Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NDAA Unconstitutional Says Federal Judge

Eat a dick Obama

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,385 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 08 June 2012 - 01:09 PM

---- Sorry, Mr. President. A US Federal judge has clarified a decision made last month with some news sure to upset the Obama administration: the White House cannot use the NDAA to indefinitely detain American citizens.
Judge Katherine B. Forrest has answered a request made by US President Barack Obama last month to more carefully explain a May 16 ruling made in a Southern District of New York courtroom regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. Clarifying the meaning behind her injunction, Judge Forrest confirms in an eight-page memorandum opinion this week that the NDAA’s controversial provision that permits  indefinite detention cannot be used on any of America's own citizens.
Last month Judge Forrest ruled in favor of a group of journalists and activists whom filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 1021 of the NDAA, a defense spending bill signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. Specifically, Judge Forrest said in her injunction that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and ruled that no, the government cannot imprison Americans over suspected ties with terrorists.
"In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more,” said the judge.
The Obama administration responded nine days later by asking Judge Forrest to reconsider her ruling, adding that, in the interim, the government would interpret the injunction to mean that only the few plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit would be excluded from indefinite detention. One of those named, journalist Chris Hedges, had previously said, “I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists … but that does not make me one.”
Responding to the White House’s demands, Judge Forrest writes in a June 6 memo, “Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(B)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court — or by Congress. This order should eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order’s scope.”
Judge Forrest does include in her ruling, however, that Americans can be indefinitely detained, but only providing that the government can link suspects directly to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Attorney Carl Meyer represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and told RT last month that he expected the Obama administration to challenge Judge Forrest’s ruling, but warned that “it may not be in their best interest because there are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law.”
Previously, state lawmakers in both Utah and Virginia have proposed legislation that would negate provisions of the NDAA on a local level. ----


http://rt.com/usa/ne...ma-forrest-295/

Up next, the (un)Patriot Act.




#2 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 02:04 PM

um why would it upset him he already said he wasn't going to use that power.

#3 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,690 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 02:12 PM

Indeed; Obama already struck down 1021 himself.

#4 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 03:06 PM

And that's just the first sentence. Great find there Cat.

#5 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,385 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 08 June 2012 - 03:37 PM

Ya, we know that we can trust politicians on their word.

#6 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 08 June 2012 - 05:49 PM

I like how Judge Forrester stated that the only "Americans" that can be detained indefinitely is 9/11 suspects... Haha, she is a truther. I hope she can catch a few of the bastards.

#7 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,615 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 08 June 2012 - 05:54 PM

Indeed; Obama already struck down 1021 himself.


False, he added a signing statement promising to never use it against citizens himself. He didn't remove future president's ability to do so. Of course he doesn't really have to go by that signing statement at all. It's a hollow bullshit dog and pony move.

#8 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 08 June 2012 - 06:13 PM

False, he added a signing statement promising to never use it against citizens himself. He didn't remove future president's ability to do so. Of course he doesn't really have to go by that signing statement at all. It's a hollow bullshit dog and pony move.


exactly. If they never intend to use it, then why is it in the bill?

If he promised never to use it, then why didnt he just take that article out?

They are playing us for fools.

#9 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 07:35 PM

chris999 knows as much about the history of the line item veto as he does 9/11.

#10 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,385 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 08 June 2012 - 07:37 PM

chris999 knows as much about the history of the line item veto as he does 9/11.


Damn Arabs and their evil plots.

#11 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 08 June 2012 - 09:14 PM

chris999 knows as much about the history of the line item veto as he does 9/11.


Well, maybe he cant "just take that article out" like I claimed haha, but instead, an obviously unconstitutional bill should have never have been drafted to begin with, or approved 93-7 or whatever in the Senate. fug them all.

#12 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:59 AM

Well that has nothing to do with Obama now, does it? Vetoing the whole thing would not have been a good idea either, the fact that something came to his desk to sign from this current group of disfunctional man-children is a miracle to begin with.

#13 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,385 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 11 June 2012 - 06:01 PM

Cwg: people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the government when it comes to drug testing those on welfare.

Cwg: drones spying on Americans are ok, if you aren't doing anything wrong then what do you have to hide.

#14 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,171 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 05:29 AM

i remember when obama said he would pull back federal raids in states that have medical marijuana laws enacted

that worked out well

#15 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,615 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 19 September 2012 - 03:35 PM

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.
[...]

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.

http://rt.com/usa/ne...-ndaa-stay-414/

Well so much for that.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com