= new reply since forum marked as read
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. 
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
...none of this shit would be happening now.
What ever happened to that guy?
The Constitutional Scholar?
(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.
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 law’s 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
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.
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...
