Reply With Quote
that'd be nice. not holding my breath, tho.
Thanks for the update WH23. I'm afraid it's a lost cause for this presidential cycle... maybe the next will care about, ya know, acting as we proclaim to be, guardians of liberty, freedom, justice and all that jazz...
that'd be nice. not holding my breath, tho.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...new-york-judgeU.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan today ruled that the law, passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, is uncons utional. Forrest made permanent the preliminary injunction against the law that she had ordered in May. The government is appealing her May order.
“The Cons ution places affirmative limits on the power of the Executive to act, and these limits apply in times of peace as well as times of war,” Forrest wrote in a 112-page opinion today. “Heedlessly to refuse to hear cons utional challenges to the Executive’s conduct in the name of deference would be to abdicate this court’s responsibility to safeguard the rights it has sworn to uphold.”
Good. At least she gets it.
Hope. Change. Yes we can..........
Congrats to Judge Forrest for doing what's right and upholding the Cons ution
Judge Forrest is one of the only people in government who actually represents the people.... kudos to her, tbh....
good for her.
If it goes to SCOTUS, NDAA will win.
Sadly this is true.
And Democrats still want to vote for this lying fake piece of President.
The bas appealed the decision already within 24 hours.
The prick signs the Bill first of all on New Years Eve because he's a pussy, and of course the mainstream media isn't showing much of what just happened with Judge Forrest overturning this.
But people think he gave a nice speech at the rigged DNC, so I guess that's all that matters.
The good people at RT are true patriots!
NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue
http://share.banoosh.com/2012/09/16/...lawyers-argue/
WASHINGTON — Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge’s ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.
The lawyers made the argument on Friday in seeking a stay of the ruling, issued earlier this week by Judge Katherine Forrest in the Southern District of New York.
Forrest had ruled on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who said they feared the government could grab them under section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. That section affirms the administration’s right to detain any “person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces,” including U.S. citizens.
Forrest found that the definitions of “substantially supported” and “associated forces” were so vague that a reporter or activist could not be sure they would not be covered under the provision if they worked with a group deemed to be associated with terrorists, or perhaps circulated the message of an associated individual by printing an interview.
The judged ruled that such a cir stance violated the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the Fifth Amendment right to due process that holds that a person must be able to understand what actions would break the law.
Forrest also argued that in passing the law, Congress had dramatically expanded the categories of people that can be detained, although the legislation itself and the administration asserted that the provision was doing nothing more than reasserting the White House’s authority originally granted under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that lawmakers passed after the 9/11 attacks.
Friday, in a stay request signed by New York’s Southern District U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery and Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson, the government argued that the injunction was an “unprecedented” trespass on power of the president and the legislature that by its very nature was doing irreparable harm.
The request also argued that the injuction places an undue burden on military commanders in a time of war while the plaintiffs — among them pulitzer-prize-winning reporter Chris Hedges and noted left-wing academic Noam Chomsky — had no reasonable fear of ever being detained “in the foreseeable future.”
“The Court’s injunction against application of section 1021 ‘in any manner, as to any person,’ … combined with its mistaken view that section 1021 goes beyond reaffirming the authority contained in the AUMF, could impose entirely unjustified burdens on military officials worldwide, complicating the ability to carry out an armed conflict authorized by Congress in the public interest,” the stay request says.
“Given the absence of any risk of impending harm to plaintiffs, the serious injury to the government and the public interest in the invalidation of a statute enacted by public representatives, and the possible effect on an ongoing armed conflict and the Executive’s prerogatives in military affairs, a stay is necessary,” it concludes.
The request is seeking both an immediate temporary stay so that the matter can be argued, and a permanent one lasting until higher courts resolve the case, which the administration announced Thursday it would appeal. A hearing was set for Wednesday next week. Forrest denied the short-term stay, so the law cannot currently be used.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Bruce Afran, noted that the government’s lawyers told Judge Forrest during arguments after she issued her first temporary injunction in May that they did not know if the administration was using the detention provision. If the government is now arguing that stopping the practice would cause irreparable harm, it shows the administration was indeed using the law and violating the injunction, Afran said.
“The only way they could be done irreparable harm is if they’ve been using this all along,” Afran said.
“It just shows the lawlessness of this, even under the Obama administration,” he added.
The group Demand Progress has been appealing to President Obama to stop defending the law, and said more than 60,000 have signed a pe ion on the matter since Wednesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA
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 cons utional 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 Cons ution 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.
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for the update, SA210.
btw, do you read anything besides infowars? just curious . . .
Chris Hedges speculates on the significance of the USG's emergency plea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_HeAlJwtkw
Why do they hate freedom?
Exactly how many Americans have been jailed using NDAA by Obama?
Paranoid much?
We don't know, he/his lawyers wouldn't tell the judge when she asked that very question. Not paranoid, just being real, it's a pretty stupid thing to do to the Cons ution and to Americans. Is it no wonder to you that he signed it on New Years Eve so most Americans wouldn't know, isn't it telling that he then promised to never use it on Americans even though he signed it?
Isn't it quite telling that during trial and the temporary injunction that Barry couldn't tell the Judge if they were illegally using this already against her orders, and after her official final ruling he immediately appeals it and asks for an EMERGENCY overturn of this ruling? Why? And what's the urgency? Sounds like Barry is paranoid and might just already be using it, either way, he's fighting it aggressively for a reason..for what purpose? It's pretty obvious.
I just laugh at this because no one rips Barry a new one for supporting this. Barry is suppose to not be Bush yet he supports like this and is okay with it. What a in' hypocrite and tool. And his supporters are delusional.
um, this thread, moron. I can link others if you like . . .
I want someone in the national media to call Obama out on this .
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
