Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By kathyet2

Thread: Criminal Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Indefinite Detention Case

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Criminal Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Indefinite Detention Case

    Criminal Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Indefinite Detention Case

    Dean Garrison 46 mins ago

    On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging the indefinite military detention of American citizens, without due process, that was written into the 2012 NDAA. This is, of course, Section 1021 from the 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) that has been at the center of controversy for over 2 years. The legal battle that advanced through appeal to the Supreme Court, was led by notables such as Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg and Chris Hedges.

    When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that Americans would again see the rise of internment camps on American soil it gave me a really uneasy feeling. To some, his comments were seen as hypothetical. I felt strongly that he was trying to warn Americans of the inevitable:
    Justice Antonin Scalia predicts that the Supreme Court will eventually authorize another a wartime abuse of civil rights such as the internment camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II.

    "You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again," Scalia told the University of Hawaii law school while discussing Korematsu v. United States, the ruling in which the court gave its imprimatur to the internment camps.

    On Monday the Supreme Court handed down a decision that shreds any perception of "liberty and justice for all." They took one of the most critical Constitutional debates of our lifetime, NDAA indefinite detention, and simply refused to hear the case.

    According to WND:
    A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to "detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker," according to critics.

    The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

    The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.

    Not even Scalia dissented? So much for my theory that he was on our side. Maybe it was more of a threat than a warning.
    The Supreme Court seems to feel that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA has nothing to do with the indefinite detention, without trial, of American citizens. Though this is the highest court in the land, they seem to be disregarding the legal opinions of many highly educated scholars. Washington's Blog reports:
    The court ignored the fact that the co-sponsors of the indefinite detention law said it does apply to American citizens, and that top legal scholars agree.

    The courts' Orwellian reasoning may sound – at first blush - like it might be a good thing. After all, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court said that there's no indication that the indefinite detention provision will be applied against U.S. citizens.

    However, by refusing to strike down the law and insist that any future laws explicitly exempt U.S. citizens, it leaves discretion in the hands of the executive branch.

    The effect of the decision will be to allow the U.S. government to kidnap and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens who protest or dissent against the government … and the courts will never hear any legal challenge from the prisoners. The detainees will not get to say:
    Hey, the Supreme Court said the indefinite detention law isn't written to apply to U.S. citizens, so you have to let me go!

    After all, prisoners can be held under the indefinite detention bill without trial, without presenting evidence, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen.

    So – if you're thrown into a hole somewhere – no one will even hear your side of the story.

    There are two groups of freedom fighters in America. There are those who are still trying to go through proper channels and hoping that the battle to defend our Constitutional freedoms can be won without bloodshed. Dan Johnson of PANDA is a perfect example of a freedom fighter who refuses to give up or give in, while trying to advance our fight through proper legal channels:
    In 1944 the Supreme Court approved the pre-emptive detention of over 110,000 Japanese-Americans. The Court's denial 70 years later proves that we cannot rely on 9 people in black robes to defend our freedom.

    It is now up to the states, cities, counties, and people of this nation to show the Supreme Court that it is not the final arbiter of our human rights. As 5 cities have already done so, I urge Americans across the country to begin action to ban these sections in their communities, raise awareness, and push back against this denial. If Washington D.C. thinks this is the last they will hear from us, they are very, very wrong.

    There is another group that is tired of trying to go through proper channels only to be stonewalled time and time again. Though it needs to be understood that we are all on the same side, there is a growing group of people who have come to the conclusion that protests, appeals, letters, emails and petitions just aren't working.

    They are preparing to defend their freedom with extreme prejudice. One needs to look no further than the happenings at the Bundy Ranch to understand that some people feel the door has already been slammed shut. They feel their only choice is to fight and who could blame them?
    Look around.

    The Supreme Court was just asked to rule on legislative and executive over-reach and they looked the other way. This is not the system of checks and balances that our founders envisioned.

    Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
    You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


    “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

    Thomas Jefferson
    Last edited by kathyet2; 05-01-2014 at 11:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Fighting the Battle!!! Almost didn't post because I got emotional...

    ChristianVideoChanne470 videos

    Published on Apr 30, 2014
    I got emotional for the Lost. Not because of what's happening. I almost didn't post this but changed my mind because We're Suppose to mourn for those in darkness! Time is So Short! And One Soul Lost is Too Many!!! Don't Give Up Church!!! Not until our last breath! Keep spreading the Saving Redeeming Word of God! He's coming for His Church Soon!

    • Category

    • License

      Standard YouTube License

    Last edited by kathyet2; 05-01-2014 at 03:22 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Supreme Court Inaction on NDAA Demonstrates the Futility of Federal Solutions

    NDAA indefinite detention powers rermain in full effect after the Supreme Court refused to even listen to the Hedges v. Obama case challenging their constitutionality.

    What was the Courtís rationale? It said that the plaintiffs did not show ďa sufficient threat that the government will detain them.Ē Never mind the vague terminology in the NDAA that the feds refused to define or the unprecedented war on whistle blowers being waged by the Obama administration.
    The Supreme Courtís inaction means indefinite detention without due process written into the NDAA is still in full force. The federal government has once again failed to regulate itself, putting everyone at risk of government sanctioned kidnapping.

    While people like Chris Hedges, Tangerine Bolen, Daniel Ellsberg and others deserve credit for fighting the NDAA through the courts, their efforts didnít change anything.

    This really isnít surprising.

    Simply put, we cannot depend on federal courts to rein in federal power.

    State and local efforts to stop unconstitutional acts,such as the Liberty Preservation Act, work because they do not rely on the corrupt president, Congress or the courts to get things in order. The people have much more influence over state and local politicians and can influence the legislative process, something nearly impossible at the federal level. We turn town councils, county commissions and state legislatures into avenues of resistance against the NDAA and other unconstitutional federal policies. We make the lower-levels of government interpose themselves against the powers granted to the feds by the NDAA.

    That is how we achieve success, not through lawsuits.

    Ratbstard and working4change like this.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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