Posted by Kromey at 1:57pm Sep 21 '12If that truly were the case, the administration could have said that First Amendment activities wouldn't warrant indefinite detention -- and yet they didn't!
If that truly were what the administration wanted, they could have lobbied for that power to be in the NDAA, not the power to use the US military to detain US citizens on US soil in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. But they didn't, and when that is questioned rather than allow the judge to qualify their power by stating clearly that First Amendment activities wouldn't be subject to it, they refused, and then appealed the decision in order to keep the full power granted to them.
Further, if the government's claim that it has "long had the power" to detain anyone who's a threat is true, then a ruling against the NDAA wouldn't matter -- and yet here they are, proving themselves liars by calling the ruling "unconstitutional" and fighting tooth and nail to keep this new power they keep claiming isn't new.
If that truly were what the administration wanted, they could have lobbied for that power to be in the NDAA, not the power to use the US military to detain US citizens on US soil in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. But they didn't, and when that is questioned rather than allow the judge to qualify their power by stating clearly that First Amendment activities wouldn't be subject to it, they refused, and then appealed the decision in order to keep the full power granted to them.
Further, if the government's claim that it has "long had the power" to detain anyone who's a threat is true, then a ruling against the NDAA wouldn't matter -- and yet here they are, proving themselves liars by calling the ruling "unconstitutional" and fighting tooth and nail to keep this new power they keep claiming isn't new.
No it isn't - Kromey