It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Second Circuit court has overturned a temporary injunction which had blocked the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – meaning Americans can now once again be kidnapped and held without trial.
In September 2012, United States District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA was unconstitutional and blocked it permanently. However, within 24 hours of the ruling the Obama administration lodged an appeal and the law has been under temporary injunction until now.
Americans can once again “legally” be snatched off the street and detained without trial based on the mere claim that they provided aid or support to terrorists, despite this being a total violation of habeas corpus.
The Tenth Amendment Center has a detailed breakdown of the ruling;
“In layman’s terms, Forrest put a stop to indefinite detention, and the Second Circuit overturned that. It also permanently prohibited Forrest from attempting to do so again, ordering her to proceed with the case consistent with their opinion. NDAA “indefinite detention” powers are alive and well.”
The group points out that the new Second Circuit ruling is completely incorrect because it claims that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA says nothing about the government’s ability to detain citizens.
In reality, section 1021 states, “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war.”
The ruling stems out of Hedges v. Obama, a lawsuit filed in January 2012. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and several other high profile figures brought the case in order to protest against the potential that the law could be used to harass outspoken journalists and political activists.
“Sadly, the “victory” lasted about 10 months. Today, US totalitarianism wins again,” laments Zero Hedge.
If indefinite detention became the primary reason for opposing NDAA 2013, then the enhanced provision authorizing unlimited indefinite surveillance may fuel the most outrage against NDAA 2014.
On May 22, 2013 the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, one of several Armed Services Committees, met to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014.
Sec. 1061(a) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to "establish a center to be known as the 'Conflict Records Research Center'" (Center). The main purpose of the center, according to the bill text, is to create a "digital research database," one with the capability to "translate" and facilitate research on "records captured from countries, organizations and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States."
If passed in its current state, NDAA 2014 would authorize approximately $552 billion in total defense spending, with $86 billion going directly to war spending. This amount exceeds what is allowed under the automatic austerity measures that went into effect as of March 1, 2013.
Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX
Reuters
Bloomberg
If you care about something, you'll know about it and know where to hear about it.
Even on MSM sources it seems.
Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX
Really?
No one knows about it?
That's why a MSM news site in AUSTRALIA covered it back in December:
www.news.com.au...
Maybe, the people you would call sheep, don't actually care.
I guess they're not as fearful of being mistaken for a military target than you are.
edit on 18-7-2013 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
“Sadly, the “victory” lasted about 10 months. Today, US totalitarianism wins again,” laments Zero Hedge.
Article here
Didn't I say the whole Zimmerman thing was another distract & divide tactic?
God knows what else is passing the house while this ignorant race war continues to grow.
It's the blind leading the drunk.
edit on 17-7-2013 by XxNightAngelusxX because: (no reason given)
There's a Martin march coming up in my area, and I guarantee you, if I were to turn on my camera phone, follow the march, and ask each of them what the NDAA is, none of them could tell me.
Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX
My point there was if it is getting reported here in Australia, then I can't see any excuse for people not knowing about it.
So perhaps, like I said, they just don't care.
There's a Martin march coming up in my area, and I guarantee you, if I were to turn on my camera phone, follow the march, and ask each of them what the NDAA is, none of them could tell me.
Perhaps this the platform you've been looking for to get the word out.
These people care enough to march for something at least.
More than what most do.
Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
Anyone ever catch the irony in facebook?
Facial recognition technology? Putting everyone's faces in an information storing data-book?
No....?
Well, no more messaging or texting important stuff for me.
Americans can once again “legally” be snatched off the street and detained without trial based on the mere claim that they provided aid or support to terrorists, despite this being a total violation of habeas corpus.
Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by xuenchen
no no!
you are confused!
This is for people that havnt been part of funding terrorists, just suspected.edit on 18-7-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)