posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:17 PM
Originally posted by kawika
This law would certainly be found unconstitutional if tested in court. Court can not test it though until someone is arrested. No one has standing
to bring it until they use it.
This is not true. In fact, the section of NDAA 2012 that has so many rightfully concerned is not, as so many disingenuous legislators who voted for
it are stating, "extending any new authorities" to the federal government. It is true that the NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 of the act do not
"extend any new authorities" and is merely codifying into legislation what has all ready been held by the courts.
In Rumsfeld v Padilla
, on September 8th of 2005,
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
held that the federal government
had the authority to hold Padilla without any charge or trial, as an "enemy combatant". The 4th Circuit ruling has never been heard by the Supreme
Court because the issue became moot when then President Bush transferred Padilla from Guantanamo Bay to the United States to be charged and held for
It was Padilla's lawyer who filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus on Padilla's behalf that got the issue in the courts to begin with. So it is just not
true that this portion of the 2012 NDAA cannot be challenged. It can be and it will be.