NDAA: Judge Strikes Down Indefinite Detention Provision

[DeSwiss]

Published on Sep 13, 2012 by TheYoungTurks

"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/2012/09/12/50218.htm

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

- The shame is in the fact that it became a law in the first place. With all those lawyers in Congress and the WH and they still couldn't figure out this whole stupid law is mostly a total breach of the Bill of Rights.

[JeffersonLoveChild]

1. The President has been against the provisions all along...

Good news.

The President has been against the provisions all along, but the bill was sent to him veto-proof.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/102111LeahyFeinsteinToReid-NDAA.pdf

"Recently, the administration has made it clear its opposition to requiring military custody for terrorism suspects by sharing the attached position paper with our offices. We concur with the Administration's view that mandatory military custody is 'undue and dangerous' and that these provisions would 'severely and recklessly undermine' our Nation's counterterrorism efforts."

[DeSwiss]

2. I know this.

IMHO, nothing is veto-proof until it's vetoed. Then if its overridden it belongs to the stupid bastards who over-turned it. Pretty simple.

And at some point this kind of pragmatism must be thrown out the window if we are to have a government based upon the rule of law. I understand the need for compromise, but not on the foundation of the whole premise for existing as a nation. Hell if we're to have a government at all that's worth a damn. As someone has said before me: "Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.''

- If we don't have any principles we're prepared to lose a vote on, then we're just wanking it......

[proverbialwisdom]

3. Good factoids to know. Thank you.