Obama’s Lawyers Appeal Court Ordered Block Against NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision

US District Court Judge Katherine Forrester ruled earlier this year that the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is unconstitutional and ordered a block on its enforcement by federal agencies for those “suspected” to have “substantially supported” al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces”.

While Obama’s lawyers have been fighting against this ruling with appeals, there has been installed a permanent injunction against the US government enforcing Section 1021 of the NDAA under “Homeland Battlefield” provisions.

Section 1021 says that the US President may “use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), including “the authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.”

The explanation of a “covered person” includes “a 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

Under wartime, individuals can be detained without due process “under the law of war” until such conditions of hostility end as “authorized by the AUMF.” Obama’s attorneys would have the US District Court believe that Section 1021 of the NDAA is vital to maintaining national security and therefore the executive branch is entitled to utilize the provision at their discretion. Forrester stated that this provision does not preclude “that such conduct – which, by analogy, covers any writing, journalistic and associational activities that involve al Qaeda, the Taliban or whomever is deemed “associated forces” – does not fall within § 1021(b)(2).”

Forrester indicated that the Section 1021 of the NDAA has already caused harm to journalists such as Chris Hedges. She also questioned the legal definitions of the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported,” and “associated forces” as stated in Section 1021, pointing to the lack of prior case law and “respective meanings of the terms at issue”.

Forrester continued to explain that Section 1021 is a vague definition which translates to a gross violation of “an individual’s core liberties. The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention–potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity–and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2) . . .”

Hedges’ complaint centered on the “nebulous terms” that are subject to interpretation by federal agencies that are the power behind the indefinite detention of an American. The US government’s classification of any American as an enemy combatant on a simple suspicion without proof guarantees that a multitude of US citizens could and would most likely become victims of detainment in a military facility without cause to use habeas corpus.

The US government’s blatant disregard for the 1st Amendment with regard to writers, journalists, political activism prompted Forrester to suggest that Congress to revise the provision to reflect a Constitutional acceptance of the rule of law governing our Republic while satisfying the desires of the US government to defend national security.

This decision confirms that regardless of the Fascist nature of our US government, there are inalienable rights afforded us by the US Constitution that cannot be undone by order of the Executive Branch. Simply to claim allegation of involvement with suspected terrorists is not enough to detain an American without due process and charges brought to facilitate defense of the accused.

Without delay, less than 24 hours later, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal of Forrester’s decision facilitating Constitutional rights to journalists, news reporting and political activists. The new appeal will be heard by another judge, and may be supported by an Orwellian-like minded individual who will aid the Obama administration in retaining the right to have anyone they want disappeared into a FEMA camp under the guise of “supporting” CIA-sponsored and manufactured terrorist organizations.

While this legal battle is being waged, the US government has been using another form of indefinite detention of Americans – specifically US veterans being carted away to psychiatric wards for speaking out against the Fascist element having hijacked the executive branch of our Constitutional Republic.

By using a manipulated version of the Baker Act, US veterans and political dissonant are disappearing into mental wards to be forcibly evaluated and subject to threat of unwarranted psychotropic medications for not supporting the path of the current administration.

To ensure that Obama can further demonize US veterans, he signed an executive order earlier this month that allocates the Department of Defense (DoD) the authority over the mental healthcare of our returning service men and women through the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA).

Simply put: the DoD is empowered to oversee how US veterans “transition” back into “civilian life.” The US government’s goal is to identify these veterans and label them with a progressive, unstable and degenerative disease so that they can refer them to mental hospitals for further evaluation and/or admittance.

While this plan of action is being realized, the Obama administration is fighting in the court system for the right to indefinitely detain any American for any reason with or without cause, with the catch-all accusation of supporting terrorists.

2012-09-17 15:48:38

Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/obamas-lawyers-appeal-court-ordered-block-against-ndaa-indefinite-detention-provision_092012