Joe]

44. Although I don't always agree with them, I'm most thankful for the ACLU.

They do tremendous and vital work.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

[Wind Dancer]

46. K&R

"*** well, the ACLU seems to think there is a problem here."

I happen to agree with them.

[Catherina]

47. Coming soon to DU3, an onslaught of SPAM posts about the bad, bad ACLU

DU rec

[SammyWinstonJack]

48. New #OWS chant.

ONE STRUGGLE ONE FIGHT....WE WILL NOT GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS!.


It's a good one.

The livestream I am watching from NYC is covering a march protesting the NDAA.

And a march on FOX letting Rupert Murdoch know that #OWS does not appreciate the fact that he sent out a tweet praising Obama for signing the NDAA saying it was a courageous thing to do.

So Murdoch thinks that the NDAA is a great thing? That's scary!

[proverbialwisdom]

87. Murdoch? Really? WTF.

[MineralMan]

49. Good. The ACLU can take it to the courts. K&R

They do that very well.

[killbotfactory]

51. It would be nice if they didn't ignore the role congress played in this. nt

[theaocp]

54. Congress could take a long walk off a short pier, if

their bullshit had been called by a fucking VETO. I guess we'll never know now.

[killbotfactory]

55. they had enough support for this bill to override a veto. nt

[theaocp]

56. So?

We'll never know what might have influenced their decisions now, will we? I think they would have been cowed and backed down. Obama took what they gave him and backed down from looking strong. Sad day for him. I'm sure Congress's 9% approval rating is going to take a nose-dive over this. The POTUS? He has much more to lose ... for all of us. What a clusterfuck.

[Better Believe It]

52. Now even the ACLU is immune from attacks on Democratic Underground! What's next?

Human Rights Watch?

[Robb]

53. You probably meant "not immune." But I applaud this move.

Not least of all because, of course, it conforms to a prediction of mine. The USSC court ruling I mention is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

[Better Believe It]

88. You're right. That's what I meant.

[killbotfactory]

58. No group is immune from being wrong at times. nt

[Better Believe It]

91. Good point! Of course the ACLU is wrong for defending the Constitution and our democratic rights!

That's just plain wrong and the ACLU should be sharply attacked for their defense of the Bill of Rights.

Thanks for your input.

[treestar]

81. Er, why should they be?

Wouldn't that be blind lockstep following?

[quinn-the-innuit]

59. Woot!

Best news I have heard all day!

[a2liberal]

68. K&R I stand with the ACLU (n/t)

[jannyk]

72. k&r

[BlueIris]

77. I still like the ACLU. nt

[treestar]

78. Fine, that is a good thing

The resulting decision will clear that area of the law.

[independentLiberal]

89. fight it!

fight the power!

[Historic NY]

92. On Detainee Law: A Word, but Not the Last, From Obama...............

"But the president nonetheless used the signing statement to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret Section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

This has everything to do with the language of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's 5-4 majority opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the 2004 Supreme Court decision which held that the due process clause of the Constitution prohibited the government from indefinitely detaining a U.S. citizen under military custody. The signing statement, like the language of Section 1021 itself, are designed to help shape the legacy of Hamdi the next time the matter comes before the justices. And there will be a next time.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/on-detainee-law-a-word-but-not-the-last-from-obama/250730/


Can we hand out some sedatives

[piratefish08]

99. the ACLU disagrees with the President?? Treason!

[_ed_]

100. Just donated to the ACLU again

VERY pleased that they've decided to fight this tyrannical law.

I can't believe I'm on a "liberal" website seeing people bash the ACLU in favor of a party politician. It makes me fucking sick, and reminds me of the worst kinds of Republican Bush worship during the 2000s.