Mon, 9 Jan 2012, 8:47am PST
Like Dislike Comment 3
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I serious doubt the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the NDAA unconstitutional and the law could stay on the books for years.
(1) First, someone has to be detained and seek legal consul to challenge the law. However, if a person could be indefinitely detained, would the U.S. government prevent visitation, especially by attorneys.
(2) Second, it takes years for a court case to trickle through the system. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court picks and chooses which court cases to review.
(3) If we look at some of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions and group the decisions as "increase power of the government" or "increase citizens' rights," the Supreme Court tends to rule in favor of the government.
(4) The real sad news is U.S. news tends to be shortsighted with very few details. On some issues, I had to read British newspapers to get a better sense of the issues. (I think U.S. reporters are afraid of the government and they censor themselves).
Unfortunately, the U.S. is moving towards a government controlled economy. It's something we have to go through. Government officials think they have the right, duty, and conviction to control the masses and the economy. Unfortunately, they are wrong.
Remember, the Soviet Union was not created to murder citizens, perform nighttime police raids, and control every aspect of society. The goal of Communism was to create a Utopian, classless society. Workers would become enlightened and be paid the value of their work.
Wed, 11 Jan 2012, 12:10pm PST
Like Dislike Comment 4
Farelli, you're like those guys in 1933 Germany who said the same thing.
You're a fool, fool.
It's all fun until someone gets an eye put out.