Federal Judge grants preliminary injunction on sections of the NDAA

[Leanne King]

In a considerable setback for a president eager to ravage the due process rights of the American people, Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, striking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5th Amendment rights.

Signed very quietly into law on New Year’s Eve, the controversial Act has been roundly criticized as unconstitutional by groups on both the political left and right. Of greatest concern was Section 1021, which grants the United States military authority to exercise police powers on American soil. Upon order of the president and at his sole discretion, agents of the military are empowered to detain “until the end of hostilities” anyone the president believes to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”

Judge Forrest concluded that the Section “…failed to ‘pass Constitutional muster’ because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.” In a statement clearly directed to lawmakers, she added, ”Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster.” That is, Congress failed—perhaps deliberately– to define “substantial support” of terrorist groups or describe those activities which might be construed as crossing the legal line. And no law may be enforced if those to whom it applies are unable to clearly understand what a violation of that law entails.

Nothing could more plainly reveal the rank corruption and lust for power of the Manchurian Candidate than his involvement in crafting and then misrepresenting the final text and authority of the NDAA. According to Democrat Senator Carl Levin, it was Obama himself who demanded American citizens be included under the detention law and that the President have exclusive authority to invoke the statute. “The language which precluded the application of Section [1021] to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin after the NDAA was signed into law.

Yet in his signing statement, Obama wrote that he had in fact forced Congress to “…[revise] provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security and liberty of the American people.” So rather than the grand inquisitor, committing to prison any American citizens he chose to view as enemies, Obama claimed to be their champion and savior, protecting them from the excesses of an over-zealous Congress!

“I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” wrote Obama. “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” This of course was an outright lie, given the expressed meaning of the statute as Obama himself had demanded it be written. Leave it to Barack Obama to demand he be given absolute authority over the American public, yet claim in the next moment that he will not take advantage of it!

The Department of Justice, which defended the NDAA before Judge Forrest, will undoubtedly appeal her ruling. It is a judicial process Americans must watch closely as the free exercise of our Constitutional rights depends upon the outcome.

[amanda choate]

Allen West voted for it Nancy Pelosi against. Boehner for, Barney against. Warner for, Wasserman-Schultz against. So who is on which side? I am confused.

[Patricia M. McBride]

That will not work Amanda.  The OWS folks are the socialists and communists.  You may be comfortable rubbing shoulders with them, but I have no intention of doing so period.  They may not be bright enough to understand they are being used, but they are.  And why did congress pass such a crazy bill?  Obama said he wouldn't sign it if certain things were not in it, but once it showed up on his desk he acted like it was a surprise to him.................the fact is, he wanted that stuff in there in preparation for his next term if he can lie, steal and cheat his way back into 4 more years to finish the job of destroying this country and putting us in camps because we don't agree with him!

[amanda choate]

 Two of the three people who brought this case were involved with the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the other is Noam Chomsky. See I told you there was more there there than anyone here wanted to admit. The Occupiers brought this suit along with the ACLU and The New York Times among others.

It is better to build bridges rather than walls. And these are the same people who are protesting at the NATO summit in Chicago.

[amanda choate]

Why did congress pass such a crazy bill?

[Patricia M. McBride]

The problem with Obama is that his interpretation of the constitution and that of almost anyone else are not divergent.  He sees himself as having absolute authority and the actual intent of the constitution was to eliminate anyone having absolute power....................so I wouldn't trust his interpretation of our founding documents any more than I would have voted for someone with his belief system and contempt for our country and it's people.  He is a liar and a cheat and fails any sniff test I can think of.