BIG News! NDAA detention provisions Zapped
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/12/2012 22:43 -0400
Back in January, Pulitzer winning journalist Chris Hedges sued President Obama and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, specifically challenging the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or, the provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."
Hedges called the president's action allowing indefinite detention, which was signed into law with little opposition from either party "unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous."
He attacked point blank the civil rights farce that is the never-ending "war on terror" conducted by both parties, targeting whom exactly is unclear, but certainly attaining ever more intense retaliation from foreigners such as the furious attacks against the US consulates in Egypt and Libya.
He asked "why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens."
A few months later, in May, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of the authorization for military detention. Today, the war against the true totalitarian terror won a decisive battle, when in a 112-opinion, Judge Forrest turned the temporary injunction, following an appeal by the totalitarian government from August 6, into a permanent one.
From Reuters:
The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.
The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.
The opinion stems from a January lawsuit filed by former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and others. The plaintiffs said they had no assurance that their writing and advocacy activities would not fall under the scope of the provision.
Government attorneys argued that the executive branch is entitled to latitude when it comes to cases of national security and that the law is neither too broad nor overly vague.
"This court does not disagree with the principle that the president has primacy in foreign affairs," the judge said, but that she was not convinced by government arguments.
"The government has not stated that such conduct - which, by analogy, covers any writing, journalistic and associational activities that involve al Qaeda, the Taliban or whomever is deemed "associated forces" - does not fall within § 1021(b)(2)."
What is ironic, is that in the ongoing absolute farce that is the theatrical presidential debate, there hasn't been one word uttered discussing precisely the kind of creeping totalitarian control, and Orwellian loss of constitutional rights, that the bi-party-supported NDAA would have demanded out of the US republic. Why?
Chris Hedges said it best:
The oddest part of this legislation is that the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the Pentagon and the attorney general didn’t support it. FBI Director Robert Mueller said he feared the bill would actually impede the bureau’s ability to investigate terrorism because it would be harder to win cooperation from suspects held by the military. “The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we’ve been fairly successful in gaining,” he told Congress.
But it passed anyway. And I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.
He is 100% correct, and today, if it weren't for his lawsuit, the saying that someone, somewhere in the world might possibly "hate America for its liberties" would have been the biggest lie conceivable.
Also, the total fascist takeover of America would now have been a fact.
Read entire ZH article:
5 comments:
Let's see,
NDAA allowed them to detain indefinitely, passed in 2011
it took power away from the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force - (who was president in 2001?)
2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force "the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens."
that translates to KILL
So a guy sues, gets the indefinite detention reversed as unconstitutional since the power to KILL was already there in 2001.
Thank you awake ones.
The sheeple would never have spoken so loudly about stopping Obama from keeping them alive by superceding an order to KILL.
The ignorance of the masses is appalling.
Yeah you are awake and unaware of who your enemy is. You want to fight and remove the One that everyone agrees to fight and remove and you don't even know any truth.
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
He said, the very minds of the people we are trying to save.
Trying to save the mind...and these youtube(s) and awareness sights are gaining control of your minds and directing it for their purpose.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but an easy thing to control.
Everyone spewing Obama stuff about NDAA has proven they didn't even know there was a more deadlier Executive Order out there.
That order is 11 years old approx, and of all these anonymous people who speak so eloquently with their high paid elite education you jump into agreement with them like pigs to slaughter you pass those same details to your families and get mad when they don't jump into the same belief.
Can't save face now...keep going...remove the one man who could help save your mind from these people who can control you if they do you like they did a few Occupy people, and like they do the people who capture rain water, and who plant gardens in their front yards, yes, remove the protection he wrote at the end of 2011, so that they can use the one they wrote in 2001 to get what they want in 2012.
Yes, pull him out of office because there is no way there's be so many posts and videos unless he's the bad guy.
Someone else was in office of 8 years and this many posts and videos didn't even exist about him!
If you don't know where you are going, you'll go anywhere someone who speaks, writes, and acts like a leader, leads you.
Your reality. I guarantee you.
BLAME BUSH, dumb-dumb! Obama's just following the path Bush laid out for him with, of course, NO PROSECUTIONS of the 9/11 culprits. The "ONE" has no intention of saving anybody but himself...oh well, maybe sending his family on ANOTHER TAX-PAYER FUNDED MILLIONAIRE VACATION! Look what Obama/Hillary's "schizophrenic" foreign policy has done in the Middle East. The "ONE's) destruction just keeps on keeping on, like an energizer bunny.
A great part of the problem lies in the Fact that had President Obama Not signed the NDAA Bill, then our military men and women, the suppliers and contractors for the military, would have gone unpaid until a new bill was wrangled out in Congress, which, considering the Repub/TPers focus on making Pres. Obama a 'one term President' they would have taken their time about it, no matter the harm to our military men and women, and bashed Pres. Obama for it unmercifully, even though it was THEM that wrote it and passed it.
One also must remember that it is Congress that writes and passes these bills, not the President, and so Pres. Obama did the best he could by signing the bill and issuing a signing statement declaring that he felt it unconstitutional and would not uphold it.
That the Administration is appealing the ruling of a lower court is actually a way for the President to use the Courts to remove that portion of the Bill by getting it sent to a higher court, where it should, again be deemed unconstitutional, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court, with the same result and those portions of the Bill will be removed in a Constitutional manner. While it may LOOK like the President is fighting for those portions of the Bill, it is actually his one remaining way to have them removed entirely since he cannot remove them himself, that would have to be done by Congress due to the Separation of Powers delineated in the Constitution or by the Courts.
Instead of blaming President Obama for having looked after our Military men and women AND working to have those portions excised, in a legal, Constitutional manner, blame the people who wrote and passed the Bill with those unconstitutional sections in it.
All "Those" who are behind these barbaric laws will soon be hanged upon their own gallows! Bush set the stage for Obamma, They are both just puppets. Evil puppets!
And hang every one involved and new about it.
Post a Comment