NDAA in court over indefinite detention of Americans

After much debate on a new law signed by President Barack Obama, House Republicans are throwing around the idea of reviewing the National Defense Authorization Act after the law was challenged in court.

Seven witnesses appeared in front of US District Judge Katherine Forrest in New York on Thursday. Among the seven individuals,a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Chris Hedges was responsible for filing the lawsuit believes the “indefinite detention” portion of the law could result in his imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay for merely doing his job.

Hedges a repeated guest on RT is an author, columnist for TruthDig.Com and a Middle-East expert, expressed in Federal court that the NDAA would have an effect on journalists and activists worldwide.

“I think its [NDAA] clearly unconstitutional, certainly the lawyers Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer who are bringing the case believe it is unconstitutional,” Hedges said to RT.

Source

I am pleased that someone has the Cojones to face these crooked corrupt schmucks and stand up for what is right.

I applaud Hedges and the other six individuals that are apart of this,more power to them and the best of luck

In my humble opinion the NDAA is a spit in the face to the American constitution and needs to be abolished immediately.

here is another article covering this case against the NDAA with some relating information for reference and speculation -
Feds Using NDAA To Silence Journalists Critical Of Government

Millions of us have the balls but our solutions would be illegal

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Star for you my friend

Shhhh....They are watching and listening to everything

reply to post by cavtrooper7


We will find out soon enough. There have got to be changes made or we are going to lose this country. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see the mess we have allowed that is destroying their beautiful republic.

Originally posted by PerfectPerception

After much debate on a new law signed by President Barack Obama, House Republicans are throwing around the idea of reviewing the National Defense Authorization Act after the law was challenged in court.

Seven witnesses appeared in front of US District Judge Katherine Forrest in New York on Thursday. Among the seven individuals,a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Chris Hedges was responsible for filing the lawsuit believes the “indefinite detention” portion of the law could result in his imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay for merely doing his job.

Hedges a repeated guest on RT is an author, columnist for TruthDig.Com and a Middle-East expert, expressed in Federal court that the NDAA would have an effect on journalists and activists worldwide.

“I think its [NDAA] clearly unconstitutional, certainly the lawyers Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer who are bringing the case believe it is unconstitutional,” Hedges said to RT.

Source

I am pleased that someone has the Cojones to face these crooked corrupt schmucks and stand up for what is right.

I applaud Hedges and the other six individuals that are apart of this,more power to them and the best of luck

In my humble opinion the NDAA is a spit in the face to the American constitution and needs to be abolished immediately.

here is another article covering this case against the NDAA with some relating information for reference and speculation -
Feds Using NDAA To Silence Journalists Critical Of Government

edit on 30-3-2012 by PerfectPerception because: (no reason given)

Hi per

What is a shame is that now we have to get real news from Russia.
Diane Sawyer's big news tonight was about the lottery.
good snag ljb

reply to post by PerfectPerception


Devils advocate -

One one hand you have various US Supreme Court rulings that specifically deal with the detention of US citizens on US soil and how their rights are solidified under US domestic law / US Constitution. The MCA of 2006 / 08 and 09, Hamdi / Hamden vs. Rumsfeld, Patriot Act challenge, Jose Padilla case etc etc all have a direct impact on US citizens and their rights. In all of those rulings the court came down on the side of US citizens, specifically noting they are not subject to the UCMJ / Military tribunals, they cannot be held indefinitely without charges and the US Supreme Court cannot be cut out of the legal process when it comes to the detention of US citizens as well as military tribunals.

Based on that and Posse Commitatus (

reply to post by Xcathdra


Hi Xcat,
Nice read!
circles of square knots for binding the freedoms of Americans

reply to post by Xcathdra


It seems Congress has been up to many tricks lately especially.

They have been inserting borderline unconstitutional language in very subtle ways.

Lots of baited hooks, time bombs, poison pills, etc.

The ObamaCare hearings have exposed many of these tactics.

Makes people wonder what the real agenda is ?

It's almost like a "test" of wits.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

It seems Congress has been up to many tricks lately especially.

They have been inserting borderline unconstitutional language in very subtle ways.

Lots of baited hooks, time bombs, poison pills, etc.

The ObamaCare hearings have exposed many of these tactics.

Makes people wonder what the real agenda is ?

It's almost like a "test" of wits.

Marxist Bolshevism vs America
number two

reply to post by longjohnbritches

Marxist Bolshevism vs America
number two

Very close !

Many think it's a revised/consolidated version of Marxist/Corporatism.
(Bolshevik style)

reply to post by xuenchen


Don't get me wrong I have been complaining about Government actions in this realm for some time. I am merely pointing out the base they are using to push the legislation. Congress could pass a law tomrrow that outlaws free speech and religion and it would be valid until the courts say otherwise (pesky little legal term called standing unless the Supremne Court wants to exercise Judicial review on their own).

As a further example when Bush put together the MCA ( Military Commission Act 2006) the US Supreme Court took it to task for the way it treated individual rights and the manner in which it tried to remove the Supreme Court from the military tribunal process.

The MCA of 2008 corrected those objections by the Supreme Court which means a new challenge would need to be mounted on an issue that was not resolved / looked at by the Courts.

Point is we need to pay attention to whats going on in government and the laws they pass. Just because Congress can repeal Posse Commitatus, making the use of military unit in civilian law enforcement valid, doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the people. That means the people would need to be extremely vocal to their elected officials to ensure that just because a law makes something legal doesn't mean its a good idea...

For proof of that take a look at Floridas stand your ground law. Congress needs to be treated like a 5 year old. As their parents we need to ensure they aren't raiding the cookie jar when we turn our backs to them.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I'm with you.

We do agree sometimes !!

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I'm with you.

We do agree sometimes !!

We agree more than we think on topics.... People have a tendency to take one of my posts that explains the situation and why the government did something as being unquestioned support for the government. A perfect example of that is the TSA threads. I spent time explaining why the TSA can do some of the things it does without violating laws and people took those comments as supporting the TSA. They ignore the fact I am dead set against the TSA and I have sent letters to my reps arguing why it needs to go away.

If we are to challenge something, if we are to be successful, we need to know the basis the government is using to validate their position. Then we can form a game plan to counter their position and we can do it in such a manner that we will be ready to respond to whatever counter they come back with.

Our British cousins got it right with their 7 p's approach -

Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Marxist Bolshevism vs America
number two

Very close !

Many think it's a revised/consolidated version of Marxist/Corporatism.
(Bolshevik style)

Corporatism and Marxism are oxymorons, FYI

The NDAA is by far the scariest piece of legislation ever drafted into law. I hope they repeal the portions that kill due process.

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Marxist Bolshevism vs America
number two

Very close !

Many think it's a revised/consolidated version of Marxist/Corporatism.
(Bolshevik style)

Corporatism and Marxism are oxymorons, FYI

That's exactly why they found a way to make it work.

Most people will never figure it out.

In the meantime, they keep pocketing the money.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Marxist Bolshevism vs America
number two

Very close !

Many think it's a revised/consolidated version of Marxist/Corporatism.
(Bolshevik style)

Hi exu
I can live with that as long as you include VS America/Americans
have a good one ljb

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Marxist Bolshevism vs America
number two

Very close !

Many think it's a revised/consolidated version of Marxist/Corporatism.
(Bolshevik style)

Corporatism and Marxism are oxymorons, FYI

Hi bra,
Not actually, cause Marksim has a transient value to it, It is not Capitalism,
Socialism, Communism etc.. It is a psychological war against the people in disguise, of said isms.
the best ljb

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by PerfectPerception

 

Devils advocate -

One one hand you have various US Supreme Court rulings that specifically deal with the detention of US citizens on US soil and how their rights are solidified under US domestic law / US Constitution. The MCA of 2006 / 08 and 09, Hamdi / Hamden vs. Rumsfeld, Patriot Act challenge, Jose Padilla case etc etc all have a direct impact on US citizens and their rights. In all of those rulings the court came down on the side of US citizens, specifically noting they are not subject to the UCMJ / Military tribunals, they cannot be held indefinitely without charges and the US Supreme Court cannot be cut out of the legal process when it comes to the detention of US citizens as well as military tribunals.

Based on that and Posse Commitatus (

Originally posted by XPLodER
you missed out the part where the ENTIRE world is now considered a battle field, under NDAA
including america, excluding anyone who can prove they are american.

to be clear.
xploder

edit on 1-4-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

Actually I didn't. I explained both sides of the fence using current laws and court rulings. Latching on to language used while ignoring other aspects doesn't make the bill any worse than it already is. If there is some type of attack on the United States its going to be Federal, not State or Local.

As I pointd out Posse Commitatus is the only piece of Federal Law that prevents the use of active duty military in civilian law enforcement functions. Absent that there is nothing that prevents it.

That section is being challenged in the courts as we speak so we shall see what the Supreme Court has to say about the already established case law or if they are going to take a seperate approach to this issue.