News
news This is the worst Ebola outbreak in history. Here’s why you should be worried.
news Mathematicians Say It’s Probable That Alien Probes Have Reached Earth
news This Mysterious Signal 'Could Not Be Explained By Known Physics,' Astronomers Say
news We were never meant to eat simple or starchy carbohydrates
news Nearly 300,000 suicides in India so far from GMO crop failures
news Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
news US Senate Leaders Wish To Triple Funding for Israel's Iron Dome
news China is set to build a particle collider twice the circumference of the LHC
news Oldest Medical Report of Near-Death Experience Discovered
news Scientists at Oxford University claim we only use 8 per cent of our DNA
news Tomorrow’s Fastest Cars Could Be Covered in Morphable Skins

Advertisement



Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
Ray-Ray Debarge
lop guest
User ID: 119037
09-13-2012 06:01 AM

 



Post: #1
banana US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
Advertisement
Jhikpghf

Back in January, Pulitzer winning journalist Chris Hedges sued President Obama and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, specifically challenging the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or, the provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces." Hedges called the president's action allowing indefinite detention, which was signed into law with little opposition from either party "unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous." He attacked point blank the civil rights farce that is the neverending "war on terror" conducted by both parties, targetting whom exactly is unclear, but certainly attaining ever more intense retaliation from foreigners such as the furious attacks against the US consulates in Egypt and Libya. He asked "why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens." A few months later, in May, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of the authorization for military detention. Today, the war againt the true totalitarian terror won a decisive battle, when in a 112-opinion, Judge Forrest turned the temporary injunction, following an appeal by the totalitarian government from August 6, into a permanent one.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-totalit...on-provisi
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement

Omega r.i.p.
Registered User
User ID: 79885
09-13-2012 06:13 AM

Posts: 21,028



Post: #2
RE: US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
While good news, I am sure .gov will appeal, however a moot point as…

All's POTUS has to do is declare, under secrecy, that so and so doing such and such presents a National Security threat to the U.S. and so and so ( insert special forces spooks or guys flying drones) are ordered to ( blow dude the f*#k up) on such and such a date, etc. .

And it shall be done.

They do it all the time.

They were merely seeing how far they can push that shit out in the open, and gaining legal carte blanche to conduct whatever operation they so choose. All's this accomplished was pushing it back into…

Spook City.

Damned

For he hath fallen from his exaltation,
and received his portion.' (D&C 132:39).
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2012 06:14 AM by Omega.) Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 118993
09-13-2012 06:23 AM

 



Post: #3
RE: US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
Bump
Quote this message in a reply
UcDat
Registered User
User ID: 54868
09-13-2012 06:59 AM

Posts: 11,338



Post: #4
RE: US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
Omega  Wrote: (09-13-2012 06:13 AM)
While good news, I am sure .gov will appeal, however a moot point as…

All's POTUS has to do is declare, under secrecy, that so and so doing such and such presents a National Security threat to the U.S. and so and so ( insert special forces spooks or guys flying drones) are ordered to ( blow dude the f*#k up) on such and such a date, etc. .

And it shall be done.

They do it all the time.

They were merely seeing how far they can push that shit out in the open, and gaining legal carte blanche to conduct whatever operation they so choose. All's this accomplished was pushing it back into…

Spook City.

Damned

I wish I could criticize that but its pretty much dead on still worth a 5

any wins a good thing it means maybe some of the judges cops military are on our side after all...

Hiding3
Quote this message in a reply
dolphin
Registered User
User ID: 109593
09-13-2012 07:02 AM

Posts: 8,604



Post: #5
RE: US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
Ozymandias  Wrote: (09-13-2012 06:01 AM)
Jhikpghf

Back in January, Pulitzer winning journalist Chris Hedges sued President Obama and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, specifically challenging the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or, the provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces." Hedges called the president's action allowing indefinite detention, which was signed into law with little opposition from either party "unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous." He attacked point blank the civil rights farce that is the neverending "war on terror" conducted by both parties, targetting whom exactly is unclear, but certainly attaining ever more intense retaliation from foreigners such as the furious attacks against the US consulates in Egypt and Libya. He asked "why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens." A few months later, in May, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of the authorization for military detention. Today, the war againt the true totalitarian terror won a decisive battle, when in a 112-opinion, Judge Forrest turned the temporary injunction, following an appeal by the totalitarian government from August 6, into a permanent one.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-totalit...on-provisi

I was under the impression the Government sidestepped that ruling by allowing that the Plaintiffs would individually be exempted from the NDAA thereby leaving it intact for the rest of us since we were not personally named as plaintiffs in the suit.

All The Dots Connected.
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Aldous-H...rge-Orwell
I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks in all my posts.
Quote this message in a reply
UcDat
Registered User
User ID: 54868
09-13-2012 08:40 AM

Posts: 11,338



Post: #6
RE: US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
Bump
Quote this message in a reply
Twatwaffle
lop guest
User ID: 120626
09-13-2012 01:24 PM

 



Post: #7
RE: US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
[Insert cute "This Thread iz Relevant to my Interests" picture here]
Quote this message in a reply
Twatwaffle
lop guest
User ID: 120626
09-13-2012 03:13 PM

 



Post: #8
RE: US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle, Judge Blocks NDAA's Military Detention
Quote:The last element relates to the weighing of the public interest: does the public have a greater interest in preservation of its First Amendment and due process rights that are infringed by § 1021(b)(2), or in having the statute potentially available for use by law enforcement authorities? Here too, the fact that, according to the Government, § 1021(b)(2) adds nothing new to their authority, is decisive. Enjoining the statute will therefore not endanger the public. The Government did not put forward any evidence at trial that it needed the statute for law enforcement efforts; in contrast, plaintiffs did present evidence that First Amendment rights have already been harmed and will be harmed by the prospect of § 1021(b)(2) being enforced. The public has a strong and undoubted interest in the clear preservation of First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Link to 112 page ruling: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show....ial&id=223
Quote this message in a reply












Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS 2.1