Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    116,892

    NDAA 2013: Congress approves domestic deceptive propaganda

    NDAA 2013: Congress approves domestic deceptive propaganda

    Published: 22 May, 2012, 21:03

    Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

    Reauthorizing the indefinite detention of US citizens without charge might be the scariest provision in next year’s defense spending bill, but it certainly isn’t the only one worth worrying about.

    An amendment tagged on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 would allow for the United States government to create and distribute pro-American propaganda within the country’s own borders under the alleged purpose of putting al-Qaeda’s attempts at persuading the world against Western ideals on ice. Former US representatives went out of there way to ensure their citizens that they’d be excluded from government-created media blasts, but two lawmakers currently serving the country are looking to change all that.

    Congressmen Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012” (H.R. 5736) last week during discussions for the NDAA 2013. It was voted on by the US House of Representatives to be included in next year’s defense spending bill, which was then voted on as a whole and approved. The amendment updates the antiquated Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, essentially clarifying that the US State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may “prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad,” but while also striking down a long-lasting ban on the domestic dissemination in America. For the last several decades, the federal government has been authorized to use such tactics overseas to influence foreign support of America’s wars abroad, but has been barred from such strategies within the US. If next year’s NDAA clears the US Senate and is signed by President Obama with the Thornberry-Smith provision intact, then restrictions on propaganda being force-fed to Americans would be rolled back entirety.

    Both Congressmen Thornberry and Smith say that the amendment isn’t being pushed to allow for the domestic distribution of propaganda, but the actual text of the provision outlines that, if approved by the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama, that very well could be the case.

    “We continue to face a multitude of threats and we need to be able to counter them in a multitude of ways.Communication is among the most important,” Rep. Thornberry explains in his initial press release on the bill.“This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible and transparent way. Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation.”

    On his part, Rep. Smith says that al-Qaeda is infiltrating the Internet in order to drive anti-American sentiments ablaze. If the amendment he co-sponsors is passed, the US government would be able to fight fire with fire.

    “While the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was developed to counter communism during the Cold War, it is outdated for the conflicts of today,” Rep. Smith says in his official statement. “Effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among disaffected populations.An essential part of our efforts must be a coordinated, comprehensive, adequately resourced plan to counter their radical messages and undermine their recruitment abilities. To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.”

    Does that mean that the anti-Nazi and damning communism adverts that were a hallmark of America during the Second World War and the Cold War, respectively, will be updated to outrage Americans against the country’s alleged enemies? It isn’t ruled out, for sure. Both Congressmen Thornberry and Smith have tried to dull the American public’s quickly surmounting outrage by saying that the act won’t be used for brainwashing purposes, but by letting Uncle Sam’s propaganda-spewing communication machine have free roam on the Web and elsewhere, it would absolutely be allowed.

    “Clearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences,” Michael Shank of the Institute for Economics and Peace in Washington tells Buzzfeed, who broke the news of the amendment. "That Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators – who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayer–funded propaganda promulgated by the US government – is disconcerting and dangerous."

    Responding to the quickly escalating backlash, Rep. Smith attacked allegations that he is encouraging pro-American propaganda on US soil. “This amendment is intended to ensure that the US government can get factual information out in a timely manner to counter extremist misinformation and propaganda,” he writes in a follow-up statement. “It does not and is not in any way intended to ‘legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences’ and, in fact, specifically ensures that the content to be rebroadcast or republished domestically by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) shall not influence public opinion in the US. It clearly states, no funds authorized to be appropriated to State Department or BBG for any activity shall be used to influence public opinion.”

    Regardless of his or Mr. Thornberry’s intentions, the text of the legislation speaks for itself.

    Rep. Smith contributed to this year’s NDAA with another provision, submitted with co-author Congressman Justin Amash (R-Michigan). With that amendment, the two lawmakers proposed that the US military be stripped of their power to indefinitely detain US citizens without charge, a right granted to them under last year’s defense spending bill. Unlike the amendment Rep. Smith introduced with Thornberry, the House shot down that proposal.

    NDAA 2013: Congress approves domestic deceptive propaganda — RT
    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    116,892
    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    116,892
    New Bill Would Make It Legal To Target Propaganda And "Psychological Operations" Directly At U.S. Citizens

    May 21st, 2012
    29 comments



    Should it be legal for the U.S. government to spend billions of dollars on propaganda designed to change public opinion in the United States?

    Should it be legal for the U.S. government to use television, radio, newspapers, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs and Internet forums to conduct "psychological operations" targeted at the American public?

    An amendment that has been added to a new defense bill in Congress would make it legal to target propaganda and "psychological operations" directly at U.S. citizens.

    The latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act would overturn the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. Those two laws essentially make it illegal for propaganda that is used to influence public opinion overseas to be targeted at U.S. citizens back here at home. If those two laws are struck down, there will be essentially very few limits to what the U.S. government can do to shape our opinions. The government would be able to bombard us with propaganda messages on television, on the radio, in our newspapers and on the Internet and there would not even be a requirement that those messages be true. In fact, just as happens so often overseas, it would likely be inevitable that the government would purposely disseminate misinformation to the American public for the sake of "national security". That is why it is imperative that this bill not become law.

    As an article posted on LegalInsurrection.com correctly noted, this bill has already been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives....

    Their bill was included as amendment 114 to the Defense Authorization Act and passed out of the House on Friday, May 18. It would amend two existing acts: the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (1987).

    Fortunately, it looks like this amendment might run into some trouble in the U.S. Senate. But during an election year, not many politicians want to appear "soft" when it comes to national security, so it is definitely not a sure thing that the Senate will reject this amendment.

    This amendment has been kind of "flying under the radar", so now would be a good time to contact your U.S. Senators and let them know exactly how you feel about this.

    So precisely what would this new amendment do?

    A recent article by Michael Hastings of Buzzfeed.com did a good job of explaining how it would change things....

    The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

    Do you want the Obama administration to use mass media in the United States to push a particular political or social agenda?

    Do you want the State Department and the Pentagon to conduct psychological operations targeted at you, your family and your friends?

    Do you want to see and hear government propaganda everywhere you go?

    In a previous article I detailed 25 ways that America is becoming more like Nazi Germany, and I suppose I now have another item to add to the list.

    Sadly, the government is already "pushing the envelope" when it comes to using the media. In his recent article, Michael Hastings detailed some examples of how the Pentagon is already attempting to shape public opinion in the United States....
    In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.

    According to U.S. Representative Mac Thornberry, one of the sponsors of the bill, current law "ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way."

    Apparently we cannot think for ourselves and we need the government to help us to see things more clearly.

    But when it comes to "psychological operations", the people that run them do not always play nice.

    Just check out what happened recently to two USA Today reporters....

    A USA TODAY reporter and editor investigating Pentagon propaganda contractors have themselves been subjected to a propaganda campaign of sorts, waged on the Internet through a series of bogus websites.
    Fake Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments. Websites were registered in their names.

    If this new bill becomes law, there will be very few limits on what the government can do.

    And just like the two USA Today reporters, you could end up being a target.
    If the government propaganda experts decide that they don't like you, it is quite likely that you could end up being the target of a massive misinformation campaign.

    It could come down to the fact that they simply do not like your blog or what you are saying on Facebook. They could decide that it is best to destroy your reputation for the sake of "national security".

    These kinds of "Big Brother tactics" are absolutely disgusting, but they are becoming part of who we are as a nation.

    According to one recent DHS report, if you revere "individual liberty" or if you "believe in conspiracy theories" you are a potential terrorist. And if you are a potential terrorist, then it would only make sense to conduct psychological operations against you before you become an "active" threat.

    Sadly, many Americans already act as if they have been brainwashed by propaganda. Recently, a shocking video from North Carolina of a teacher yelling at a high school student and telling him that disrespect of Barack Obama is not permitted in the classroom went viral all over the Internet.
    The teacher honestly seemed to believe that it was forbidden to "disrespect" Barack Obama.

    That is frightening.

    Our founders insisted on a limited federal government for a reason.

    They greatly feared what might happen if the federal government became too large and too powerful.

    At this point, not only is our freedom of speech under attack, but our freedom of thought is under assault as well.

    If we are not very careful, America is going to be turned into a giant prison.
    Those of us that still love freedom and liberty must be willing to speak out now before it is too late.

    Once our freedoms and liberties are gone they will be incredibly hard to get back.
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 05-28-2012 at 02:16 AM.
    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    116,892
    Wednesday, May 30, 2012

    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, where 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 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, 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.

    There is no more time for procrastination, for hoping the government will fix itself. There is no more time to rely on the courts.

    There is no time to rely on Congress. The time to act is now.

    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

    Please help support this information by voting on Reddit HERE.

    Activist Post: Government Defies Federal Judge on NDAA
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 05-30-2012 at 09:33 PM.
    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    116,892
    Obama Defies Federal Court Ban On NDAA Indefinite Detention


    Posted by Alexander Higgins - June 4, 2012 at 3:13 pm -




    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 first responded to the ban on indefinite detention by asking the courts to lift the injunction.
    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.
    That ruling, which merely permitted 50 minute of a suspects interrogation to be entered as evidence, sounds reasonable and harmless yet Obama interprets it as an authorization to jail U.S. citizens forever without ever charging them.
    Activist post reports on Obama’s interpretation of the court ban on NDAA indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.
    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: P.A.N.D.A. | Join Us
    People Against the NDAA – Unite! People against NDAA - Unite! - YouTube
    PANDA’s First Victory: Activist Post: Pennsylvania Constable to Sign Resolution Opposing the NDAA and Patriot Act
    Source: Activists Post
    From the Examiner on the Judge’s Ruling
    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

    Obama Defies Federal Court Ban On NDAA Indefinite Detention

    Related Posts



    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •