Supreme Court Denies NDAA Lawsuit

[Light]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Denies NDAA Lawsuit | P.A.N.D.A. People Against The NDAA

 

[IndyDave1776]

I wish I could claim surprise that the Supreme Court would stand behind this travesty by implication buying into the notion that due process is served by claiming one does not have standing until actually disappeared, at which time he or she is unable to seek due process, or even have any evidence presented to his or her family that he/she is in custody/still alive/was not eaten by crocodiles or kidnapped by the drug cartel.

 

[Destro]

at which time he or she is unable to seek due process, or even have any evidence presented to his or her family that he/she is in custody/still alive/was not eaten by crocodiles or kidnapped by the drug cartel.

like who?

 

[poptab]

like who?

Maybe like this guy...
Maher Arar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Destro]

Maybe like this guy...
Maher Arar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does some foreigners immigration/deportation issues have to do with the 2012 NDAA?

 

[IndyDave1776]

like who?

According to the law, it could be done to anyone and the rest of us would have no way in the universe of knowing it happened. This would then lead you into a very weak position trying to argue that it isn't happening when you wouldn't know if it did happen. At most, if someone you know personally disappeared, you may suspect, but would not know this to be the cause--and factual answers would be absolutely unavailable.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I wish I could claim surprise that the Supreme Court would stand behind this travesty by implication buying into the notion that due process is served by claiming one does not have standing until actually disappeared, at which time he or she is unable to seek due process, or even have any evidence presented to his or her family that he/she is in custody/still alive/was not eaten by crocodiles or kidnapped by the drug cartel.

Remember you said this when I meet a tragic end or vanish

 

[ModernGunner]

Maybe like this guy...
Maher Arar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, it would appear at least some in Canada find the Maher Arar incident 'questionable', if not an outright fraud perpetrated against the Canadian government for the purpose of extolling $10.5 million.

Western Standard -- What really happened to Maher Arar?

Just pointing out that there's other, 180 degree contradictory versions to Arar's claim.

As for the NDAA being denied, it's unclear whether that's a good or bad thing. Terrorists of non-U.S. origin, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, and groups such as Al Qaeda have no protection under the U.S. Constitution, nor the 4th Geneva Convention. Nor should they, under any circumstances, receive the benefits of same.

As for the P.A.N.D.A. link, I did notice that, under a NDAA link there, only two partial lines were highlighted, then citing and interpreting these lines as some 'proof'.

Whether the partial-line citation was taken intentionally out of context, or through a lack of comprehension, is unknown. But as we all know, one can 'pick and choose' or 'slice and dice' almost anything published and bend it to fit a proscribed agenda.

Was that done on the P.A.N.D.A. site? Unknown for certain, but based on the included commentary, it appears so.

I'm not inclined to allow the current President, or his Administration, Attorney General, or minions any latitude to do anything. That said, it doesn't 'automatically' make the NDAA 'evil'.

 

[jamil]

Well, it would appear at least some in Canada find the Maher Arar incident 'questionable', if not an outright fraud perpetrated against the Canadian government for the purpose of extolling $10.5 million.

Western Standard -- What really happened to Maher Arar?

Just pointing out that there's other, 180 degree contradictory versions to Arar's claim.

As for the NDAA being denied, it's unclear whether that's a good or bad thing. Terrorists of non-U.S. origin, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, and groups such as Al Qaeda have no protection under the U.S. Constitution, nor the 4th Geneva Convention. Nor should they, under any circumstances, receive the benefits of same.

As for the P.A.N.D.A. link, I did notice that, under a NDAA link there, only two partial lines were highlighted, then citing and interpreting these lines as some 'proof'.

Whether the partial-line citation was taken intentionally out of context, or through a lack of comprehension, is unknown. But as we all know, one can 'pick and choose' or 'slice and dice' almost anything published and bend it to fit a proscribed agenda.

Was that done on the P.A.N.D.A. site? Unknown for certain, but based on the included commentary, it appears so.

I'm not inclined to allow the current President, or his Administration, Attorney General, or minions any latitude to do anything. That said, it doesn't 'automatically' make the NDAA 'evil'.

What latitude would you allow a Republican president?

What makes the NDAA 'evil' is that it allows indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial and without due process. You might think that's okay to deprive US citizens those constitutional rights if they are suspected of being terrorists. But who gets to say that they're actually guilty of being terrorists? They don't really need to. The accusation IS essentially conviction. Constitutionally, who is supposed to convict criminals in the US? A jury of the accused person's peers.

The indefinite detention in NDAA 2012 pertains to people suspected of helping Al Qaeda or Taliban. Originally the Authorization to Use Military Force Act of 2002 essentially did the same thing, but language was added to exclude US citizens from indefinite detention. The NDAA 2012 removes that language. What future act will extend NDAA to ALL "terrorists"? What future act will expand the definition of "terrorist" to apply indefinite detention of US citizens?

Give authoritarian regimes like this one a few more terms in office and it will erode public fondness of liberty to the point where it can legally call "bitter clingers" terrorists and indefinitely detain them.

I urge you to reconsider the evil of what the NDAA does. I'm just not willing to exchange the protections the constitution gives us FROM overreaching government, for a mere promise of protection BY an overreaching government.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The NDAA isn't the problem. It just legalized what the alpahbet agencies were already doing. Go ahead and get rid of the NDAA. The CIA and NSA et al will just have to go back to breaking the law again. Nothing will change.

The existence of these clandestine government agencies is the problem.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'm not inclined to allow the current President, or his Administration, Attorney General, or minions any latitude to do anything.

Does the President give you a courtesy call to ask your opinion before he makes a move? No wonder he looks frustrated if you keep telling him No.

 

[jamil]

The NDAA isn't the problem. It just legalized what the alpahbet agencies were already doing. Go ahead and get rid of the NDAA. The CIA and NSA et al will just have to go back to breaking the law again. Nothing will change.

The existence of these clandestine government agencies is the problem.

I have to agree that there's a lot of getting rid of that needs done. But it ain't gonna happen. The NDAA isn't the worse thing. Getting rid of it though is just a starting point. If we can't do that, we certainly can't do the rest.

Too many people think that indefinite detention is okay as long as it's not them. If the government tells us those people are extraspecial bad people, just take their word for it and let the G-men throw the extraspecial bad people in a pit forever.

It's probably just as well the SCOTUS refused to take up the case. They'd probably set a forever worse precedent.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Well, we'll never get rid of spies, because people are scared ****less of all the boogey men out theere. They feel a lot better that there are secret agencies doing secret things to keep them safe, regardless of the cost.

 

[poptab]

What does some foreigners immigration/deportation issues have to do with the 2012 NDAA?

The guy got kidnapped and exported to another country to be tortured for over a year. Yea some issue

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, we'll never get rid of spies, because people are scared ****less of all the boogey men out theere. They feel a lot better that there are secret agencies doing secret things to keep them safe, regardless of the cost.

Keeping tabs on foreign hostiles and alternately converting the US domestically into a surveillance society are two entirely different things which I do not believe should be co-mingled.

 

[Destro]

The guy got kidnapped and exported to another country to be tortured for over a year. Yea some issue

he was detained for immigration issues and returned to his country of citizenship. how about American Citizens?

 

[Destro]

we'll never get rid of spies

I hope not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

he was detained for immigration issues and returned to his country of citizenship. how about American Citizens?

You mean to tell us that you don't remember the Kenyan's little tantrum when some legislators wanted to eliminate the ambiguity by specifically exempting US citizens from the portion of the law authorizing disappearing people?

If he didn't intend to do this to citizens, why did he make an issue of it?

 

[ATOMonkey]

See, we've got two votes for clandestine government already.

When no one is keeping tabs on you and you have a "do whatever I want badge," what's to keep you from doing whatever you want?

You can't let a mad dog off its leash and then complain when he bites your family.

 

[Destro]

You mean to tell us that you don't remember the Kenyan's little tantrum when some legislators wanted to eliminate the ambiguity by specifically exempting US citizens from the portion of the law authorizing disappearing people?

If he didn't intend to do this to citizens, why did he make an issue of it?