Obama & Panetta v The US Constitution

Obama & Panetta v The US Constitution

August 8, 2012 by ppjg

Marti Oakley © Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved **See Reservations below.
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Will the real terrorists please stand up?

Barack Obama, Chief Executive of the corporation operating as “The United States”, has joined forces with Leon Panetta, head of the Department of Defense in attempting to have the May 15th, 2012 ruling of Judge Katherine B Forest overturned. Judge Forest issued a 69 page ruling regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) . This was the legislative attack on several constitutional rights and protections passed by Democrats and Republicans alike in 2011. On December 31, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the 2012 act into law. The May 15 ruling temporarily blocks the NDAA, and section 1021 in particular.

In June the Obama Administration contacted Judge Forest and demanded that she reverse her ruling of May 15. The Judge refused. The government’s argument was that the plaintiff’s who were afraid of being disappeared into the abyss of the police state, had no standing because the government had not yet kidnaped them and stashed them away never to be heard from again. Which of course would have solved any problems associated with future lawsuits as once they were disappeared there is no way they would ever see the light of day in a court room to establish their “standing”.

Section 1021 of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. by military or Homeland Terrorism agents on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S.

It appears obvious to me that those engaged in hostilities against the US reside inside the District of Criminals. It seems that no one is more hostile to, or more engaged in hostile activities against the nation than the very agencies and government agents that the NDAA empowers.

How could an unconstitutional law such as this, have been passed unless those voting for it were actively and openly hostile towards the country and people who would be affected by it? That would be the House and Senate and the target would be us, the citizens.
Who are the real terrorists here?

From: Bloomberg.com/news/
“In her opinion, Forrest said the government declined to say that the activities of Hedges and the other defendants don’t fall under the provision. Forrest held a hearing in March at which government lawyers did not call any witnesses or present evidence, according to the judge. The government did cross-examine the plaintiffs who testified and submitted legal arguments. (emphasis mine)

“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs — or others — are not within Section 1021,” Forrest said. “It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable — and real.”

The government attorneys presented no case. They refused to state specifically or even non-specifically that the intent of section 1021 did NOT or would not be construed to include US citizens who dissent, or who may have contact with groups or individuals the government arbitrarily decided were terrorists or associated with terrorists.

These days with the Homeland Terrorism Department propaganda mill churning out targeted lists of citizens who for some reason, they are fearful of, we are all suspected terrorists.

The silence of the government attorney’s was intentional; the intent of the NDAA, obvious. By remaining silent and producing no witnesses or evidence, the government was carefully avoiding having to admit in court that their intention was and is to imprison, hold indefinitely without council, and even torture if they choose to, US citizens who dissent. Anything to shut us up!

All of this of course based on a “reasonable suspicion” with no evidence needed. And no evidence need be produced in the future; this modeled on the treatment of the Gitmo detainees most of whom have never been shown to have committed terrorist activities anywhere, much less in or against the US. They have never gotten a trial either. They have never known what the charges were against them. They have never been provided any legal counsel. And they have never been allowed to go home.

By remaining silent and producing no witnesses the government avoided having anything go into the court’s record that could be used at a later date to file subsequent lawsuits or that might be used to limit the unconstitutional authority they granted themselves. By remaining silent they left no legal trail, no public statements of position, no legal interpretations, no clarifications and absolutely nothing that could be used at a later date to impede or otherwise hinder targeting, imprisonment and harassment of US citizens.

As far as Leon Panetta is concerned, he should have been frog-marched to jail along with Col. Dempsey when they informed Senator Jeff Sessions and his committee that they take their orders from the United Nations and would come to congress for their “opinion” on military actions, only as an after-thought. Senator Sessions appeared to be quite comfortable with this declaration of treasonous intent. This was evidenced by the lack of any activity or response by the senator or his committee in light of these declarations of allegiance to a foreign entity by Panetta and Dempsey.

I admire the courage of Judge Forest in sticking to her decision. Now we have to wait for Panetta and Obama to get this case into an appellate court where they can be assured that the judge on the bench is the same one they have in their pockets.

__________________________________________________ ___________

**Reposting and reblogging: Retitling to redirect traffic will be treated as [theft of content]. No modifications of any kind are allowed. Original URL must be embedded in the repost and all author credits clearly visible, including copyright.

x1xForrest

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge - Bloomberg

The case is Hedges v. Obama, 12-cv-00331, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...ginalorder.pdf

United States Department of Defense (defense.gov)

Panetta, Dempsey and treason: And Congress did nothing « The PPJ Gazette