Corrupt Court upholds NDAA; stay extended on indefinite detention injunction

© Agence France-Presse
Protesters wearing orange prison jump suits and black hoods on their heads march during a protest against holding detainees at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay during a demonstration in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington

(RT.com) A federal appeals court has extended a stay on the injunction blocking the notorious indefinite detention provision in the 2012 defense bill that lets the US government jail any American without end over even suspected terrorist ties.

This comes as attorneys for the White House fight to lift the order imposed by a federal judge last month that made permanent an injunction on a statute of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. On Tuesday, an appeals panel weighed in to offer the latest installment in the Hedges v Obama saga and agreed to side with the White House.

President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law late last year, and the now infamous provision that allows for indefinite detention of US citizens without trial – Section 1021 – was challenged in court shortly thereafter by a team of plaintiffs led by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges.

The Obama administration insists that the indefinite detention provisions of the legislation are necessary for the safety and security of the nation, a claim that Hedges and his colleagues have condemned whole-heartedly in the ten months since the NDA went on the books. Journalists and human rights activists insist that Section 1021 actually allows the government to label any American citizen as a suspected terrorist and then treat them accordingly.

“We conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the government’s motion for a stay,” Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney – all appointed by President Obama – wrote in a three-page order that also expedited the appeal. POLITICO obtained the motion on Tuesday (.pdf).

“Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the government’s motion is GRANTED.”

The order by appeals court comes after Judge Lohier temporarily blocked Judge Forrest’s decision, using a so-called administrative stay on September 17.

The appeals court judges argue against the fears of Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, decision that in its motion the US government “clarifies unequivocally that, ‘based on their stated activities,’ plaintiffs, ‘journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the US military.'”

They also stated, “the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States.”

In May, Judge Forrest ruled Section 1021 of the NDAA failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary injunction.

In its original form, the NDAA allows the military hold anyone accused of having “substantially supported” al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” until “the end of hostilities” and indefinitely imprison anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the United States, yet fails to explicitly define what is constituted as such. In her injunction, Judge Forrest said, “In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more.”

“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” Judge Forrest ruled.

During both a question-and-answer session on Reddit.com last week and during a recent appearance at a Bradley Manning fundraiser in Washington, Mr. Hedges expressed fear over his personal assumption that the Obama administration is already using the NDAA to hold Americans without trial. Because of the White House’s relentless legal fight to keep Section 1021 on the books, Hedges say, he fears that American-Pakistani dual-citizens could already be behind bars without charge.

Plaintiffs and their attorneys say they intend on taking the case to the Supreme Court.

Advertisements

HELP SUPPORT THE EXALTED TRUTH with a Donation Today!

Enter your email address to follow the Exalted Truth and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Comments

  1. Here is a case of Govt vs Govt which just might make it to the S Court. Here is another case of blatant misconduct by a Fed Judge against a US Citizen. This judge has violated many of the Citizen’s Constitutional rights and no one will interfere for fear of the court.
    Watch out everyone, this is a test case. Read the story
    BACKGROUND
    This test case involves a quietly successful entrepreneur named Jeff Baron.
    For years, this entrepreneur owned an Internet startup corporation that he established. Ultimately, the entrepreneur found the corporation on the receiving end of litigation by a former business partner. Nine of 10 lawsuits filed by the former partner were dismissed. The tenth lawsuit, overseen by U.S. District Judge Royal Ferguson, resulted in Jeff’s corporation filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This is when the courts embarked on a series of unconstitutional decisions.

    At the first appearance in court, the judge made the following unprovoked statements in court:

    “any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death…I’m telling you don’t screw with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me.

    During the course of this civil case, the District Court placed not only the Company, but the entrepreneur himself under the power of the judge’s friends whom he made “trustees/wardens” and placed the entrepreneur into a bizarre “civil lockdown”. This means that ALL of the entrepreneur’s personal and professional assets – bank accounts, property, clients, even the clothes on his back – have been seized. And the Court ruled that the entrepreneur CANNOT under any circumstances hire legal counsel. And he may not earn an income. His “person” is also under the complete control of the “trustees/wardens” in which the Court deemed a personal “receivership”. This is the first time, to my knowledge, an individual has been “legally” placed under involuntary receivership since the abolition of slavery in 1865.

    All of these rulings were made without due process. Without a trial. Without representation. And without a crime! The entrepreneur has never been accused of committing any crime. Yet, his constitutional rights have been stripped. The rulings in this test case violate the 4th, 5th and 7th and 13th Amendments to our U.S. Constitution. To my knowledge, this is the only case of such a situation in US history.

    IMPACT ON AMERICANS: A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
    This is not only a case of federal power gone awry, but is setting precedent. Now that the Judge has ruled that “civil lockdowns” are legal, unless it is overturned, it may be used as a precedent for future cases, giving judges the ultimate power to strip citizens of their Constitutional rights and of their property without due process. And it can happen to any one of us. For any reason. Or no reason at all.

    I implore you to investigate this case and expose the unlawful acts that threaten our freedoms and rights as U.S. Citizens.

    The only news coverage of this case thus far has been by the Washington Examiner’s columnist Barbara Hollingsworth which can be read here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2012/02/federal-judge-puts-internet-pioneer-civil-lockdown/272761 This will give you a sense of the story. In addition, the website http://LawInjustice.com contains certified court documents along with some editorialized content.

    If you are interested in pursuing this, I can provide court papers and other legal documents related to the issues, including the rulings that violate the Amendments mentioned above.
    P.S. Without being accused of any crime, several lawyers and judges got together in ex parte to create a new precedent with total disregard of Civil rights. This is a precedent setting test (Canary in a coal mine) case designed to become legacy for the Federal Judge. He, instead of following the law, he is following his own agenda.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: