Skip to comments.What makes our NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution
Posted on 08/12/2012 6:08:13 AM PDT by IbJensen
Time after time, Obama's lawyers defending the NDAA's section 1021 affirm our worst fears about its threat to our liberty
(Activist and reporter Tangerine Bolen, a plaintiff in the case against the NDAA, speaking to the media after a New York judge enjoined section 2012 of the law.)
I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.
In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.
Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law...
Most incredibly, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world ...
To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Congressman West has shown his true colors by supporting this travesty! Those colors are NOT red, white and blue! The Tea Party screwed up on this guy.
I have no problem with detaining American citizens caught in a foreign country fighting American forces. In my view they forfeited their citizenship.
Id have a very big problem if they are arrested within our borders.
Battlefield USA: The Gray State Is Coming By Consent or By Conquest (*Video*)
GRAY STATE Official Concept Trailer #1
Article III Section 3 of the Constitution reads:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The problem with your comment is that the government only has to accuse a citizen of fighting American forces. They don't have to prove it to anyone in any court or even in any document. The accused person has no rights at all under this law. In fact, they only have to say you were fighting American forces if they get caught holding you in detention.
It makes no difference if you're on American soil or not. You don't give up your rights as an American just by leaving American territory. Fighting American forces is treason, and the requirements for proving treason are clearly spelled out in the Constitution: testimony in OPEN COURT by two witnesses to the same overt act. Period.
It was a Thursday night show early this year with Linda Moulton Howe who also did not like what PRESIDENT! Obama did that New Year's Eve Dec. 31, 2011.
Who cares? Lots of apolitical folks love "non-partisan" C2C and they vote. It was good to hear C2C be critical of Obama by name and not Republican Bush.
Too bad the law fails to make the distinction.
I use <tt>Typewriter text</tt> for article quotes and <i>italics</i> for quoting posters to help clarify the source.
If you want to step to total control by your government, please don’t do it in our country.
Sorry about that. I might try that myself in the future to avoid confusion.
I was quoting Tangerine Bolen herself from the article.
She says it just after the...To this, Judge Forrest responded... snippet provided in the original post.
No harm, no foul.
Thanks for the <tt>Typewriter text</tt> tip.
I learned something useful today.
He’s programmed to take orders in military situations. As our military moves into war against Americans, West will go along with whatever is ordered based on the dire excuse they use to kill us “domestic terrorists.” He’s not objected to DHS naming conservatives and vets domestic terrorists. He’s not objected to the systematic sexual molestation of Americans as they travel through the airports. I thought he would be wise...alas he not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
My sincere thanks, sir.
8 U.S.C. § 1481 : US Code - Section 1481
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or