Back to the Important Stuff

[CuteOldGuy]

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA. In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!

In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment. By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal elite political and economic oligarchy.

Comment found online. No source available. Incredibly accurate insight.

And you people want to laugh about it.

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2012/08...talking-about/

[CJ7]

so much for you not believing MSM huh?

[CuteOldGuy]

That really didn't make any sense, CBJ7. But I don't expect that from you.

[CJ7]

since you rail against msm and constantly quote them I didnt think I could make any sense to you

[CuteOldGuy]

I didn't quote the MSM, moron. Now let's get back to the topic.

The law, if the injunction is released, will allow the POTUS to indefinitely detain anyone s/he wants for whatever reason s/he wants without any habeas corpus or judicial review of any kind. Is that compatible with the idea that we are a free country? Absolutely not.

It's an issue. A HUGE issue, that MSM is ignoring. You can laugh about it, because you are ignorant. But the fact remains, it is a HUGE issue.

[CJ7]

well shit, I was wrong again. You quoted the Lame Stream Media, my bad

[SEE3772]

The U.S. Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028: Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland


HR 6357 - US Government Proposes Law Making It Illegal For Them To Kill You

[timpage]

Amusing to see you aligned with the ACLU, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg. I agree with the premise that the government shouldn't have the right to detain American citizens indefinitely without due process. I disagree that it is the "huge" issue you make it out to be....that has more to do with your hatred of Obama than the reality of what it would mean if the law stands. It won't effect a dozen Americans a year....probably not half a dozen. But, preach on!

[CuteOldGuy]

How many does it have to effect before it is a problem, Timmy? Would it make a difference if one of those was you?

What's wrong with aligning with the ACLU, Noam Chomsky, or Daniel Ellsberg? What do you have against them?

If the government can arrest one American citizen, hold them indefinitely without habeas corpus or any legal representation or judicial review, then they can arrest thousands or more on the same basis. You really are clueless.

This has nothing to do with Obama, it has everything to do with freedom. Romney already said he supports it. That doesn't make me feel better. Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and even Al Franken oppose this.

If this stands, we are not a free country. Not by any definition.

[CuteOldGuy]

In fact, one of the plaintiffs described the hearing where the government would not even assure the Judge that citizens have NOT been detained by the government in violation of her injunction. The implication is that Americans are already being detained and denied their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

From the article:

In the March hearing, the US lawyers had confirmed that yes, the NDAA does give the President the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys have stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA. Judge Katherine Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law – after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. Twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law. This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying: incredibly, in this hearing, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s provision – one that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial -- has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world -- AFTER Judge Forrest’s injunction. In other words, they were saying to a US judge that they could not or would not state whether Obama’s government had complied with the legal injunction that she had lain down before them.

Is this really the United States of America?? And you clowns are not outraged? That is a bigger problem than the government having this power, you clowns thinking "It's ok as long as they don't come after me."

Sure, but I'm the problem on here. I just post this because I haaate Obama. Ignore this if you want. Ridicule me if you want. But this is happening, and if someone doesn't stop it, the America you and I know will cease to exist.

Also from the article:

My government seems to have lost the ability to tell – and, perhaps, even to know -- the truth about the Constitution any more. I and many others have not. We are fighting for due process and for the First Amendment; for a country we still believe in; and for a government that is still legally bound to its Constitution.

If that makes us their “enemies”, then so be it. As long as they cannot call us “belligerents”, lock us up and throw away the key – a power that, incredibly, this past week US government lawyers still asserted is their right to claim . Against such abuses, we will keep fighting.

There are many of us who will be with you, be assured of that!

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/us-...ource=activity

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

In fact, one of the plaintiffs described the hearing where the government would not even assure the Judge that citizens have NOT been detained by the government in violation of her injunction. The implication is that Americans are already being detained and denied their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

From the article:

In the March hearing, the US lawyers had confirmed that yes, the NDAA does give the President the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys have stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA. Judge Katherine Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law – after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. Twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law. This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying: incredibly, in this hearing, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s provision – one that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial -- has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world -- AFTER Judge Forrest’s injunction. In other words, they were saying to a US judge that they could not or would not state whether Obama’s government had complied with the legal injunction that she had lain down before them.

Is this really the United States of America?? And you clowns are not outraged? That is a bigger problem than the government having this power, you clowns thinking "It's ok as long as they don't come after me."

Sure, but I'm the problem on here. I just post this because I haaate Obama. Ignore this if you want. Ridicule me if you want. But this is happening, and if someone doesn't stop it, the America you and I know will cease to exist.

Also from the article:

My government seems to have lost the ability to tell – and, perhaps, even to know -- the truth about the Constitution any more. I and many others have not. We are fighting for due process and for the First Amendment; for a country we still believe in; and for a government that is still legally bound to its Constitution.

If that makes us their “enemies”, then so be it. As long as they cannot call us “belligerents”, lock us up and throw away the key – a power that, incredibly, this past week US government lawyers still asserted is their right to claim . Against such abuses, we will keep fighting.

There are many of us who will be with you, be assured of that!

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/us-...ource=activity

no original thought Mr Copy/paste?

[CuteOldGuy]

You obviously didn't read the post (which was sourced, btw), and you obviously approve of the President's actions. So now go away, and let some grown ups in here.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You obviously didn't read the post (which was sourced, btw), and you obviously approve of the President's actions. So now go away, and let some grown ups in here.

just throwing the same shit at you you threw at me today, does that mean youre not a grown up?

[CuteOldGuy]

So you do approve of the President's actions. Romney agrees with him, it that makes any difference.

[timpage]

Fuck you COG with your selective sensitivity. You care deeply about American terrorists and Osama Bin Ladin as evidenced by your bullshit posts in support of both. But, you can't manage to get behind Americans who don't have enough to eat or who can't find a job...then your support shifts to the rich and the corporations in order to make sure they don't pay too much in taxes. Asshole.