Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

At http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2537.0.html I raised the question of whether Obama's failing to show at the presidential debate moderated by Larry King at Obama's own home turf of Chicago was prophetically significant. I had in mind the Red Alert # 170 I received from Herb Douglass (https://sites.google.com/a/eredalert.com/www/home/red-alert-s/redalert170ndaaoctober292012).

That alert raises the issue of Congress' approval last year of indefinite detention of American citizens even without charges (National Defense Authorization Act), and of an appellate courts' stay of a federal judge's ruling that the NDAA was unconstitutional. Note that Obama's administration wanted the ruling stayed.

An elder during a previous election told me that there wasn't much difference between the two candidates at the time, and he pointed out some reasons why. By the Democrats and Republicans shutting out other political parties to the point of snubbing presidential debates where the other candidates appear, are our choices on the more important issues being reduced to one? Is someone out there choosing the controversies we concentrate on, such as the economy, gay marriage, and abortion (and I think these are important issues), so that we miss noticing the radical changes occurring within our country? If both of the leading candidates favor a repudiation of the Bill of Rights, what choice are we really being given?

I did not watch any of the debates in their entirety, but I'm curious: Could someone tell me whether this question of indefinite detention without charges ever came up? If not, does anyone know where Romney stands on the issue? Does he oppose on constitutional grounds Obama's support of indefinite detention without charges?

At http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/10/court-extends-stop-on-order-blocking-indefinite-detention-137259.html it points out that the appeals court noted:

First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'

Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').

Besides the issue being what the law actually says, not how those who enforce the law say they plan on using it, what about U.S. citizens "captured or arrested" outside of the United States? Are their rights affected?

[Bob Pickle]

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/10/201210305164175485.html is a current story about a case that just got argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration is reportedly arguing that the litigants lack standing unless they can prove they have been victims of warrantless electronic surveilance. But proving standing is difficult since because everything is so super secret, the litigants aren't allowed to know whether they have been such victims or not.

Scary?