Obama Administration Appeals Judge's Decision Declaring NDAA Unconstitutional
current.com/community/93902945_obama-appeals-...Posted Sep 16, 2012, 12:25 AM UTC
197115
current.com
Damn those "Serious reservations" he had about the indefinite detention clause sure must have been serious! Let us not forget he has also drafted legislation to censor the internet via an executive order (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120914/19280020390/leaked-heres-white-houses-draft-cybersecurity-executive-order.shtml). Crickets on this sub though.
23
Given his penchant for signing major legislation into law when the rest of the country is out partying/recovering from the night before, I'd say that no fucks are given when it comes to what the American public actually wants.
5
But really, Obama disagreed with it. He just had to sign it. Veto, schmeto, it wouldn't have worked.
Where are you apologists now?
20
There is nothing to be an apologist over this, only people who are blaming OBama for DOJ actions do not have any idea how the DOJ works.
Obama admin on DADT two years ago.
Yet even after federal judges ruled separately that both laws are unconstitutional, the Obama administration's Justice Department has continued with appeals, saying it's bound by a "duty to defend" the laws even if it doesn't like them.
0
Welp, heres JK13 spewing more lies! The justice department is NOT obligated to defend ANY law. Heres a nice article on this
Government's 'Duty to Defend' Not a Given In recent years, DOJ declined to fight for federal laws at least 13 times
One quick case in point would be when Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/23/948803/-Obama-Orders-DOJ-NOT-to-Defend-DOMA
President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.
Good luck on trying to attack that source, since thats your only defense when you are proven to be full of shit (as you just were)
6
Welp, heres JK13 spewing more lies!
Here come the shills with their strawman arguments.
The justice department is NOT obligated to defend ANY law. Heres a nice article on this
First, point out where I said 'obligated', that's precisely not the word I used.
One quick case in point would be when Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA.
I already talked about DOMA which is my whole point, the DOJ cannot stop defending NDAA like it did DOMA unless they deem it unconstitutional which they can't do in this case because we are talking about the military budget with a host of other provisions.
Good luck on trying to attack that source, since thats your only defense when you are proven to be full of shit (as you just were)
Why the hell would I attack the source, you don't even understand the arguments you are making, the source is irrelevant if you don't understand the details.
-1
That's such bullshit. There is no such duty. If so, every case involving the DoJ would be decided by the Supreme Court, since they would appeal everything up to there anyway.
6
I quoted directly from the DOJ, I can also quote previous DOJ's saying the exact same thing and yes, they will appeal everything to the Supreme Court.
0
The political backlash from vetoing it would have been greater, and counter productive to Obama's general plan to increase bipartisan cooperation considering NDAA was passed with bipartisan support. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
-4
Please read the headline again.
The administration is actively fighting to keep this particular part of the NDAA intact. Obama wants it; don't be silly.
12
And I wonder how many of the apologists have considered that this law would still be on the books the next time a Republican is elected President. If you don't trust a President Romney or President Bachmann with the ability to indefinitely detain (or assassinate) American citizens, then you can't trust Obama with it either.
4
This is exactly the argument I used against the Bush administration pushing for similar rights violations.
Our form of government is set up so that we don't have to trust one person to wield incredible power responsibly. Giving up rights to someone we trust just leaves us open to whatever demagogue will come along in the future.
-1
Yes and he is right to want section 1021. How else are soldiers going to detain enemy combatants?
If you remove 1021 though, Bush still indefinitely detained many people through AUMF. But let's say both AUMF and 1021 are removed---then you have to ask yourself, where does the military take detained prisoners of war and terrorists?
They will be forced to use local prisons where they won't get much intelligence out of them. Or they will be forced to kill them on the spot.
If your concern is about Americans being detained---then subsection E of 1021, already restricts any arrests made within the US.
3†
enemy combatants ? you mean americans ? americans that protest against draconian laws and government action ? Reminds me of Germany.
5
Boy, war sure was tough before 2001… not being able to detain and question people.
3
What wrong with prisoner of war status? Why do we insist on this "illegal enemy combatant" legal fiction?
The problem isn't what to do with prisoners of an endless war. The problem is with endless war itself. But we want endless war, so we dismantle long-standing treaties, law, and precedent, running roughshod over the constitution to concoct a convoluted story to maintain it.
1
The administration is actively fighting to keep this particular part of the NDAA intact. Obama wants it; don't be silly.
Again, let me explain - they HAVE to defend the entire statute, they cannot pick and choose the section they will not defend - they can do this though (like they did in case of DOMA) but then they will have to stop defending the ENTIRE statute which is not going to happen given what NDAA is (military budget with lots of other provisions)
0
Not necessarily. Back when the Supreme Court decided the constitutionality of the healthcare law, there was a chance they would only strike down the unconstitutional part.
I don't know of any case where the Supreme Court struck down an entire bill due to a single provision. A lot of controversial items are "riders". That means the Supreme Court would have to strike down a budget if there was something dumb put in it.
So in a word, no.
5
Since both sides have sold out our civil liberties, our only hope is the judicial system. God help us all...
5
Did you know that Clarence Thomas got free corp jet rides to Bohemian Grove for years without even disclosing them? His wifey works as a consultant for BIG bucks to corps that have business before the Supremes. If you think that the judges aren't political animals, you're kidding yourself. EDIT spell
7
What's funny to me is that if Obama went on national TV and lit a copy of the Constitution on fire, he'd lose the election. But when he declares that it doesn't say what it plainly says, in an overt attempt to evade the rule of law -- which is, in substantive terms, infinitely worse -- no one really gives a shit.
I think the problem is just too big for most people to wrap their heads around. It's easier to argue whether the top marginal tax rate should be a few percent higher or lower than it is to notice that the bedrock principles of liberal democracy are under attack.
3
The problem isn't too big to wrap our heads around. The problem is the fact that the alternative offered by the opposition is infinitely worse. Obama sucks for civil liberties, but he is still better than everyone the GOP allows to speak.
1
If neither side has our civil liberties in their best interest, then why not look for someone else- Gary Johnson. He is the ONLY candidate that will reduce the deficit and preserve civil liberties.
3
That's what I mean when I say the problem is too big. Both sides are campaigning on tearing down the rule of law. The Republicans started it, and now the Democrats have ratified it.
I don't have a solution. I'm just pointing out that this is a much bigger deal than most Americans appear able to process, based on how little I see it discussed.
-1
Before jk13 comes shilling in claiming that Obama has no choice but to defend this law like he has in every single thread about Obama's DOJ defending unpopular laws for well over a year now...
Obama's DOJ has absolutely no requirement to defend this aspect of the law (or the law as a whole if they so choose), they chose not to defend section 3 of DOMA and they could just as easily do so in this case. The only reason the DOJ does tend to defend laws is because of tradition.
Obama has chosen to defend this law, he has chosen to appeal the decision that strikes down indefinite detention. Why he has done so is up to you to decide.
3
You are practically a fucking fortune teller!
1
He helped get this law removed. Don't you understand that Obama was a constitutional lawyer? He had to go about it in this manner. Link is below that explains this.
Obama did everyone a favor by going about it in this way. He couldn't get the law repealed through congress. He appointed the judge in this case, and made it so that the case can't be appealed after January 6th so that if another administration came in they couldn't act quick enough to save this portion of the law. He helped get it removed... I hope you understand that.
The indefinite detention act in the NDAA couldn't be touched by the judicial branch until it was exposed by Obama (something he pushed for in a different bill) He did it this way to get it removed from law.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/13/ndaa-detention-struck-down/
3
I will most definitely be bookmarking this eleven-dimensional-tiddlywinks bullshit, for use the next time anyone on r/politics claims that self-delusion is the sole province of Republicans.
15
Bullshit. There's absolutely no factual evidence to support this conclusion. He could have not defended it if that was his goal all along. Stop trying to make up excuses for a defenseless position.
3
just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it isn't true.
-3
I don't have a narrative. I'm just saying that your post is a wild theory desperately trying to come up with its own narrative to defend the administration over a wildly unpopular action. They are welcome to abandon defense of NDAA entirely as they did with DOMA. But they aren't.
4
Next we'll hear that Predator drones are actually filled with blankets and MREs, all those medical marijuana dispensaries are fronts for meth labs, and the assassination program is just an elaborate cover for witness protection. Al-Awlaki and his kid are just fine and living in a safehouse in Bethesda.
5
Well it isn't my theory, it's in the article I linked. If you think a person who went to Harvard law doesn't know how to work the system in this manner, you're pretty oblivious. I would hope you at least read the article. If you don't buy it, I don't care. Either way the indefinite detention provision is history, and that's a good thing we all can agree on.
3
I absolutely had not seen this. If true, this is sheer political genius. However I wont be holding my breath. Thanks for the article though.
2
If by helped to get this law removed, you meant to say told Carl Levin that if they took it out he would veto NDAA then you are correct!
0
B-but Obama's a good man! He only takes away our civil liberties when we deserve it!
Only you can prevent battered Democrat syndrome.
3
Listen guys, hear me out, NDAA 2012 section 1021 does not violate the constitution.
I'm a liberal, but you have to realize that when it comes to terrorism, there are some gray areas.
This is why George W. Bush, using AUMF 2001 was able to indefinitely detain so many people, because he justified them as a public danger:
5th amendment of the constitution:
The judge is thus, incorrect in her judgment when citing the 1st (?), 5th, and 14th (?) amendments, and the appeals court might actually favor Obama.
Bush unsuccessfully cited AUMF in the Supreme Court for military commissions. This may or may not be a good decision, because if you capture prisoners, and put them in Gauntanamo, then you don't try them in civil court and you don't conduct a military tribunal, then you will be forced to indefinitely detain them.
CONSIDER THIS
If it turns out that they deem NDAA subsection 1021 as illegal / unconstitutional. Then the concept of prisoner of war, will be wiped out for the US.
This means that soldiers who detain terrorists in the field in a war zone, will have to either (a) murder the suspect on the spot (b) hand over the prisoner to a local authority, which will subject them to torturous punishment, and the US will not be able to obtain any information from subsequent interviews. (c) let him go, and hope he doesn't fire at his friends later, and no soldier will choose this option.
The root issue at hand:
So the government has captured a number of terrorists that are a public danger and threat in foreign lands. The question was "what to do with them?"
If you deport them, they will go back to committing their crimes.
If you try to get them into court with a jury of Americans, then there is always reasonable doubt and much of the evidence against them and how it was obtained could be dismissed because of classification levels or the way the military obtains such evidence (different standards and soldiers or operatives in the field would have to testify and face the accuser, revealing his/her identity, blowing their covers). And American juries are not the peers of terrorists in such a situation.
If the Obama administration feels they can argue this successfully in court, let them appeal it. Maybe they have a point, instead of acting like the world is ending and acting like as if Obama is "burning the constitution" which he is not.
Maybe we should look into it rather than rabble-rousing and screaming about freedoms being violated. So let's stop assuming the WORST case nightmare scenario that the white house wants to impose fascistic authority over citizens (because that's not the debate here).
Consider that the subsection 1021, has a section E, which restricts the government from ever detaining those residing within the US. Just so people don't have to fear-monger about military detaining protestors in the streets or something.
TL:DR: The issue is much more complex than it seems. And we should investigate further before jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst nightmare scenario.
2
Your post is substantially incorrect about the law. I'll let Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) explain:
The 9/11 AUMF authorizes force only against persons and groups who have a connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 AUMF says nothing about detention, let alone the indefinite detention of American citizens.
Despite the 9/11 AUMF’s plain language, the past two administrations have argued in court that the 9/11 AUMF authorizes the President to indefinitely detain certain persons the administration determines are enemies. Both administrations also have claimed the 9/11 AUMF applies to persons and groups that are “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. No 9/11 nexus is required, according to the President.
Section 1021 thus claims that it merely “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF, including the alleged authority to detain persons the President determines are “associated forces.” While the section is framed as an affirmation, it can be viewed as that only if Congress adopted the President’s expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF—an action Congress never had taken before Thursday. To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who “substantially supported . . . associated forces.”
Whom could this cover? An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group. Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S. Under the NDAA that just passed Congress, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, and without charge or trial.
NDAA proponents sometimes point to an amendment to sec. 1021, added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as proof that the NDAA doesn’t apply to Americans. The amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.
In fact, the Senate expressly rejected a provision that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens. Sen. Feinstein offered another amendment to sec. 1021 that stated the section “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” That amendment was rejected 45-55. Sen. Feinstein’s other amendment, which does nothing to protect U.S. citizens, passed 99-1.
4
Your post is substantially incorrect about the law.
He is actually talking about AUMF more than the law itself and considering that certain provisions of AUMF regarding detention have already been held up by the Supreme court, the first poster is correct on what the scope of the law is.
1
this is pure bullshit and intellectual justification for your god obama. this will be used on the american people and already has. ever heard of bradley manning you little jerk off fucker.
3
Do people not understand that Bradley Manning is subject to military law, which is starkly different?
9
You still get a court date fucker and charged
1
[deleted]
1
You people are trying way too hard.
1
They have to do something with all of those prison guards the Army was/is hiring.
1
The 2001 AUMF was vague. Like, seriously vague. Really, go read it if you haven't. The full text is on Wikipedia. It pretty much says that the President can do whatever he sees fit in order to protect against terrorist attacks.
The 2001 AUMF is practically a single paragraph long, and it has been used to argue in favor of everything from warrantless wiretapping to targeted killing (drone strikes).
If anything, the 2012 NDAA is restrictive compared to that. It largely takes powers that were already claimed through the AUMF and formalizes their use so that there is some organization to it all.
That no one can seem to definitively say that it allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens is a serious problem. And hopefully one that can be fixed.
But getting worried about the powers formalized by the NDAA is largely silly, because the 2001 AUMF already gives the President carte blanche to do practically anything until challenged on it.
0
False. The 2001 AUMF related explicitly and restrictively to the 9/11 attacks. Presidents have subsequently argued (with little legal success) that its provisions apply to any terrorist activity or threat of terrorist activity. The 2012 NDAA effectively codifies Bush's and Obama's arguments to that effect into law, and represents an immense statutory broadening of detention powers.
2
IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
How is that in any way restrictive? It's an authorization to do anything and everything deemed fit to keep al Qaeda and their associates from succeeding in another attack in the future.
2
You just quoted the relevant passage yourself. 2001 AUMF applied only to groups that "planned, authorized, committed, aided, harbored" the 9/11 attacks. 2012 NDAA applies to anyone who "substantially supports" any group that is engaged in hostilities against the United States, or "associated forces" of such a group. That language effectively covers everything. See here.
2
Here's the definition of covered persons from the 2012 NDAA:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
How exactly does the 2001 AUMF not cover those same groups and only those groups? There isn't any generality. It very specifically mentions al-Qaeda and their associates in the NDAA and no unrelated or disparate groups. Just the same as the AUMF stated.
1
But wait our government supports al Qaeda
1
THIS.
1
Ok, it seems nobody understands how the DOJ works which I had to explain many times in the last few weeks, heck I was upset about it when the same shit happened when it came to DADT which I was ferociously opposed to.
Now, the DOJ by default defends ALL congressoinal laws unless they deem it unconstitutional like they did in case for DOMA, however since the NDAA is the traditional military budget, it's not going to happen in this instant. There will be appeals after appeals regardless of what the Obama administration feels like.
Yet even after federal judges ruled separately that both laws are unconstitutional, the Obama administration's Justice Department has continued with appeals, saying it's bound by a "duty to defend" the laws even if it doesn't like them.
0
For the record, executive branch doesn't have the ability to "not appeal" a ruling, it is automatic.
This is to prevent the President from "striking down" legislation by refusing to appeal court cases once he gets a ruling he likes, or "throwing the game" by arguing their case poorly.
We have a separation of powers for a reason, and the President can't and shouldn't be able to just shut down duly passed legislation in this manner.
0
[deleted]
-2
Get this conspiracy theorist bullshit off r/politics!
Obama would never sign anything unconstitutional, this judge is just a GOP shill.
-2
get ready for the downvote rush, in the meantime, I would love posters like you on r/politicsnumber2
-3
[deleted]
-2
yet this post is only 2 hours old and is already #33 on r/politics but yeah keep bitching about r/politics
6
I have submitted variations of this at least 10 times over the last week. I have up voted others submissions on this topic at least as many times!
-3
Not very popular, but I don't want to advertise too much, then the hivemind might initiate mass downvotes on us.
1
You have totally hit that on the head right there.
0
WTF how are upvotes being removed from this thread?!?! seriously I have seen the upvote total get reduced 2 times, the first time was 2 up votes and the second time was 3, with out the downvote total increasing at all. I have retracted my vote on articles but 5/30 people retracted their upvote? Something seems amiss.
-3
As an American who distrust most media outlets, I have a hard time just accepting Russian news as trustworthy. But at least they bring this to peoples attention.
-4
This is an area that the Obama administration never should have touched given its broken promises on the closing of GITMO, and they are taking heat appropriatly. This is great evidence of the systematic stripping of personal liberties that has been happening in the US since 9/11, and it's high time the Constitution come back into play.
Two cheers for the Honorable Judge Katherine Forrest. I hope you all upvote the shit out of this.
[deleted]
Agreed, it is some epic draconian bullshit which drops my jaw till this day.
[deleted]
Those two aren't even close.
You do know that it was Democrats who tried to get rid of the section via the Feinstein Ammendment and were shot down in the Senate?
[deleted]
Even that isn't actually true. He tried to move it, but it's not the physical location that is the problem, obviously. (The SC already struck down Bush's attempt to use a Cuban military base as a "law-free zone".) Obama never made any effort to place any Gitmo inmate on civilian trial, nor has he produced any evidence to show why they are being held.
Now come on, let's be fair. Don't you remember Liz Cheney's Tea Bag protest in the park across the street from the NYC Fed courthouse where Holder was proposing to try the gitmo inmates? BTW, she got lots of permits, was allowed to use amplified microphones, porta potties, and those protesters were tripping over the cables all day there was so much press there. But, just down the block, OWS got clubbed and denied equivalent treatment. But that was okay, it was just a dissenting voice, not sponsored by one of the parties. Unimportant, until they come for us.
Right. And there is more to it than that even. People trying shift blame for Gitmo on congress and away from Obama are dead wrong.
Yes it is. Gitmo was chosen because due to a loophole it is outside the jurisdiction of federal courts but close enough to home. If the prisoners were moved to U.S. soil, they would be able to file habeas petitions for themselves and get a trial in a civilian court.
Bush fucked it up SO BAD, that no evidence against any gitmo inmate could ever be admitted in trial, because so much of it resulted from torture. The same damn reason the FBI never got a successful conviction against a member of the Weather Underground, all their evidence was the result of illegal wiretapping.
Assuming you agree that government agencies should, in fact, have rules governing their conduct (i.e. no torturing people or illegally tapping phones), your comment is a complete non sequitir. If all the government's evidence was obtained illegally, then the government must release the accused, just like the charges were dropped against the Weathermen.
I guess if you support the idea of the federal government torturing people for confessions, then you'd also support the idea of doing an end run around habeas corpus.
You're going to vote for him anyway, so shut the fuck up. Do as you're told and just shut the fuck up about it.
The DOJ cannot do this, traditionally the DOJ has to defend all congressional laws unless they deem the entire thing unconstitutional like they did in case of DOMA.
Anybody remember the furore over the DOJ appealing DADT rulings even while Obama was trying to undo it legislatively.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dont-debate-obama-administrations-legal-defense-gay-ban/story?id=11928405
Of course they can, the DOJ Mission Statement clearly states so.
Seems to me they are compelled to do so.Americans have been held at Gitmo in the past. Who's to say the NDAA won't be used to do it again? What the fuck happened to due process? The under the NDAA and her sister lesgislation (lets also throw in SOPA and PIPA) we are a stone's throw away from any seditious behavior being branded terrorism. That is total loss of liberty - we ALL need to be concerned. The DOJ is clearly not being used in a manner that is consistent with the well being of Americans.
What about it, it's the same mission statement when they were defending DADT in courts.
Right, and the Supreme Court ruled that limited due process should be ensured for US citizens.
But they don't have to use the NDAA, they can use the 2001 AUMF if they wanted to.
Is not the Constitution law in this country? If so, the rights and processes guaranteed therein are the same laws that the DOJ MUST uphold. Judge Forrest's ruling should stand, the DOJ should back down.
[deleted]
Gitmo's closed.
Problem is, no one wants the prisoners kept in it.
[You need to see this] (http://isgitmoclosedyet.com/)
There's still the fact that no-one wants the people inside, so unless you want them shot, where else are they gunna go?
Hmmm.
Obama gets into office and immediately tries to close Guantanamo Bay, and ends torture there. Detainees start getting access to lawyers and getting released.
Guantanamo is not closed, however, as Republicans refuse to allow the detainees to be kept on American soil, and Democrats refuse to allow them to be indefinitely detained anywhere, so the proposed law fails.
However, indefinite detention is part of the AUMF Congress gave to Bush, but it's nebulous and not well defined, and lasts 'until hostitlities cease'.
Republicans get indefinite detention put into the NDAA, the military funding bill.
Obama then fights to get specific language for indefinite detention put into the bill. Suddenly indefinite detention is not part of a resolution, or simply Executive Branch military policy, it is law, and laws are reviewable by the judiciary, whereas resolutions and such are not.
Obama signs the NDAA and then adds a signing statement saying he does not believe in the provisions of the NDAA he signed into law, and will direct the Executive Branch not to implement any of it.
He does not implement any of it, as far as anyone knows, as promised.
He does, however, appoint Judge Forrest to the court, and per procedure, the case shows up on her docket.
She then proceeds to review the law and find it unconstitutional, something she would not have been able to do had it remained part of the AUMF.
The Executive Branch only has so many appeals and legal delays it can use, and it uses them all as quickly as possible. If this judgment stands, no one anywhere will have any recourse against the judiciary except to make new law via Congress.
The net result? If this judgment stands, under US law, indefinite detention is unconstitutional and no one, not even the incoming new President, if there is one, can bring it back with out putting a new law through Congress. The dragon is slain.
By the end of this year, if things go well, there will be no indefinite detention in the US, for anyone. Every step of this was precipitated by actions Obama took or directed.
It's up to you whether you believe this was the plan the entire time.
But I'll say this- As a tyrant, Obama has proven completely incompetent- He has managed to create a power grab from thin air then do just about everything right to make sure it never comes to pass.
Oh, and how many people have been added to the rolls at Guantanamo? Nobody. Not one person. People only leave.
Again, as a tyrant, he is incredibly ineffective, as the indefinite detention civil rights ignoring dungeon he has is sitting mostly unused, except for 168 unlucky souls held without trial for being 'too dangerous to release'.
What about those 168 remaining prisoners? Well, the law that allows the US to hold them may be about to be unconstitutional. They will likely either get trials or be released. But what if they really are too dangerous to release? They have had habeas corpus hearings and on multiple occasions whatever is in their case files has led the DoD to determine they should not be released, unlike 600 other former detainees who have been let go from Cuba.
So, let's recap. By the time the President is sworn in for the first or second time, it's possible indefinite detention will not exist, and the issue of the people left at Gunatanamo will have to be decided upon- Something the Congress has been adamant on not addressing yet, by Obama's methods, will now be forced to resolve.
Wow, that's quite a colossal fuck up for Obama, if his plan was to keep the power to indefinitely detain those 168 men or anyone else, and have his own personal black site in Cuba.
However, if he had some other plan...
EDIT: Added citations for the source junkies.
Could you provide any sources other than AddictingInfo for this? While this is an encouraging take on the subject, I prefer to see more sources before I consider this fact.
It's a complex subject with a lot of facets.
You either need to go do the research yourself (It's all available on the internet), or tell me specifically which parts you want sourced.
It's all on the public record, so if you're so inclined you can read the actual pieces of legislation and Executive orders involved directly from the source.
While this is definitely the lengthiest response to my original reply thus far, and very well thought out, what you are essentially saying is you are willing to spew a good 3000+ keystrokes on a subject you are unwilling to back? If you read through my other comments in this post you will see that I am willing to back my reasoning with research, rather than potentially propagandised internet rumors.