Federal Judge bans Obama`s NDAA provision for 'indefinite detention' of Americans, at least someone in government is thinking straight

Credit: Care2

NDAA unconstitutional: Federal judge bans Obama from indefinitely detaining Americans
RT NEWS
June 7, 2012

US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)

Sorry, Mr. President. A US Federal judge has clarified a decision made last month with some news sure to upset the Obama administration: the White House annot use the NDAA to indefinitely detain American citizens.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest has answered a request made by US President Barack Obama last month to more carefully explain a May 16 ruling made in a Southern District of New York courtroom regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. Clarifying the meaning behind her injunction, Judge Forrest confirms in an eight-page memorandum opinion this week that the NDAA’s controversial provision that permits indefinite detention cannot be used on any of America's own citizens.

Last month Judge Forrest ruled in favor of a group of journalists and activists whom filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 1021 of the NDAA, a defense spending bill signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. Specifically, Judge Forrest said in her injunction that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and ruled that no, the government cannot imprison Americans over suspected ties with terrorists.

"In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more,” said the judge.

The Obama administration responded nine days later by asking Judge Forrest to reconsider her ruling, adding that, in the interim, the government would interpret the injunction to mean that only the few plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit would be excluded from indefinite detention. One of those named, journalist Chris Hedges, had previously said, “I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists … but that does not make me one.”

Responding to the White House’s demands, Judge Forrest writes in a June 6 memo, “Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court — or by Congress. This order should eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order’s scope.”

Judge Forrest does include in her ruling, however, that Americans can be indefinitely detained, but only providing that the government can link suspects directly to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Attorney Carl Meyer represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and told RT last month that he expected the Obama administration to challenge Judge Forrest’s ruling, but warned that “it may not be in their best interest because there are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law.”

Previously, state lawmakers in both Utah and Virginia have proposed legislation that would negate provisions of the NDAA on a local level.

'You can be arrested for criticizing Obama,' so says North Carolina teacher to students...oh but Romney is fair game though

Teacher tells student he could be ARRESTED for criticising Obama (but says Romney is fair game)

• North Carolina teacher said student couldn't 'disrespect' President in her classroom
• She said 'arrests have been made for speaking poorly of George W. Bush' but Mitt Romney gibes were fine
• When student said he had a right to say what he wanted, teacher replied, 'Not about him you don't'

By CHRISTINE SHOW
DailyMail
May 20, 2012

A teacher told a student in her classroom that he could be arrested for saying something bad about Barack Obama.

The social studies teacher at North Rowan High School in Spencer, North Carolina told the student he could go to jail for speaking negatively about the President - but that it was fine to criticise Mitt Romney.

Video captured the intense debate between the two as the teacher demanded that Mr Obama be respected, while the student insisted he had a right to share his own opinions...


Published on May 14, 2012 by rossache19
http://youtu.be/vjpWaESn_9g

(click here to read the full article)


FAIR USE STATEMENT: This video may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making this material available in an effort to advance understanding of , political, religion, human rights, economic, and social justice issues, etc

Copyright Disclaimer [Rubaiat`s Blog]:
The use of incidental copyrighted material is covered under 'Fair Use' (Copyright Act, 1976) Title 17 U.S.C Section 107, with particular emphasis on such use for educational and non-profit purposes. Under Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act (1976), allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. This video and/or material may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this video and/or information is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.Fair Use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of Fair Use (Moe, AllSeeingEye). If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'Fair Use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act-
In Aug 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California, ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
[View the blog`s full Fair Use Copyright Disclaimer at the end of the homepage] 

Disastrous Bank of America`s War on the 2nd Amendment (Infowars)

Bank of America’s War on the Second Amendment

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 24, 2012

Bankster giant Bank of America has joined the effort to take down the Second Amendment and deny Americans the right to own and use firearms.

Kelly McMillan, the CEO of McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Group International, and McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, recently wrote on his Facebook page that Bank of America has refused to do business with his companies because they sell firearms. Bank of America admitted its decision was political. McMillan’s response was to immediately stop doing business with Bank of America.

Here is Mr. McMillan’s post:
    McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International 
    have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, 
    Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking 
    came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to 
    evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how 
    McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer 
    than a supplier of accessories.

    At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you 
    don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms 
    manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
    I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd 
    Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the 
    NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
    
    “You have to do what you must” he said.

    “So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”

    Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there 
    was nothing let for him to say.

    I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to  
    keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you 
    do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I 
    can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of 
    America credit cards as payment for our products.

    Kelly D McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
    www.mcmillanusa.com

It is nice to see a company taking a stand against the banksters on principle, especially when that principle is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution.

Related:
READ: 2nd Amendment Sneak Attack

Whistleblower: The NSA is Lying–U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails (Democracy Now)

Democracynow.org
April 20, 2012


Published on Apr 20, 2012 by democracynow
http://youtu.be/hfS2Op9l3nk

DemocracyNow.org - National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney reveals he believes domestic surveillance has become more expansive under President Obama than President George W. Bush. He estimates the NSA has assembled 20 trillion "transactions" — phone calls, emails and other forms of data — from Americans. This likely includes copies of almost all of the emails sent and received from most people living in the United States. Binney talks about Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and challenges NSA Director Keith Alexander's assertion that the NSA is not intercepting information about U.S. citizens.

This interview is part of a 4-part special. Click here to see segment 1, 2, and 4. [includes rush transcript]


GUESTS:
William Binney, served in the NSA for over 30 years, including a time as director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group. Since retiring from the NSA in 2001, he has warned that the NSA’s data-mining program has become so vast that it could "create an Orwellian state."

Jacob Appelbaum, a computer security researcher who has volunteered with WikiLeaks. He is a developer and advocate for the Tor Project, a network enabling its users to communicate anonymously on the internet.

Laura Poitras, an award-winning documentary filmmaker and producer. She is working on the third part of a trilogy of films about America post-9/11. The first film was My Country, My Country," and the second was The Oath.

Copyright Disclaimer [Rubaiat`s Blog]:
The use of incidental copyrighted material is covered under 'Fair Use' (Copyright Act, 1976) Title 17 U.S.C Section 107, with particular emphasis on such use for educational and non-profit purposes. Under Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act (1976), allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. This video and/or material may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this video and/or information is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.Fair Use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of Fair Use (Moe, AllSeeingEye). If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'Fair Use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act-
In Aug 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California, ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
[View the blog`s full Fair Use Copyright Disclaimer at the end of the homepage] 

Well its final, say good bye to our First Amendment right to protest

Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill
RT News
Published: 10 March, 2012, 00:52

President Barak Obama, photo credit: RT News

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

• Outlawing protests? Just what is our Congress DOING in Washington?

• The Criminalization of Protest: Say Goodbye To Free Speech in America

• Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'” instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

"[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts," Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law."
Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, "Bottom line, it doesn't create any new violations of the law.” So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones’ self.

Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn’t tell by their name), is that they don’t always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret.

Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it’s by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved.

Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming too close to the meeting at all.

And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you’re alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can’t yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.

Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial (Infowars) updated

Congressman Jones introduces bill that would subject Panetta & Obama to impeachment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012 (Updated)

     BREAKING UPDATE: Resolution Calls for Impeachment if Obama Does Not Seek War     
     Authorization from Congress (3/8/2012)

     Read: Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony-
     The United States has ceded control of its affairs to international bureaucrats (3/8/2012; 
     3:30pm EST)

Resolution Calls for Impeachment if Obama Does Not Seek War Authorization from Congress

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor” under the Constitution.



During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

In an effort to re-affirm the fact that “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives.

The full text reads;
      Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President   
      without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high 
      crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

      Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to 
      declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
      Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of 
      Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of 
      the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear 
      authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war 
      under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an 
      impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Under the terms of Jones’ resolution, both Panetta and Obama would be subject to impeachment for abusing their power and violating the Constitution in disregarding the authority of Congress and placing a foreign power above its jurisdiction.

Despite the Pentagon’s efforts to claim that Panetta’s words were misinterpreted, the Obama administration itself has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations in relation to last year’s invasion of Libya, which was conducted without approval from Congress.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

In boldly asserting the authority of international powers over and above the legislative branch, Panetta and Obama are openly declaring that they no longer represent the American people and instead are water carriers for a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

There you have it: Our country now answers to foreign globalists & interests and not the U.S. Constitution (Shocking news w/ video)

Hair raising comments made today by US Sec-Def Leon Panetta at a Armed Services Committee Senate hearing was not a normal hearing but a proclamation and declaration that put Congress on notice - basically telling them to stick it where the sun don`t shine that the U.S. gets it`s marching orders from the UN & NATO and not the U.S. Congress. He said their "goal would be to seek international permission" but keep Congress 'informed.' And of course

This is essentially codifying President Obama`s directive when he made clear last year when he proclaimed he did not need Congressional approval because he had'international permission' when engaging in Libyan hostilities. This is now the new Obama Doctrine, beholden to foreign interests and not the U.S. CONSTITUTION! What is happening to our country and values? There are eroding by the second and the masses seem to not care. The global war is coming and near, urge all to finally wake up and to accept the status quo and reality now, there is time for change as set forth in the principles in the founding of this glorious nation. Congress needs to grab their cajones and assert their constitutional powers against a ever looming foreign military dictatorship.


Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony
The United States has ceded control of its affairs to international bureaucrats

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012

Alex Jones: “This represents absolute 100 per cent proof that the military industrial complex which runs the United States is under the control of foreign central banks who are imposing a military dictatorship.”

The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.

During the hearing yesterday Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.

“He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,” a defense official told CNN.

However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Related articles and readings
Official: Panetta misinterpreted on 'permission' for Syria intervention
Obama to Boehner on Libya : The U.N. gave us the ok
Obama on Libya: “I Don’t Even Have to Get to the Constitutional Question”