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

[Tystick]

White House Says It's Unconstitutional To Strike Down The NDAA

Abby Rogers | Sep. 17, 2012, 8:48 AM |

The Obama administration had some harsh words Friday after a federal judge appointed by Obama said the government doesn't have a right to indefinitely detain anyone even remotely associated with terrorist groups.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest permanently blocked the government from enforcing the National Defense Authorization Act, claiming it was too vague and would have a "chilling effect" on free speech.

And now the Department of Justice is calling Forrest's ruling "unprecedented," arguing that the government has long had the authority to detain anyone it deems a threat to the county, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported Friday.

Forrest's ruling oversteps the court's authority and infringes on Obama's power to act as Commander in Chief, according to the government's court filings.

The Justice Department requested a stay of the ruling pending appeal, which Forrest denied Friday.

Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case has hailed the decision as a "huge and historic victory for democracy," saying he believes any challenges from the Obama administration will be shot down, RT reported over the weekend.

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz26l52fkHg

Wow! Apparently it's unconstitutional to strike down a bill that violates the constitution! Damn, they must really want this in power.

Obama fans! You still out there?!

[Tystick]

Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA

Get short URL

email story to a friend print version

Published: 18 September, 2012, 19:55

US President Barack Obama. (AFP photo/Robyn Beck)

TRENDS:Defense Authorization Act

TAGS: Obama, Terrorism, Law, USA, Court

A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.

The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals court panel is expected to begin addressing the issue.

On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law, even though he insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement explaining his hesitance to essentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” President Obama wrote. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justice’s decision has been destroyed.

With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until a poorly defined deadline described as merely “the end of the hostilities.” The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that the NDAA fails to“pass constitutional muster” and that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights”

Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.

"First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away," Judge Forrest wrote last week. "This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention."

Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama, said Monday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they are already employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly.

“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran told Hedges for ablogpost published this week. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”

Within only hours of Afran’s statement being made public, demonstrators in New York City waged a day of protests in order to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Although it is not believed that the NDAA was used to justify any arrests, more than 180 political protesters were detained by the NYPD over the course of the day’s actions. One week earlier, the results of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union confirmed that the FBI has been monitoring Occupy protests in at least one instance, but the bureau would not give further details, citing that decision is "in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."

Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, reported on the stay late Monday and acknowledged that both Forrest and Lohier were appointed to the court by President Obama.

Well there you have it folks, Obama didn't have a plan after all, he just really wants to control YOU!

Wake up, it's amazing how little people care about this.

[Fathoms]

from December 16th 2011:

[TOMapleLaughs]

Sensationalism!!!

[Tystick]

Sensationalism!!!

[mrawfull]

Lol, was there ever any doubt that Obama was a statist? This is the same man that appoints dozens of unaccountable czars, sets industrial policy with the EPA, bypasses congress with executive fiats and recess appointments, can penalize anyone that does not have health insurance, etc. He never has to answer to the press unless its Entertainment Tonight or Vogue magazine.

[key2thecup]

[Dazzle]

I can't help but feel that Obama is just the tip of the iceberg. He is nothing more than a puppet. They must really have good blackmail material.

I also highly doubt that Bush was really capable of pulling all that. He definitely had help and this help is hard at work here.

My god.

[Tearloch7]

Best advice I can give? .. dinna pi$$ off the "powers that be" .. that is all .. what do you expect when the US Government is OWNED by the multinational's?? .. people who act surprised by this extension of "Executive" abuse must really be naive ..

[Common sense]

That is the most hilarious thing I have heard all day. Thanks for that. You do realize that a flight pattern towards a nuclear facility would be closesly watched and immediately shot down. But your original statment already shows theres no arguement here.

[Common sense]

Sensationalism!!!

[TOMapleLaughs]

The fact of the matter is that suspending the rights of suspected terrorists, or any other enemies of the state, is nothing new. These people are not protected by the laws of the country that they are trying to attack for a damn good reason: National security.

The fear is that 'random americans' can be detained. Of course. Boogedy-boo! But the truth is the only people that should be afraid are the enemy.

In times of war, human rights have always gone to the wayside and that won't change anytime soon. Just be glad that america doesn't promote real controversial solutions to problems, like, oh i dunno... Genocide?

Meanwhile, Obama seemed to say that he didn't even like the act that was written before, and according to that article i've linked to before, he's done nothing but change it's language to make it tame since coming into power. Why do that if you're hell-bent on crushing american civil liberties? It's strange, i know. But i don't think everything is how it first appears in this case. Let's wait and see what happens, esp. when we have no power to stop it here anyway.

"Oh snap, i've been indefinitely detained!"

lol

[Tystick]

The fact of the matter is that suspending the rights of suspected terrorists, or any other enemies of the state, is nothing new. These people are not protected by the laws of the country that they are trying to attack for a damn good reason: National security.

The fear is that 'random americans' can be detained. Of course. Boogedy-boo! But the truth is the only people that should be afraid are the enemy.

In times of war, human rights have always gone to the wayside and that won't change anytime soon. Just be glad that america doesn't promote real controversial solutions to problems, like, oh i dunno... Genocide?

Meanwhile, Obama seemed to say that he didn't even like the act that was written before, and according to that article i've linked to before, he's done nothing but change it's language to make it tame since coming into power. Why do that if you're hell-bent on crushing american civil liberties? It's strange, i know. But i don't think everything is how it first appears in this case. Let's wait and see what happens, esp. when we have no power to stop it here anyway.

"Oh snap, i've been indefinitely detained!"

lol

[Tystick]

Appeals court allows indefinite detention under NDAA

Katerina

By Katerina Nikolas

Sep 19, 2012 - 12 hours ago in World

A federal judge granted an emergency stay to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Sept 17, blocking last week's injunction. The ruling allows the White House the right to detain Americans indefinitely.

The Examiner reported New York Federal Judge Raymond Lohier made the ruling on Monday in response to the Obama administration's appeal against last week's injunction by U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest.

The ruling grants the federal government the right to imprison anyone "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" under the controversial NDAA (RT).

It overturns Forrest's ruling that "First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away. This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention."

According to Politico "Lohier offered no explanation or rationale for the temporary stay." The Justice Department has argued that blocking the NDAA's provision for indefinite detention causes irreparable harm.

The stay will remain in effect until Sept 28., when it will be reviewed by an appeals court panel.

Read more: http://www.digitaljo...9#ixzz26woS0WCv

This just keeps getting better and better

I wonder what the emergency stay was/is for...

[Columbo]

Idk about you guys, but I want this guy out of office. No one should have the power to keep someone in detention, that's called forced confinement and it's against the law!

[TOMapleLaughs]

idk about you guys, but i actually want terrorists to be indefinitely detained. You give them our civil rights, lawyer up, they skip bail or jail and then blow us up.

"Oh snap, suicide bomber! Well, at least we were humane about their treatment. AAAAAAIIIIEEEEE!"

[The Colt 45s]

So in 2008 Obama campaigned against this. Now that he has been in power for almost four years, he likes it.

While I understand the need to protect the US from terrorists, because they are nonuniformed foriegn enemy combatants, US citizens deserve their day in court regardless of the crime they have been charged with.

[Tystick]

Though I totally disagree with the bill, do you really think replacing Obama with Romney would make it go away? Don't kid yourself.

It's really telling how this is probably the worst bill Obama has ever signed, yet the Republicans never criticize him for it. (And remember, these are the guys who turned a deliberately out-of-context quote into the theme of their entire national convention.)

[Mr. Ambien]

idk about you guys, but i actually want terrorists to be indefinitely detained. You give them our civil rights, lawyer up, they skip bail or jail and then blow us up.

"Oh snap, suicide bomber! Well, at least we were humane about their treatment. AAAAAAIIIIEEEEE!"

[Red Light Racicot]