Fed Judge issues a permanent injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens without trial (NDAA) ,, a victory for the Constitution ,, and against O

A federal judge has ruled against President Obama’s NDAA appeal issuing permanent injunction against the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

After a long fought legal battle journalists and activists have won a major battle against one of the most totalitarian pieces of legislation in the history of the United States.

The legislation formally known as the National Defense Authorization Action has several constitutional trampling provisions.

The most outrageous of those provisions allowed the United States government to place U.S. citizens in jail indefinitely without ever filing charges, providing access to a lawyer or even allowing those thrown in CIA torture prisons the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations they are being detained.

That section of the NDAA has now been permanently blocked after a federal judge issued a final injunction banning the used of the indefinite detention provision in the so-called “homeland battlefield” bill.

The authority to do so was given because the bill gives the President the authority to conduct military operations in any country in the world, including inside the United States, to fight the so-called war on terror with the need for congressional approval to do so which is effectively a suspension of Posse Comitatus.

Back in January Journalist Chris Hedges filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration to fight the totalitarian powers given in the declaration of World War 3 known as the NDAA.

Given the fact the bill presented a clear and present danger to the US Constitution Hedges was joined by a coalition of activists and journalist.

Those journalist filed shocking briefs in the lawsuit detailing how the NDAA was being using to silence political dissent and journalism critical of the US government.

Per standard procedure the corporate media remained silent after not being given a press release from the government to parrot as the case went to trial.

Instead the Pentagon simply engaged in a psychological warfare operation on the internet which was the only place the lawsuit was being discussed which attempt to discredit proponents of the lawsuits as wing nut conspiracy theorists.

After the case was heard Obama revealed in court those conspiracy theorists were right and Obama planned on using the NDAA in the exact manner patriotic Americans feared it would be used – to detain American citizens in military detention indefinitely without charge or a trial.

As such US Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA provisions unconstitutionall and issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the use of NDAA military detention against American citizens.

Obama then openly defied the ruling claiming the ban on NDAA detention applied only to the plaintiff’s in the lawsuit.

Judge Forrest then issued another ruling clarifying the protection applies to all US citizens pending a final ruling.

Judge Forest even issued a follow-up warning stating she would find the Obama administration in contempt it had not complied with her previous ruling.

Obama appealed and fought back every step of the way failing to provide legal arguments beyond the vectors of national security secrecy and executive primacy in regard to foreign policy.

At the same time Obama refused to even assert that journalists would not be subject to the NDAA simply for their reporting while also refusing to define what actions constituted providing direct or indirect support for associated forces or who those associated forces were.

Obama appealed claiming the government had the right to determine as they see fit without judicial oversight while working under the cover of secrecy granted by national security through which the government could pick and choose U.S. citizens to detain without trial.

As Zero Hedge reports Obama’s appeals simply didn’t hold muster and as such Judge Forrest has issued a permanent injunction against the provision:

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 neverending “war on terror” conducted by both parties, targetting 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 againt 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 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).”

www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=JJ0001