NDAA: Judge Strikes Down Indefinite Detention Provision

"A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked the U.S. military from enforcing a law allowing it to indefinitely detain anyone accused of aiding or participating in terrorism. In May, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from enforcing one paragraph of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, a 565-page military appropriations bill that sailed through Congress late last year. President Barack Obama signed the bill on New Year's Eve...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur shares his thoughts.

*Read more here from ADAM KLASFELD / Courthouse News Service: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09...

Support The Young Turks by Subscribing http://bit.ly/TYTonYouTube

Like Us on Facebook: http://www.fb.com/tytnation
Follow Us on Twitter: http://bit.ly/OkX87X

Buy TYT Merch: http://theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com/

Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here: http://www.current.com/gettyt

• Category

  News & Politics

[TheRiiiight]

Judge Katherine Forrest, a true american hero

[joe banana]

I read somewhere that if an elected official supports an unconstitutional measure they no longer represent the US government, automatic, no lawyers, no judges, no appeals, just pack your shit and git.

[BigLundi]

The fact that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about is painfully clear.

The government is not represented by the CIA. The CIA is not the government, it's PART of the government. And who ruled in Khaled's favor? The Supreme Court.

You also have not read the AUMF, or the NDAA, you've only read select bits and pices to confirm your conspiratard worldview, completely ignoring when they DO clarify things you think are 'left intentionally vague'.. To do what? Things they've never done.

[largegrainsofsalt]

several things are very clear. you trust a government that ass rapes the wrong person to ignore the constitutional rights of american citizens and execute them without trial, all because you think that the same government that could never keep a secret would never kill the wrong person. fucking brilliant. good day i say to you sir.

[BigLundi]

"Well that is a term the government leaves intentionally vague" No, it's not. And if you have read the Geneva Conventions regarding what a substantial supporter consists of you'd know that. And so would Judge Forrest, but no, she decided to be a cowboy and rule on something she didn't read.

The law's not unclear, you're just illiterate.

[largegrainsofsalt]

and "associated forces", way to lie by omission. what is an associated force? well thats a term the government leaves intentionally vague, to be defined later when it suites their current agenda. this is another area that crazy judge forrest had a problem with: laws that are so unclear no one could possibly know what they mean until its too late.

[BigLundi]

"Khaled el-Masri was disappeared by the CIA and no one knew what happened to him" For a very short while. It didn't take long for journalists to pick up his disappearance, in fact his disappearance and suspicions on the CIA's involvement began the same year he was taken. So no, you didn't demonstrate me as wrong.

[BigLundi]

No, I'm not ok with children being kileld, yes, I am ok with due process being removed for enemy combatants. And no, we're not in an indefinite war.

"You know terrorism is not a group of ppl, but a military strategy right?" And we're not fighting the military strategy. IF you read the NDAA and the AUMF of 2001, we're fighting very specific terrorist groups of people. So that statement is irrelevant.

We're not really in a "war on terror" we're in a "war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban".

[largegrainsofsalt]

so you OK with children being killed and due process removed for the duration of an indefinite war? you know that terrorism is not a group of ppl, but a military strategy right? so by definition the "war on terror" cannot and will not ever end. Khaled el-Masri was disappeared by the CIA and no one know what happened to him, a fact that you just claimed was impossible. "the government can't hide anything for shit. If they detained anyone, we'd know about" demonstrably wrong on a fact again..

[BigLundi]

Also, I'd like to point out that Khaled el-Masri is not a RECENT case by any means, he was captured and tortured in 2004, and the ACLU helped to file a lawsuit by 2005.

[BigLundi]

Soooooo the only way we can know anything is if it's proven in court? Are ya that silly? When america is at war, the justice system shifts a bit concerning enemy combatants. This has ALWAYS been the case. The only difference here is that one of the enemy combatants was an american.

As far as Khaled el-Masri, that's a red herring that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. What does his case 'prove me wrong' about?

[largegrainsofsalt]

you know he was guilty? he never had a chance to defend himself in court. that is suppose to be the foundation of our justice system. absent that right you dont get to assume guilt because americans are innocent until proven guilty. and you must not follow the news very well at all(fox maybe?). not a single person knew what happened to Khaled el-Masri until the CIA released him. so once again you are demonstrably wrong on a fact, a matter of public knowledge. does it hurt being this ignorant?