Politics, Legislation and Economy News

Government Corruption – Government Overreach  :  Fundamental Rights – Security – Rule Of Law – The American Constitution

Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law

Uploaded by on Jan 2, 2012

by coffeefication video from 2009 NDAA was planned along time ago ! Petition Arrest Rogue US Senators that support National Defense Authorization Act S1867 http://petitionbureau.org/ArrestRogueSenators Rohbss New Channel. 1st channel Terminated because Truth #1 threat to Elites Security. Your life is in Jeopardy ! Legalizing Holocaust. Under National Defence Authorization Act S 1867 U.S. military can (1) arrest U.S. Citizens without any charges (or evidence) (2) Can do it secretly (Just disappear you) (3) Can hold you indefinitely (4) With No Right to a Trial. (5) Can torture. (6) Can assassinate U.S. Citizens. Stop them NOW or DIE ! Your All Terrorists(TRUTHERS), going to take Gov’t Word No DUE Process ! national defence authorization act S 1867 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act S 1867 NDAA End of Human Rights Petition http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-ndaa-section-1031-citizen-imprisonment-l… Stop the Death of the Internet SOPA PIPA Petition http://bit.ly/rM6TTI FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. Martial Law Bill Passes Congress Allows Military to Arrest, Permanently Detain, Torture, Kill American Citizens without Trial. The National Defense Authorization Act. America is a War Zone. Alex Jones InfoWars http://www.infowars.com/ We need Ron Paul Delegates http://www.dailypaul.com/174154/red-alert-we-need-ron-paul-delegates gingrich cain romney Ron Paul http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ Freedom to Fascism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZz-aoUfBhs&feature=channel_video_title .Know who runs the World the Federal Reserve system was fraudulently created & it’s Counterfeiting Notes “the Dollar” is illegal & Unconstitutional. Only Gold & Silver can be money & paper money MUST be back by Gold or Silver like it used it be before 1913 when they took control of this country and took us off the gold & silver standard & devalued the dollar by 98% by printing money & creating INFLATION. I am part of the 99% & have 1 Demand END THE FED & I have a leader who is running for president Ron Paul. Real News http://rt.com/ Occupy & End the Fed http://occupythefed.net/ Zero interest rate for the people not the banks. The people’s own gold & silver non profit money & bank system. Join Ron Paul & the INFO WAR alex Jones & Occupy the World before you are starving to death or martial law is declared Check out the World Freeman Society http://thinkfree.ca/ Become a Freeman on the Land & know the Deceptions of the Law. Statues & Acts are not law & need your consent (like stating your name or showing ID)

Ron Paul :  Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law ∞ Bill of Rights Dead Suspects No Evidence Trial Killed

Obama Signs NDAA Bill : What is the NDAA Bill

Uploaded by on Dec 19, 2011

NDAA Bill
Nation Defense Authorization Act : Indefinite Detention of Americans without a charge or trial.

Reality Check: Obama Administration Refuses To Tell Judge If NDAA is

Published on Aug 14, 2012 by

Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at the fight between a federal judge and the Obama Administration over the NDAA’s indefinite detention clause

NY judge blocks law permitting indefinite detention

 Monika Graff/Getty Images/AFP

Monika Graff/Getty Images/AFP

A US judge has blocked a military law that permitted indefinite detention of anyone without trial for aiding terrorism, declaring it unconstitutional. Journalists and activists claim the law impedes free speech, and could be used against them.

NY Federal District Judge Katherine Forrest said that the law affected anyone who provided so-called material support to organizations such as al-Qaeda or the Taliban. This definition includes text, video or speech that could be deemed favorable of such groups, written by anyone on US soil.

“First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away,” Forrest wrote in her 112 page opinion.“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.”

She advised Congress to either clarify the law or consider whether it is needed at all. The legislation was originally passed as part of the controversial 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, a 565-page military appropriations bill signed by Obama on New Year’s Eve 2011.

The lawsuit against the bill was originally filed in January by a group of journalists whose ranks include former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The group argued that Section 1021(b) of the law allows for the detention of US citizens and permanent residents, solely on the “suspicion of providing substantial support” to al-Qaeda or any other organization engaged in hostilities against US. The law employs vague language that does not define the meaning of ‘substantial support,’ they said.

Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs who successfully sued over unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA. (Image from blogs.villagevoice.com)
Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs who successfully sued over unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA. (Image from blogs.villagevoice.com)

They claimed that the US government could use the law to arrest and indefinitely detain individuals for even minor suspicions that something they wrote or said that unwittingly supported a terrorist group – a clear violation of Americans’ First Amendment rights.

The group was supported by left-leaning activists including Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, Naomi Wolf, Mother Jones magazine and alternative TV station Democracy Now!, and many others who united against the controversial law.

In May, Judge Forrest temporarily suspended the law to hear additional arguments from scholars, journalists and political activists. Hedges testified that he could be detained under the law, since he has interviewed people the government considers terrorists.

Hedges has previously interviewed members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and has also reported extensively on other terrorist organizations.

The ruling

In the ruling, the judge questioned whether a news article perceived as favorable to the Taliban could be considered ‘substantial support’ for the group. “Where is the line between what the government would consider ‘journalistic reporting’ and ‘propaganda?’” she said.

“Who will make such determinations? Will there be an office established to read articles, watch videos, and evaluate speeches in order to make judgments along a spectrum of where the support is ‘modest’ or ‘substantial?’”

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Bruce Afran, claimed that the ruling was historic, saying it is rare that a judge would declare a federal law unconstitutional for impeding free speech.

The White House fought to preserve the law, arguing that it did not restrict free speech and created no new mechanisms for detention.

Ellen Davis, a spokesperson for the US Attorney’s office, declined to comment on the ruling.

Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA

Published: 18 September, 2012, 19:55

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

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

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 a blogpost 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.

 

White House demands military prisons for Americans under NDAA

 

The White House Logo.(Reuters / Adrees Latif)

The White House Logo.(Reuters / Adrees Latif)

 

The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the president’s power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.

On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately.

Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last week’s ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through.

At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier.

“Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision,” writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the lead plaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrest’s most recent ruling an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope,” and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay.

“The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction,” Hedges writes. “This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.”

Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit.

“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedge’s blog.

Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the White House could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administration has ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domestic demonstrations.

“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 tells Hedges. “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.”

Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interact and converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the US government.

Under the NDAA, Americans “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” can be held in prison cells “until the end of hostilities,” vague verbiage that essentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretion of US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him.

“Because the language is so vague in this law,” Mr. Mayer explains to RT, “if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies”

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”

Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White House’s relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, “If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”

“The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush,” writes Hedges. “Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal — warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.”

In his latest blog post, Hedges acknowledges, “The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months.”

 

 

 

 

About these ads