News
news New York City's Rats Are Carrying Viruses No One's Seen Before
news UFOs in West Virginia: 10 witnesses, 4 low-flying UFOs, 3 big as football fields
news Mysterious Spontaneous Combustions Return to Sicilian City
news X-37B Military Space Plane Lands After Record-Shattering Secret Mission
news Syrian Ambassador Calls ISIS An ‘American Myth’
news Genetic engineering will one day create the smartest humans who have ever lived.
news FBI Wants Encryption Regulated
news Lockheed Claims Fusion Energy Breakthrough
news Cleveland Area Schools Cancel Classes Over Ebola Concerns
news Earth's magnetic field could flip within a human lifetime
news WHO: 10,000 new Ebola cases per week could be seen

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: 21,027



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: 11,706



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: 11,706



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