Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Krugman: 'Mr. Obama is looking like a very consequential president indeed' [View all]Scuba
(53,475 posts)81. Me either, but he did go to the trouble of making sure he could if he likes ...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/
And then fight to retain that power ...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16026-ndaa-indefinite-detention-without-trial-approved-by-appeals-court
Dec 31, 2011 3:14pm
With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens
In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.
With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens
In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.
And then fight to retain that power ...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16026-ndaa-indefinite-detention-without-trial-approved-by-appeals-court
Friday, 19 July 2013 09:00
NDAA Indefinite Detention Without Trial Approved by Appeals Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 in a July 17 ruling that is a blow to civil liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution. The appellate court ruled:
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek preenforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the Presidents authority to detain American citizens.
The Section 1021 of the NDAA allows detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities for a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. The court is technically correct in stating that the law does not specifically mention U.S. citizens when it uses the term person, but like the vaguely worded supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces, it appears to be all-encompassing and subject solely to the president's discretionary whims.
The threat that the U.S. government would detain indefinitely or even kill an American citizen without formal charges or judicial proceeding is hardly theoretical. The appellate court that struck down the injunction acknowledged that fact:
Presidents Bush and Obama have asserted the right to place certain individuals in military detention, without trial, in furtherance of their authorized use of force. That is, whom did Congress authorize the President to detain when it passed the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force]? On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Section 1021 of that statute, which fits on a single page, is Congress first and, to date, only foray into providing further clarity on that question. Of particular importance for our purposes, Section 1021(b)(2) appears to permit the President to detain anyone who was part of, or has substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.
NDAA Indefinite Detention Without Trial Approved by Appeals Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 in a July 17 ruling that is a blow to civil liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution. The appellate court ruled:
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek preenforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the Presidents authority to detain American citizens.
The Section 1021 of the NDAA allows detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities for a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. The court is technically correct in stating that the law does not specifically mention U.S. citizens when it uses the term person, but like the vaguely worded supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces, it appears to be all-encompassing and subject solely to the president's discretionary whims.
The threat that the U.S. government would detain indefinitely or even kill an American citizen without formal charges or judicial proceeding is hardly theoretical. The appellate court that struck down the injunction acknowledged that fact:
Presidents Bush and Obama have asserted the right to place certain individuals in military detention, without trial, in furtherance of their authorized use of force. That is, whom did Congress authorize the President to detain when it passed the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force]? On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Section 1021 of that statute, which fits on a single page, is Congress first and, to date, only foray into providing further clarity on that question. Of particular importance for our purposes, Section 1021(b)(2) appears to permit the President to detain anyone who was part of, or has substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Krugman: 'Mr. Obama is looking like a very consequential president indeed' [View all]
Newsjock
Jun 2014
OP
I did read the article, and I commented on what he mentioned specifically.
woo me with science
Jun 2014
#8
Sorry Jeff, but the criticisms are valid, and it's important that they be aired. Yes, Obama has ...
Scuba
Jun 2014
#44
Well, I don't think people will get excited about step 2 if they feel they were silenced at step 1.
Scuba
Jun 2014
#84
" It's going to take a bit to rebuild what the DLC destroyed." The DLC is still with us but w/o the
rhett o rick
Jun 2014
#96
Why court preventable doom with bad policies?....We're replaying the screw ups of the 90's
Armstead
Jun 2014
#74
I prefer that you'd be right....however, I've seen too mant replays of the same mistakes
Armstead
Jun 2014
#86
We tried to fix Death Panels by voting for a presidential candidate who PROMISED a public
Doctor_J
Jun 2014
#57
Actually LBJ enacted Medicare, Medicaid, VRA, CRA, and the war on poverty in 3 years
Doctor_J
Jun 2014
#64
Again, talking about me rather than the policies. Focusing on "praising Obama," rather than
woo me with science
Jun 2014
#37
No, I didn't say how awful Krugman is. I refuted the points he made with Obama's actual policies.
woo me with science
Jun 2014
#39
We are witnessing nascent fascism, sustained assault on the very foundations of our Constitution.
woo me with science
Jun 2014
#42
Please post your links showing that Americans support the items on that list.
woo me with science
Jun 2014
#11
Not everyone can run for office, and such action should not be necessary to have a voice.
Scuba
Jun 2014
#87
And their is an acknowledgement in the article that not everything has been rosy and perfect
rpannier
Jun 2014
#34
Even if I agreed with your list, what is the alternative, in your mind, on election day
randys1
Jun 2014
#51
No, those who claim that the last 6 years have been some sort of sea change in favor of the working
Doctor_J
Jun 2014
#59
All of those issues are complex and have legitimate reasons for both parties supporting them.
DCBob
Jun 2014
#88
Nailed it: being influenced, often without realizing it, by the prevailing media narrative
freshwest
Jun 2014
#12
All the bad press is the result of having a record and no honeymoon for second termers.
craigmatic
Jun 2014
#16
Well, Krugman has probably been talking to so-called "activist" liberals. You know,
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2014
#18
Wow. I may be mistaken, but I thought Krugman was already firmly UNDER the bus.
cui bono
Jun 2014
#22
I'd like to believe Krugman. He's a smart guy and usually knows what he's talking about.
nomorenomore08
Jun 2014
#33
Sort of. He was against the ACA when Gingrinch tried to get it passed, and when it was
Doctor_J
Jun 2014
#99
I agree. After a surpisingly weak first term, Obama has definitely improved in his second term.
Vattel
Jun 2014
#56
he is pointing right at the ideologues who cannot compromise on their dogma
VanillaRhapsody
Jun 2014
#79
"...if these achievements were made without Republican support, so what?"
Spitfire of ATJ
Jun 2014
#111