General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNDAA Section 1021 destroys the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution
"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) is an amendment to the United States Constitution and part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British Government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America.
Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
-Eliminating "general" warrants
-Requires warrants
-Judicial sanctioning
-Protection from unlimited scope for arrest
-Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure of person and personal property
-Via specific information
-Usually by an officer sworn by it.
BUT
DHS Watchdog: Intuition and Hunch Are Enough to Search Your Gadgets at Border
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/border-gadget-searches/
DHS can search and seize your personal electronics on a hunch anywhere along the US border and up to 100 miles inland.
AND
NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html
"The judged ruled that such a circumstance violated the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the Fifth Amendment right to due process that holds that a person must be able to understand what actions would break the law."
Obama has twice signed and once defended in court the NDAA section 1021 which provides for the indefinite detention of US citizens (and anyone in the world) with neither trial nor representation.
There goes the Fourth Amendment. Period.
Now note the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Through NDAA's section 1021 we also lose
-The right to a speedy and public trial
-An impartial jury
-Compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in our favor
-The assistance of counsel for our defence.
There goes the Sixth Amendment. Period.
The Fourteenth Amendment?
"Procedural due process is the guarantee of a fair legal process when the government seeks to burden[jargon] a person's protected interests in life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process is the guarantee that the fundamental rights of citizens will not be encroached on by government."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_Process_Clause
That part is gone as well.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Little wonder so many honors from Obama for the father George HW Bush.
They are birds of a feather. Actions speak louder than words.
k&r
pscot
(21,024 posts)was a major factor in my decision to vote for him. But Robert Bork was a constitutional scholar. So are Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1) Customs controls points of entry and egress in the United States. That body of law originates from the First Congress in 1789, prior to the passage of the Bill of Rights.
2) The 4th amendment warrants clause does not apply at borders. It never has. Nor does the standard "reasonable suspicion" apply to searches at the border. It never has.
Suggesting that the NDAA eliminates the 4th amendment, and then giving an example of DHS at the border, is sloppy legal reasoning.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Where the Fuck is the CHANGE we elected you for
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)wheel that are hardly distractions. And calling them that is extremely insulting.
More than one thing can be discussed/worked on/progressed at a time.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)then out the other side of his mouth said these things about Ray Kelly?
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) President Barack Obama says New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly would be well-qualified to run the Department of Homeland Security.
I think Ray Kelly is one of the best there is, so hes been an outstanding leader in New York, Obama said in an interview Tuesday with with New Yorks Univision affiliate.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/07/17/obama-says-ray-kelly-well-qualified-for-homeland-security-post/
However:
Occupy Wall Street ?@OccupyWallStNYC
Secret police recordings: "We're going to go out there and violate some rights." Disgusting.
#StopAndFrisk
http://ow.ly/ncTK0
CIA Agent Had "No Limitations" Working With NYPD After 9/11
http://gothamist.com/2013/06/27/cia_agent_had_no_limitations_workin.php
NYC 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Ruled Unconstitutional
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22375/nyc-stop-and-frisk-policy-ruled-unconstitutional-conservatives-immediately-start-whining
Racial Profiling Muslims: NYPD is Violating Civil Liberties by Spying on Religious Groups
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24817/racial-profiling-muslims-nypd-is-violating-civil-liberties-by-spying-on-religious-groups
"Every year since 2003, blacks and Latinos have consistently accounted for around 85 percent of stop-and-frisk selectees."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/01/mayor_bloomberg_stop_and_frisk_yes_the_controversial_policy_is_really_really.html
Center for Constitutional Rights articles:
http://ccrjustice.org/search/node/NYPD+Stop+and+Frisk+Statistics
one_voice
(20,043 posts)women's right, etc.
You posted the wheel and dismissed those things I didn't.
What you just posted, has nothing to do with what I commented on.
Talk about distraction....
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)to discuss, yet snubbed Putin over his granting asylum to Snowden, not his having criminalized gay rights in Russia.
Obama says one thing and does another, and the thing he does always reveals his actual priority. Actions, not words.
Such as saying he wouldn't scramble fighter jets over a 29-year-old hacker named Snowden. However, he had Bolivian President Morales' Presidential jet re-routed and grounded for 12 hours under suspicion of carrying Snowden, an international incident. And one may remember, despite it being recently removed from the internet, Obama said a lot about protecting the rights of whistle-blowers. Please remind PFC Manning and Snowden about that.
Also, Obama signed the first NDAA with its Constitution-destroying Section 1021 on New Year's Eve, saying "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." Yet he signed it again, then as evidenced above, sent lawyers to reinstate it when it was ruled unConstitutional. His lawyers said, per the OP, "Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue".
His words are a distraction. His acts are the actual agenda.
I cannot find a clip from the Henson "Dinosaurs" show where Earl ran for president, and having failed as a candidate, avoided the issues by hugging puppies and kissing babies. It worked brilliantly.
NDAA signing statement:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Obama and sure as shit had nothing to do with Snowden, but rather YOUR use of a dismissive chart/wheel.
YOU turned it into an Obama and now Snowden thing.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Seriously? I'm listing distractions from what actually occurred, be it the corporate-owned media or directly from Obama. It's all the same thing. Distraction from the actual.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Distractions...(all of which I would comment on because I think they're ok) BUT distractions...
a new dog
Michelle Obama's new hair
New outfits
President Obama looking good in shorts.
etc
Non-distractions
Gay rights
Women's rights
Evolution
race relations
the Trayvon Martin shooting
Etc.
We can multi-task.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Look, we're talking about the US government. The CIA admitted this week to toppling the Iranian government (and they have their fingers in several more). Our government sprayed radioactive isotopes on poor citizens of the Pruit Igoe housing project as an experiment without their knowledge or consent. Things are far worse than a little media smoke-and-mirrors.
BTW, part of the same NDAA which gave us indefinite detention, allows for the free use of propaganda against the people of the US itself:
It is legal for the government to lie to your face.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023438872
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I was talking about you.
YOU don't get to call those things distractions, like you did when you posted that wheel.
As for the government, I'm not an idiot. Of course I know I have to question and watch etc.
But by the same token I don't live in a constant paranoid state.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)I'm not in a constant paranoid state. I'm looking at the facts of what is occurring around me and am in a constant state of great concern. For example, only =one= issue in current affairs:
Alan Grayson TPP Secret Treaty This Hands Sovereignty of Our Country Over to Corp Interests"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023049340
Seriously. "If you're not afraid, you're not paying attention." ~Musican Taj Mahal
Here is an incomplete list of things which require change:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023389720
one_voice
(20,043 posts)were crossed.
But I will repeat this for clarity. I don't think that wheel should be tossed around lightly here at other DU'ers because those issues are important. I'm not talking about what the gov does. I'm talking about here. Those issues aren't distractions, they are very important to DU'ers.
If I mistook what you did, my bad.
I hope that clears it up.
Sorry, I think I can stay up on things and not live in fear. I refuse to live in fear.
If you choose to walk around afraid, that's on you. I'd rather choose knowledge--a weapon against fear, and action, another weapon. But, nah, I will not be afraid.
Once again, if I misread you're intent, I apologize. I do hope you enjoy the rest of your day.
Segami
(14,923 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)struggle4progress
(118,352 posts)Committee and Conference reports, Presidential signing statements, or Court decisions -- before chattering loudly about what the statutes mean and what politics lie behind the texts
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)We mere mortals are just not astute enough to understand the moves
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...none of this shit would be happening now.
What ever happened to that guy?
The Constitutional Scholar?
dgibby
(9,474 posts)Shape shifter, perhaps? Definitely not the candidate I believed in, that's for sure.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)
ieoeja This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #20)
ieoeja This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)(e) "Comment: This provision is sometimes touted as protecting citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them indefinitely without trial."
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/06/ndaa-sections-1021-and-1022-scary-potential/#.UhO4Ebxx2PI
Do you actually trust this government to do the right thing?
Remember that Obama is fine with the extra-judicial execution of US citizens (abroad thus far) accused of or aligned with terrorists or suspected terrorists. I haven't even begun to consider what sections of the Constitution THAT erases.
Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #23)
ieoeja This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)acts in blatant disregard to law such as years of illegal NSA wiretapping about which Clapper lied to Congress' faces.
Then again, this same NDAA makes it perfectly legal for the government to lie to our faces via the elimination of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987:
It is legal for the government to lie to your face.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023438872
And further regarding section (e) :
"Obviously, none of these prior holdings addresses the habeas corpus rights of a U.S. citizen or legal alien apprehended within the U.S. and charged with being an enemy combatant. So there is no Supreme Court case providing the necessary protection preserved by the laws provision that 'existing law or authorities' are preserved."
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/06/ndaa-sections-1021-and-1022-scary-potential/#.UhO4Ebxx2PI
Call it a loophole. There is no precedent =against= it, which is enormous. Ever signed a contract after doing a verbal agreement, then later find the contract states it supercedes any and all verbal agreements? That sort of thing. Once they actually detain a US citizen on US soil, THAT becomes the precedent
Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #30)
ieoeja This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)some are doing whatever they want, leaving others to wonder what has happened and how:
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that realityjudiciously, as you willwe'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
These are the sort of people doing the interpretations of law, or blatantly subverting it for their own purposes. They cannot be trusted with loopholes and room for interpretation, or for simple ignoring it until caught.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)mostly innocent but for propaganda purposes they were presented to us as 'the most dangerous men in the world' and paraded in chains and orange suits, shown in cages, like exhibits in a zoo, to scare the shit out of the people.
In reality there were mostly poor shepherds, even children, kidnapped by bounty hunters and sold to the US for their own nefarious purposes.
The horrible stain on this country will never go away until that vile dungeon and monument to cruelty and crime, but not of the detainees, is torn down and the liars who are responsible for it, brought to justice. We can give back what was taken from the innocent, tortured and even dead, detainees, but it's way past time to provide them with some justice for what has been done to them.
Ten or more long years in a dungeon, some children grew up there. We should be ashamed.
The reason they were kept there is because most of them were innocent and their cases would have been thrown out of any decent court. We had to keep using them as 'scary monsters' to keep the support for the fake 'WOT' going.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In fact, the quaint 4th Amendment has been replaced by the attitude that door-to-door house searches with narcotics dogs are okay, because someone might have a roach in an ashtray somewhere.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Otherwise, people might have noticed that your complaints about it are the parts that do not apply to US persons.
Who, btw, don't have Constitutional rights. (And just to clarify, "US Person" is not the same as "US Citizen"
But good job stirring the pot. You'll get lots of people following along who don't notice that little detail.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)struggle4progress
(118,352 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)struggle4progress
(118,352 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)struggle4progress
(118,352 posts)struggle4progress
(118,352 posts)struggle4progress
(118,352 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Too many threads going at once with too many BushCo apologists to recognize one that isn't. Sorry.
Oh shit, read it and "got it" :
Carl Mayer, a lawyer for Hedges, said it was "astounding" that Lohier's order was issued before evidence was presented. "The government hasn't put in any evidence. They just keep making these broad assertions," Mayer said. "It's all a 'trust us' proceeding."[100] Mayer stated however also that the Second Circuit order was procedural and "we are confident the district court opinion will be vindicated."[2] Jerika Richardson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan, declined to comment.[2][100]
One day before the September 28, 2012 U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, plaintiff Christopher Hedges expressed his opinion that the NDAA's indefinite detention clause is already being used to imprison Americans because the Obama Administration filed an emergency appeal.[101][102] "If the Obama administration simply appealed it, as we expected, it would have raised this red flag," Hedges said. "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."[103][104] Hedges renewed his opinion on September 28, 2012 by stating with reference to the Obama Administration: "the issuance of an emergency stay or temporary stay until the appeal is heard I think essentially is to cover them legally for already putting the NDAA into use."[105] It was noted by Ben Swann from Reality Check that President Obama is against detention of U.S. Citizens and yet the Obama Administration has at every turn fought to keep the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA in place.[106]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
They're already using it...
struggle4progress
(118,352 posts)The Court holds (p5) "Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President's authority to detain America citizens"
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)unConstitutional, including being against the 1st and 5th Amendments. Secondly, I did not claim it was Obama's, only that he twice signed it and fought for it aggressively. Third, if you read above, the wording =does not exclude= US citizens on US soil. What is not there is even more important than what is.
Obama promised to protect whistle-blowers but let PFC Manning rot in solitary confinement for nearly three years. Ordered or allowed domestic terrorism against the Occupy Movement while (then and now) decrying violence against peaceful protesters. Said he was like Trayvon Martin while simultaneously praising the racist Ray Kelly as being a great choice to head the DHS.
What is it going to take to get people to wake up about this republican president?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is a mouth-breathing moron.
P.S. you're full of shit on the NDAA as a matter of law.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)moderate Republican.
So take it up with him. He also stated that he admired Reagan, who is in fact one of the worst Presidents who caused so much damage to this country, AND to other countries, who should have been indicted along with the rest of his administration. But I digress, Obama's admiration for Reagan and his admission that he would have been a Moderate Republican before the party went crazy, tells a lot that we will be keeping in mind from now on during future elections.
It's past history now. Time to look forward and start changing our tactics, especially the Left who are now free to begin the process of getting real Democrats elected, and focusing mostly on Congress rather than being distracted by the WH races three years before they even begin.
struggle4progress
(118,352 posts)The current 1021 language reflects the 1031 language of the Senate version, which was the subject of a substantial political struggle in the Senate. Feinstein, for example, proposed an amendment to the 1031 language that would have provided a blanket prohibition but lost this fight, in part because the Republicans wanted to insist on indefinite detention language. A similar conflict appeared between the House and Senate versions. The 1031 language in the version of HR 1540 referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services does nothing except to define "individual detained at Guantanamo" as a person under DoD control at Guantanamo who is neither a US citizen nor a member of the US military; the version that passed the Senate contains in 1031(e) the language that later appeared in 1021(e) of the bill from the Conference Committee
See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540rfs/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540rfs.pdf at 567 - 568
See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540eas/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540eas.pdf at 419
Reading the Court decision here would have helped you, because the Court quite properly looked to the Legislative history in reading the Bill, to wit:
... Senator Feinstein and others feared that Section 1021 would greatly expand the power of the government with particular reference to the authority to detain American citizens captured domestically. Senator Feinstein explained that she did not believe the government had such authority while Senators Graham and Levin, perhaps among others, believed that the government already did. Thus, Section 1021(e) was introduced specifically to effect a truce that ensured thatas to those covered by Section 1021(e)courts would decide detention authority based not on Section 1021(b), but on what the law previously had provided in the absence of that enactment. This is not to say that Section 1021(e) specifically exempts these individuals from the Presidents AUMF detention authority, in the sense that Section 1022 expressly exempts United States citizens from its requirements. Rather, Section 1021(e) provides that Section 1021 just does not speak one way or the other to the governments authority to detain citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States ...
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Hedges v Obama (Decided: July 17, 2013)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)A federal appeals court explicitly ruled that.
This post is a factually false pile of gibberish and paranoia.