Skip to comments.Obama Administration Defends Detention Power in Appeals Court Hearing
Posted on 02/11/2013 6:28:50 PM PST by EXCH54FE
Inside a federal courtroom packed to beyond capacity, lawyers for President Obama argued that their boss has the right to deploy the U.S. armed forces to apprehend and indefinitely detain American citizens that he alone suspects of somehow supporting groups threatening national security.
Last Wednesday, judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard the governments arguments in their appeal of an earlier ruling blocking the enforcement of this controversial provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012.
Judge Katherine Forrest issued the now-stayed permanent injunction on September 12, 2012.
The Obama administration filed an immediate appeal and the case was kicked upstairs to the Second Circuit.
In the opinion supporting the permanent injunction, Judge Forrest wrote:
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).
This is similar to the language she used in the 68-page opinion accompanying the temporary injunction order. In that order Judge Forrest disagreed with the federal governments argument that the relevant provisions of the NDAA merely restate existing law.
She wrote: Section 1021 is not merely an affirmation of the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force]. Pointing out that were Section 1021 and the AUMF identical then the former would be redundant, Judge Forrest held:
Section 1021 lacks what are standard definitional aspects of similar legislation that define scope with specificity.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Sounds like laws used by Lenin and Stalin...interpreted and enforced based upon their determinations. Then all you have to to is prove that you are innocent!
The fastest way to fix this would be for STATES to pass the Identical law as their State Defence Authorization Act with one minor change to Declare ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES and AGENTS probable Terrorists, start locking them up in secret and REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
How many pieces of the puzzle need to be in place for a large enough contingent of the citizenry to recognize the POTUS is a terrorist and an enemy of the state, for real, and act to end the madness?
It will only take 1 State to start the ball rolling on fixing this travesty of justice.
Okay, here is something I don’t exactly know what to do with. Seems it should be stored some place for future reference.
I vote to detain them, transport them, parachutr them and they will find their utopia...in N Korea. Eat grass...it is green!
These papers do refer to American citizens who are “considered” domestic terrorists. Do you want to be dropped in N.Korea?
“The fastest way to fix this would be for STATES to pass the Identical law as their State Defence Authorization Act with one minor change to Declare ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES and AGENTS probable Terrorists, start locking them up in secret and REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.”
Any agent participating in indefinate detention is a criminal:
Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
“These papers do refer to American citizens who are considered domestic terrorists. Do you want to be dropped in N.Korea?”
That is how propaganda works. What you say is often the opposite of whay you want to do. You play emotions and inflame groups against each other.
Yes, I want terrorists dead if it is my definition. Look at Janet Napolotiano to see who they see as terrorists....war veterans, christians, abortion opposition, freedom supporters...I am going on memory, but this is the gist of their hatred. To them domestic terrorists are the productive class who don’t want to be slaves to them and their crimminal/beaurocrat/entitlement player supporters. They can talk about terrorists, but they really mean us.