Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tystick

NDAA Permanently Blocked, Obama Administration Appealed, and won. He can indefinitely detain YOU with no trial.

61 posts in this topic

The NDAA's Indefinite Detention Clause Is Now Permanently Blocked

Abby Rogers | Sep. 13, 2012, 11:19 AM |

ndaa.jpg

Citing the "chilling effect" the act has on free speech, a federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked the military from enforcing the National Defense Authorization Act.

The NDAA allows the federal government to indefinitely detain anyone, including American citizens, accused of aiding or participating in terrorism.

The act sparked an avalanche of criticism from journalists and professors alike who claimed it hampered their professions and left them in fear of prosecution.

And on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest — who issued a preliminary injunction against the act in May — sided with NDAA opponents, saying the act was too vague and violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Courthouse News Service reported yesterday.

Testimony from those already affected by the act, as well as the government's inability to define the controversial and vague terms, led Forrest to rule the NDAA has a "chilling effect" on free speech.

"Courts must safeguard core constitutional rights," Forrest wrote, according to CNS.

And while the Supreme Court has "sanctioned undue deference to the executive and legislative branches on constitutional questions" during previous wars "those cases are generally now considered an embarrassment."

http://www.businessi...-blocked-2012-9

Obama should be ashamed!

Huge step in the right direction.

Obama Has Already Appealed The Indefinite Detention Ruling

David Seaman, David Seaman Online | Sep. 13, 2012, 4:30 PM

This sent a chill down my spine. In the midst of my interview with Tangerine Bolen, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the NDAA's indefinite detention provisions & coordinator of StopNDAA.org, she received an email from her lawyer to inform her that the Obama administration has already appealed yesterday's historic court ruling. That court ruling found indefinite detention to be unconstitutional, and issued a permanent block of that provision. Listen to the full interview directly below.

For a man who doesn't want the ability to order the military to abduct and detain citizens - without charge or trial - it is quite odd that his administration is appealing yet again.

And, as stated in the interview, I would love to speak with someone from the administration on-record about this and hash it out. Why do you need this power?

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz26Z2zuP5O

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes, they actually tried to pass that?!?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did, Obama signed it on new years eve last year, and really fought to keep it through this whole process.

It's such a joke, we were on our way to having government tyranny.

I'm happy people are waking up to reality.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The act is actually from the Bush administration and Obama has done nothing but water it down since it became law to make it totally ineffective and now it is dead. Permanently? By a federal judge appointed last last year by Obama himself?

Perhaps Obama knew what he was doing all along.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The act is actually from the Bush administration and Obama has done nothing but water it down since it became law to make it totally ineffective and now it is dead. Permanently? By a federal judge appointed last last year by Obama himself?

Perhaps Obama knew what he was doing all along.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did, Obama signed it on new years eve last year, and really fought to keep it through this whole process.

It's such a joke, we were on our way to having government tyranny.

I'm happy people are waking up to reality.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama signing it on New Year's Eve 2011, lol.... Im sure it will come up again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorists fly planes into buildings because they 'hate freedom'. They kill 3,000 civilians.

US Government sends American soldiers out to defend freedom. 132,000 civilians pay the ultimate price, men woman and children.

The US government proceeds to try and rob its civilians of its constitutional freedoms.

Remind me who the terrorists are again?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to compare the US government to terrorists then lets do it. How about the government tries to kill as many people as possible. Thats more comparable to terrorists and 9/11. How many people could the US government kill if they wanted to kill as many as possible? Yeah exactly. I really hate when people make stupid exaggerated comparisons like this.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of having my friends shot at when they cannot engage because it is a mosque, or school, or there are children in the area. Who are the real cowards hiding behind women and children?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" How about the government tries to kill as many people as possible. Thats more comparable to terrorists and 9/11. How many people could the US government kill if they wanted to kill as many as possible?"

You realize the terrorists could have flown those planes into nuke ractors and killed hundereds of thousands of people?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" How about the government tries to kill as many people as possible. Thats more comparable to terrorists and 9/11. How many people could the US government kill if they wanted to kill as many as possible?"

You realize the terrorists could have flown those planes into nuke ractors and killed hundereds of thousands of people?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL..

Firstly, Obama signed the NDAA, he knew what it was doing, particularly section 1021, he could have veto'd it or issued a signing statement suggesting that section is illegal and wouldn't follow it. Evidently Bush is still signing laws vicariously through Obama 3.5 years later it seems. :lol:

Secondly, and pay close attention, just after the injunction against the NDAA section 1021, Obama then wrote a signing statement + opinion to the court's ruling that says:

“The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.”.

.. to which the judge clarified that it isn't limited to the plaintiffs but all US citizens. This was months ago.

This about face from his public statements on vying for American freedoms parallels his about-facing on opposing the Bush NSA-AT&T warrantless wiretap issue once becoming President became more of a reality. No idea why people think Obama is any different than Bush, he just showed it again.

So Obama had plans all along when getting this judge appointed 7 months before she would block the NDAA?

This is some of the most slanted DailyKOS-like nonsense I've seen yet. It's an equivalent to Bill O'Reilly giving Bush the constant reach around on his show. Every single action Obama and his administration took on this bill does not point in the slightest bit to trying to get the NDAA killed, it points to the opposite, especially when that one provision was blocked. Obama didn't have to do anything to keep it blocked, but instead wrote his own signing statement and had his lawyers write a court opinion declaring that only those involved in suing him would be counted as being off the table for section 1021. It's amazing how easily people are fooled by this partisan garbage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of having my friends shot at when they cannot engage because it is a mosque, or school, or there are children in the area. Who are the real cowards hiding behind women and children?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how they go to war to protect their freedom, and in reality they are the least free 1st world country around.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.