Ben Swann talks about the problem of the media not holding President Obama accountable for his words and actions on the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).

Swann points out the Barack Obama said that he would veto the bill if Section 1021 was left in the bill, which is the part of the bill that allowed for the indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, that the government deemed to be a terrorist. This indefinite detention would eliminate their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights protected under the Constitution. Remember this is just for being accused or suspected of involvement with terrorism, not actually being a terrorist.

Obama signed it into law on New Year's Eve.

Remember, he did issue a signing statement that said he would never use that power. We all believe that, right? That's what I thought.

Senator Carl Levin then spoke from the Senate floor and declared that Obama was not against Section 102, but it was his administration that "demanded" the power of indefinite detention. In fact, Levin says the administration was clear and demanded that the language regarding U.S. citizens be removed from the section prior to its being signed into law.

Journalists then came forward and sued the Obama administration over the indefinite detention provision claiming that the could not do this under the Constitution.

The judge asked if the Obama administration was, in fact, using that power currently but the attorneys and the administration refused to answer. That's right the Obama administration would not come out and say that they were or were not using the power of indefinite detention now, which we all know indicates that they are using it.

Where are we in our society when freedom of the press results in the press being too scared or even knowingly complicit in what is taking place in the undermining of the Constitution?

Judge Katherine Forrest struck down Section 1021 as unconstitutional. This would seem to be exactly what Obama claimed that he wanted, right? He said he would have vetoed the bill with that power in it, then signed it into law. In fact, he knew at some point a judge would rule it unconstitutional. When he signed it, he said he would never use it, so this shouldn't be a problem. Well, it was.

Within twenty-four hours, Obama attorneys were petitioning New York federal judge Raymond Lohier to overturn Forrest's ruling, which he did.

So Swann points out that the media's problem on this is not that Obama signed such a bill into law, but it's that he says one thing, but demonstrates he will do quite the opposite. However, he is not alone in his support of the NDAA, including indefinite detention.