Note: even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. It took some real old-line leftists to point out what is dangerous and wrong about this law: that anyone can fall into its toils for saying anything critical of the government. That is not what our boys are over in Afghanistan (and until recently, Iraq) are fighting for.
If you go through to the article, you'll see links to the Smith-Amash Amendment to strike this detention law from the NDAA completely. I urge everyone to call your Congressman and tell him to vote for this amendment.
Court enjoins Obama's NDAA detention law
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/05/17 19:00:52
|
|
|||||
|
50 votes
|
|
89% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
9% | |||
The case against the NDAA (Hedges et al. v. Obama et al., 12-cv-00331-KBF, US District Court, Southern District of New York) said that the new law
threatened the civil liberties of ordinary Americans. Specifically, the
plaintiffs feared that, if they criticized, condemned, or complained
about the War on Terror, the government might accuse them of giving
“substantial support” to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other such groups.
At issue is Sections 1021 and 1022 (formerly 1031 and 1032). These
authorize the President to detain indefinitely anyone suspected of:
- Acting like a terrorist, or
- Giving aid and comfort to one.
The problem: Sections 1021 and 1022 are vague enough to let the
President detain anybody. Nor is the new law clear enough about
protecting a citizen of the United States from summary arrest or
detention under those sections.
The plaintiffs read like an “honor guard of the American left.” They include:
- Christopher Hedges, New York Times.
- Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame. (See US v. New York Times and Washington Post)
- Noam Chomsky
They also include Birgitta Jonsdottir, a dovish Member of Parliament from Iceland.
The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States
The defendants include putative President Barack Obama, Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta, Senator (and sponsor) John McCain, Senate Floor
Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and
House Floor Leaders Eric Cantor and Nancy Pelosi.
The plaintiffs filed their anti-NDAA suit on January 13. In March, Judge Katherine B. Forrest held a hearing. The government called no witnesses and introduced no evidence.
They cross-examined the plaintiffs and their witnesses; that was all.
Hedges testified that he had changed the way he reported on 17 groups
that the State Department has on its “terrorist group” list.
So yesterday Judge Forrest enjoined the government from enforcing the detention-law parts of the NDAA. The case has not come to trial; this is an order on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
In the sixty-eight-page opinion and order, Judge Forrest held that the
government had its chance to show that the plaintiffs would not face
arrest or detention under the NDAA, and they did not. Judge Forrest further said that some of the terms in the NDAA were “so vague” that no citizen could be sure that he would not break that law. The judge took particular issue with:
- What is a covered person?
- What are associated forces?
- What does it mean, to support substantially al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces?
The judge recognized that “associated forces” has special meaning
under the Laws of War. But the government never defined the phrase substantial support in such a way as to let everyone know when he or she might be guilty of that.
The order says that Congress needs to define covered person and substantial support better before they can enforce this law.
In the meantime, the House is working on another version that is just as offensive. But two Representatives, one from each party, have written an amendment to strike the detention-law parts from the Act altogether.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/05/17...
4)"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
5)"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
6)"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State an...
4)"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
5)"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
6)"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
7)"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
8)"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
9)"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That being the case, our Congressmen through this and other rights-diminishing or -ignoring legislation have substantially supported terrorism against American citizens and according to NDAA 2012, any of them who voted in favor of this legislation are legally required to be incarcerated indefinitely by that self-same law.