Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.

By Alexander Higgins (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Obama Defies Federal Court Ban On NDAA Indefinite Detention

Monday, June 4, 2012 19:17

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Obama is refusing to follow a federal court order that found the NDAA violates the Constitution and temporarily banned indefinite detention of U.S citizens.

The Obama administration is refusing to follow the order of a Federal District Court Judge Katherine Forrest who last month temporarily blocked the government from detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge as authorized by section 1021 of the NDAA in a ruling that declared the NDAA unconstitutional.

The Obama administration is now using their own twisted interpretation to claim the ruling only applies to named plaintiffs in the case and not any other journalist or U.S. citizen even though the court clearly agreed with coalition of journalist and activists that the NDAA is being used to silence critical reporting of the U.S. government.

The court also ruled that indefinite detention with charge or trial most likely violated the Fifth Amendment which guarantees all citizens Due Process which guarantees all Americans have a right to face any charges against them in a court of law before a jury of their peers during which they have a right to defend themselves against the evidence the government presents against them.

Even though the court found the NDAA “has a chilling effect on First Amendment activities” of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press the Obama administration is claiming that the court found the NDAA only had a “chilling effect” on the plaintiff’s who brought the lawsuit against the government.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the case is the government could have had the case thrown out entirely if they would have asserted the NDAA would not be applied against journalists during their course of exercising their Constitutionally protected Freedom of Press activities.

Instead the government refused to assert that the NDAA would not be applied to journalists exercising First Amendment protected activities and further refused to assert journalism did not fall within the scope of “directly” or “substantially” supporting terrorism under the NDAA.

The government further refused to provide even a single example of what was meant by “directly” or “substantially” supporting terrorism under the NDAA instead claiming the terms were open to interpretation on a discretionary basis given the context of each case.

Obama’s newly announced interpretation of the judge’s ruling clearly has no basis in reality but will undoubtedly be enforced with full effect of the law until someone successfully challenges it in court.

Such twisted interpretations are nothing new for Obama s the New York Times revealed last week in reporting on Obama’s secret assassination program.

Mr. Obama was taking a drubbing from Republicans over the government’s decision to read the suspect his rights, a prerequisite for bringing criminal charges against him in civilian court.

Sensing vulnerability on both a practical and political level, the president summoned his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to the White House.

F.B.I. agents had questioned Mr. Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes and gained valuable intelligence before giving him the warning. They had relied on a 1984 case called New York v. Quarles, in which the Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a suspect in response to urgent public safety questions — the case involved the location of a gun — could be introduced into evidence even if the suspect had not been advised of the right to remain silent.

Mr. Obama, who Mr. Holder said misses the legal profession, got into a colloquy with the attorney general. How far, he asked, could Quarles be stretched? Mr. Holder felt that in terrorism cases, the court would allow indefinite questioning on a fairly broad range of subjects.

Satisfied with the edgy new interpretation, Mr. Obama gave his blessing [ to detain suspects indefinitely without reading them their rights, providing access to a lawyer or even charging them with a crime] , Mr. Holder recalled.

To recap, in 1984 ” the Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a suspect in response to urgent public safety questions — the case involved the location of a gun — could be introduced into evidence” after the suspect was detained and questioned for 50 minutes without having his rights read to him.

So Obama took a Quantum leap from Supreme Court which only permitted 50 minute of a suspects interrogation to be entered as evidence rights as authorization to jail U.S. citizens forever without charge them in any cases were the suspect could be interrogated on a wide range of “urgent public safety questions” such as terrorism.

Activist post reports on Obama’s interpretation of the court ban on NDAA indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

Federal judge blocks NDAA, ruling it unconstitutional

A preliminary ruling finds the NDAA likely to be unconstitutional, striking down infinite detention and prohibits its enforcement pending a permanent ruling.

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that allows the US government to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism.

Under the law the government has the power to subject US citizens to military detention, under which the detained persons can be tortured, without ever filing charges against the detainee based merely on accusations that do no need to be substantiated with evidence of any kind while denying the detained person a right to a lawyer or even a trial.

Recently a coalition of journalist filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration for using the NDAA to silence their critical reporting on the US government.

As with many of the constitutional violating aspects of the NDAA, the media remained silent as the lawsuit moved forward with many who read of about the lawsuit through blogs and alternative media sites immediately dismissed the claims made in the lawsuit in outright disbelief that such a thing could be occurring in America.

Those journalists just won a sweeping victory before US federal district Katherine Forrest who parted with a long streak of federal court rulings that have repeatedly sided with federal government to grant egregious Constitution trampling totalitarian powers to the executive branch.

The ruling found that the journalists 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press are indeed being suppressed by the NDAA and issued an temporary injunction against the NDAA.

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs assert that § 1021 already has impacted their associational and expressive activities–and would continue to impact them, and that § 1021 is vague to such an extent that it provokes fear that certain of their associational and expressive activities could subject them to indefinite or prolonged military detention.

“Here, the uncontradicted testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that the plaintiffs have in fact lost certain First Amendment freedoms as a result of the enactment of § 1021,” Forrest wrote.

“Hedges, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir have changed certain associational conduct, and O’Brien and Jonsdittir have avoided certain expressive conduct, because of their concerns about § 1021. Moreover, since plaintiffs continue to have their associational and expressive conduct chilled, there is both actual and continued threatened irreparable harm,” she wrote.

Separately, the ruling also found that the infinite detention statue most likely violates the Fifth Amendment Right to due process – which includes the right to a lawyer and a trial to defend yourself against allegations made against you.

“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”

“In addition, it is certainly the case that if plaintiffs were detained as a result of their conduct, they could be detained until the cessation of hostilities – i.e., an indeterminate period of time,” Forrest continued. “Being subjected to the risk of such detention, particularly in light of the Government’s inability to represent that plaintiffs’ conduct does not fall with § 1021, must constitute a threat of irreparable harm. The question then is: Is that harm immediate? Since the Government will not say that the conduct does not fall outside of §1021, one cannot predict immediacy one way or the other. The penalty we know would be severe.”

“This court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution,” she wrote. “However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights. As set forth above, this court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected.”

[...]

Source: The Examiner

Western Journalism reports:

Government Defies Federal Judge on NDAA

When 4th District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional, there was wide rejoicing across the internet. Posts from prominent civil liberties activists like journalist David Seaman rang out with “VIICCTOOORRYY!” A Russia Today newscast, titled the ruling “NDAA Shot Down, But Threats Remain”, seemed to imply that the fight was over, or “on hold.” But it was only just beginning.

Do you remember, from your high school or college government courses, when they talked about the court having “neither the power of the sword nor the purse?” That means the High Courts of the United States cannot force the government to accept their ruling. They can heavily imply it, but they have no power to force government compliance. When the Supreme Court ruled against the government in Worcester v. Georgia, President Andrew Jackson is famous for having responded: “[Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

The tyrannical U.S. Government has taken the exact same tack with the ruling against them on the NDAA. But first, let’s quickly recap exactly how weak the government case in favor of the NDAA actually was. In Hedges v. Obama, the government routinely avoided the judge’s questions and demands:

The Court: “When we are talking about cases which have used the phrase ‘substantially supported’ and said that that is a valid criterion under the AUMF or of the legislation, that’s not the same thing as saying that . . . any court has found, one way or the other, that ‘substantially supported’ has an understandable meaning to an ordinary citizen?”

The Government: “It’s true that the courts have not expressly ruled that, that’s right.”

The Court: Give me an example. Tell me what it means to substantially support associated forces.

Government: I’m not in a position to give specific examples.

The Court: Give me one.

Government: I’m not in a position to give one specific example.

Later…

The Court: “Assume you were just an American citizen and you’re reading the statute and you wanted to make sure you do not run afoul of it because you are a diligent U.S. citizen wanting to stay on the right side of §1021, and you read the phrase ‘directly supported’. What does that mean to you?”

Government: Again, it has to be taken in the context of armed conflict informed by the laws of war.

Court: That’s fine. Tell me what that means?

The Government: “I cannot offer a specific example. I don’t have a specific example.”

After seeing the ridiculous responses the government had given her, and finding that even the government could not define those terms, Judge Katherine Forrest issued her ruling against the NDAA, stating:

“This measure has a chilling impact on first amendment rights.”

She then granted her temporary injunction:

“As set forth above, this Court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein.”

This should be the end of it. This landmark case should be a victory for Americans, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The judge clearly states “the public’s constitutional rights” and “the public interest.” Hey, I’m a part of the public, so I’m protected now!

Not so fast. Our tyrannical government, in one sentence, has chosen to defy a ruling by a federal judge.

“The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.”

Just when you want to believe that there are good people in the highest levels of our federal government, statements like this bring you back to reality. The government continued:

“Although the Order fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, and the concluding paragraph of the Order is not, on its face, clear as to whom the injunction benefits, the government reads it in light of the well-established principle that courts “neither want nor need to provide relief to nonparties when a narrower remedy will fully protect the litigants”

Excuse me? Let’s very quickly compare Federal District Court Judge Katherine Forrest’s Order…:

“Accordingly, this Court finds that the public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein”

…with the government’s response:

“The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.”

The Judge said her order was to protect the public interest. No informed human being could read it otherwise. Yet, according to the government, they can still detain you because you are not a named plaintiff. Our government is so entwined in a power grab that they will stop at nothing, even twisting court orders, to strip us of our Constitutional rights.

The government defied the court, the Constitution, and our Founding Fathers. It stops here.

It is now up to “We the People” to take down this tyranny through grassroots activism.

Join the movement to repeal the NDAA: http://www.peopleagainstndaa.com/joinus.php

People Against the NDAA – Unite! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8BBD1v_Ivs

PANDA’s First Victory: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/pennsylvania-constable-to-sign.html

Source: Activists Post

Source: Obama Defies Federal Court Ban On NDAA Indefinite Detention ©
Copying or redistribution of this material requires that this license must remain intact with attribution to the content source.