Can Democrats defend THIS?

Obama’s Department of Justice
is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she
sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people.

On May 16^th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a
preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack
Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA),
striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the
power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5^th and 6^th Amendment rights.

Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military
to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially
supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” When pressed
by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority,
government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power
to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,”
admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up
indefinitely under the NDAA.”

And when asked by the judge what it meant to be an “associated force”, Obama’s lawyers
“…claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of
[the] term, or clear boundaries of the president’s power under [the]
law.” In short, it is the federal government’s scheme that the Act
remain so vague that a corrupt and power-hungry Administration may
imprison virtually anyone it considers a threat to its pursuit of
absolute power.

On July 25^th, Administration lawyers filed papers demanding
Judge Forrest’s preliminary injunction NOT be made permanent. In the
filing, Obama made it clear his Administration would ignore the court
and its injunction regardless of what the judge may decide, claiming
incorrectly that “…[the] injunction would have ‘nil’ effect, for the
government would continue to possess the identical detention authority
under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force…” Of course, that
is a lie, as the AUMF applies only to known members of al Qaeda or the
Taliban.

Most indicative of the Obama Administration’s contempt for Judge
Forrest, the law, and the American people was government attorney Benjamin Torrance’s claim that it was “the Obama Administration’s position” NDAA detention provisions do not apply
to American citizens living in the US. Judge Forrest responded by
quoting Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote in a 2010 case that the Supreme
Court “…would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the
government promised to use it reasonably.” So much for Judge Forrest’s
faith in the validity and value of Obama’s signing statement promise to
not employ his Section 1021 authority to indefinitely detain the
American public!

Yet incredibly, when pressed on the issue, this Obama mouthpiece
suggested to Forrest that concerns about the president’s detention
powers were excessive as American citizens would, after all, have the
ability to file
a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed!
“How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance
refused to answer, the Judge continued, “Several years, right”?

So not only did Obama’s attorney lie about his Marxist boss’s corrupt
intentions; he actually claimed that the abuse of American citizens was
somehow acceptable because those unconstitutionally imprisoned might
ask that the charges against them be produced after ONLY a few years
behind bars!

Judge Forrest will soon decide whether to make the injunction
permanent. Every citizen must watch very carefully for that ruling, as
the “mainstream” media has ignored the story completely. We must all
hope the Judge will not be intimidated by this corrupt Regime as so many
of her colleagues have been before her.