Last week a Us district judge struck down the National Defense Authorization Act’s (NDAA) Section on “indefinite detention.” Her order, dated September 12, 2012, barely made it through the weekend before a federal judge bowed his knee to Barack Obama and not the Constitution and reinstated the Section.
Late Monday evening, in New York, federal judge Raymond Lohier, granted the Obama administration a stay that temporarily blocked Judge Katherine Forrest’s permanent block of the NDAA.
Lohier offered no explanation or rationale for the temporary stay. However, the Justice Department has asked the appeals court to block the injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest last Wednesday.
The Obama administration has had the audacity to claim that Judge Forrest’s ruling was unconstitutional, while at the same time trying to uphold a law that is clearly unconstitutional and violates some of the more pertinent rights listed in the Bill of Rights, namely the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which state:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Furthermore the NDAA also is in direct violation of the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment which states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any 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” until a poorly defined deadline described as merely “the end of the hostilities.” The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest’s earlier decision that the NDAA fails to “pass constitutional muster” and that the legislation contained elements that had a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights”
Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.
Sadly our own government isn’t being detained for helping certain members of the terrorist group cited in the NDAA in places such as Libya and are now reaping the whirlwind of such support.
RT went on to report,
“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran told Hedges for a blogpost published this week. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”
NDAA is a big deal. If you think a job or the economy is a big deal, then you better pay more attention. I’m not discounting those things are important, but if you lose your freedom while looking at those as most important, what good are either of them? Sadly, many in America don’t even know what NDAA is or entails. I constantly get email asking me exactly what it is. It’s because people are more interested in the mud slinging and the political fluff of what their candidate said or did in a gaffe than they are deadly serious issues of freedom and tyranny. Both the Democrats and Republicans shut down any mention of a stand against NDAA in their platforms. Both candidates from each party support the NDAA as written.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.