POLITICS 11/30/2017 01:42 pm ET Updated Nov 30, 2017 Federal Judge Slams Trump Administration’s ‘Ci

Well apparently the mod(s) disagreed with you. Why would I need to "prove" my position? Why on earth would I post an opinion I don't believe? I have nothing to gain in posting any opinion in a mostly anonymous forum that I don't believe. That makes no sense. In any case, I'm not the topic of this thread and you're not the topic of this thread, so let's just stick to the topic and drop this irrelevant discussion, fair?

I started this thread to demonstrate yet another example of how the US government fails to operate within the constraints of the Constitution. When due process rights are violated for one person, they are violated for everyone. And when the US government is given free rein to violate the Constitution, we don't have a government, we have a rogue criminal racketeering enterprise that serves its own agenda and interests. That certainly does not serve The People and in accordance with the reason this country was founded in the first place, needs to be changed (see my signature). The founders created change through a violent bloody revolution. The Soviet Union was toppled without a drop of blood being shed (as far as it is known), so it can be done in America too.

 

See Patriot Act.... Remember people like me were against it the entire time no matter if it was Bush or Obama that supported it at the time.

 

Thank you for telling us what you post is opinion that isn't based in fact.

 

And AMUF and NDAA 2012 and FISA, etc.

It seems these days the majority are against nearly everything this pretend government does. At least the ones who are awake.

 

Back to trolling I see. You just can't help yourself can you?

This thread is based in FACT from a specific court case. ALL my opinions are based on the article in question, history and the Constitution. Yours gravitate to personal attacks and other insults.

 

Update:

Judge Rules U.S. Must Allow ACLU Access To American Held In Iraq
“John Doe” has been held without charges and without counsel for over three months.

Good news, the government can’t deny legal counsel to an American citizen who’s being imprisoned indefinitely on no charges.

A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. must allow the American Civil Liberties Union access to an American citizen being held in U.S. military custody in Iraq, according to the AP.

An unidentified American suspected of fighting for the so-called Islamic State has been in U.S. custody for three months. But authorities have never charged the detainee and have denied the individual access to legal counsel. The military admitted back in November that the man did request a lawyer.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan says the ACLU must be given “immediate and unmonitored access” to John Doe so that he has the opportunity to obtain legal counsel if he still wishes.

ACLU attorney Jonathan Hafetz says this ruling helps ensure that American citizens won’t be subjected to the Trump administration’s “executive imprisonment.”

The man surrendered to a Syrian rebel group and was turned over to U.S. authorities in mid-September.

Though viewed as a step in the right direction, some law experts say the time it took to reach this ruling raises concerns.

“It took exactly 100 days to get this far,” University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck tweeted Sunday morning. “That’s a terrifying precedent for how long government can evade review.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...564e4b025f99e17b861?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313

An American citizen has been detained by the US government for 100 days without any charges or access to an attorney. The same government that has taken an Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has done the exact opposite and argued in an American court that it should continue to violate the Constitution with impunity.

 

My gawd, of course not Mr PatriotNews. We should blind fold them. Then make them get down on their knees, hunch over, head stuck out, and behead them with a sword!!! I mean after all let's, as a country, just lower ourselves to their barbaric standards where the headsman is judge, jury and executioner! Does that sound like something you'd be in favor of? Because it certainly sounds like it.

As a U.S. Air Force veteran, and, while I despise all the ISIS does, is, and stands for, I didn't serve just to put aside the Constitution for the kind of barbaric justice that ISIS doles out. Again, maybe you're cool with that, but it's just not me.

 

First, there is a clear line between killing someone in a combat situation and killing them in their jail cell. It gets stickier when they are US citizens even if they are citizens who are actively supporting the mass murder of American.

Second, as your linked article points out, one reason neither party is looking too closely at this is because both are involved:

Ultimately, Obama succeeded in making Americans comfortable with drone strikes, as they are generally supported by the American public (though opposedthroughout the world), and wildly popular in Congress. Americans will never know much more about these operations than what the Obama administration has selectively revealed, because, unlike the C.I.A. rendition program (which involved 136 victims), drone strikes (which have killed 3,922 people) occurred under both Republican and Democratic presidents. And there is no interest in Washington to fully investigate government programs that both political parties are directly responsible for.

 

To be fair calling anything you dont like trolling while complaining about personal attacks or insults is well nevermind that would be an insult

Its an open forum. Things like opinions run counter to yours. Its not attacking anyone.

https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

The ACLU ( for once) has been consistent. This has been going on for awhile now. Complaints about the history of this issue are not "trolling" nor"off topic" as i have demonstrated. Complaints about discussing the issue while trying to do nothing but discuss "Trump" are just your typical partisan blather and solves nothing.

After reading more it does seem i gave the ACLU to much credit as they ruined it with this quote

“This is a landmark ruling that rejects the Trump administration’s unprecedented attempt to block an American citizen from challenging his executive imprisonment,” said Jonathan Hafetz, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “Ensuring citizens detained by the government have access to a lawyer and a court is essential to preserving the Constitution and the rule of law in America.”

 

To be fair, stick to the subject.

 

I am.By cherry picking a few words out of a semi long post filled with information you are trying to make this personal.

 

An obama judge

 

Ooooh, looks like I touched a nerve. What is this "self-destruction" that you wish upon me?

 

The article begins with "Federal Judge" not "obama judge". Obama had nothing to do with the judge's order. Last I checked, Obama would likely have favored that this guy and everyone with him be murdered by drone. The judge is 100% correct, which is rare these days. Due process is protected by the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment as well as Article I Section 9 Paragraph 2.

 

The story is from the very liberal and biased huffington post

They are not going to tell readers like you the whole story if hurts the anti trump narrative

 

Ah, killing the messenger. Do you have any evidence that the story is inaccurate? If so, please post said evidence so I can check for myself.

See above. First you want to blame Obama for the judge's order, which is 100% correct (as taken from the article) and now the Huffington Post.

 

Obama did infact sign indefinite detention into law through NDAA.. Heck even Maddow at the time discussed it.. So yes Obama is part of this discussion sorry.

 

Which Congress wrote this insidious unconstitutional law.

So then according to that logic, so is every Congressman who voted for this bill part of the discussion. Sorry the judge's order had nothing to do with it as far as I know. The article never mentioned that the government's legal team cited the NDAA provision to justify the indefinite detention of this man and failure to grant him access to an attorney. I brought that up in an earlier post asking why they didn't. It would have been interesting if it was brought up what the judge would have ruled. Personally I wish the provision was brought up so the judge could rule on the NDAA's constitutionality.

 

Yes Congress is part of this.. Clap clap.. Missing the point that the ACLU is trying to make this about the Trump Admin only.

 

You raised the point that the article omitted the political origin of the federal judge

And I told you why

 

Indirectly, Congress and Obama are a big part of the mentality. But directly, if the provision in the NDAA was never cited by the government to justify the lack of due process granted to the detainee then neither are a part of anything.

The ACLU never mentioned the Trump administration as far as I know (the article certainly never mentioned it), it was the author of the article who mentioned it in the title. Having said that, this is in fact being carried out under the Trump administration, not the Obama administration (not to give anyone a pass).

 

Please point to the post where I allegedly raised that irrelevant point.

 

Post #542

 

“This is a landmark ruling that rejects the Trump administration’s unprecedented attempt to block an American citizen from challenging his executive imprisonment,” said Jonathan Hafetz, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “Ensuring citizens detained by the government have access to a lawyer and a court is essential to preserving the Constitution and the rule of law in America.”

Read what is presented to you.

 

What combat situation was Anwar al-Awlaki in? His car was blown up by a hellfire missile from a drone while he was in a restaurant parking lot going to breakfast. That's not combat, that's assassination.