Already a member? Log in

Sign up with your...

or

Sign Up with your email address

Add Tags

Duplicate Tags

Rename Tags

Share It With Others!

Save Link

Sign in

Sign Up with your email address

Sign up

By clicking the button, you agree to the Terms & Conditions.

Forgot Password?

Please enter your username below and press the send button.
A password reset link will be sent to you.

If you are unable to access the email address originally associated with your Delicious account, we recommend creating a new account.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
profile pic

Username: mococivilrights

Name: mococivilrights

Joined: 30 Mar 2012

Profile Info
Tags

Links 1 through 10 of 37 by mococivilrights tagged ndaa

"Last week, Judge Forrest made her preliminary ruling permanent, issuing a 112-page decision explaining it. Noting that the plaintiffs "testified credibly to having an actual and reasonable fear that their activities will subject them to indefinite military detention", she emphasized how dangerous this new law is given the extremely broad discretion it vests in the president to order people detained in military custody with no charges..."

Share It With Others!

"A judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a recently enacted law's provision that authorizes indefinite military detention for those deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces.""

Share It With Others!

The question with the NDAA was never whether habeas rights are lost. Instead, the question is whether and when any president can order the military to imprison a person without charge or trial. The NDAA did not take away habeas rights from anyone, but it did codify a dangerous indefinite detention without charge or trial scheme. And nothing in the proposed bill by Rigell would change it. The Rigell bill won't stop any president from ordering the military lockup of civilians without charge or trial.

Share It With Others!

"Several states recently passed resolutions condemning NDAA indefinite detention, but Virginia becomes the first state to pass a law refusing compliance with sections 1021 and 1022."

Share It With Others!

Shahid Buttar Executive Director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee speaks with Michael about transpartisan efforts to stop these unconstitutional trespasses on our liberty. Congressman Ron Paul has introduced HR 3785 to repeal Section 1021 of the NDAA.

Share It With Others!

""We are not just talking about a practice that was begun years ago, but we are talking about legislation that is permitting these actions... one of our arguments will be that the commission should ask the US government not to issue such legislation, to overturn it... "

Share It With Others!

"“You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?” the judge asked.

“We can’t say that,” Torrance answered.

“Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?” Forest asked.

“That’s not a reasonable fear,” the government lawyer said.

Advertisement
“Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?” she asked.

“We have not said anything about that …” Torrance answered.

“What do you think it means?” the judge asked. “Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.”

“We have not come to a position on that,” he said.

“So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?” the judge said.

“I couldn’t offer any specific language,” Torrance answered. “I don’t have a specific example.”"

Share It With Others!

We’ve pulled together all the court documents that have been filed so far, including the complaint, the plaintiffs’ initial brief in support of the motion for a temporary restraining order as well as their supplemental brief on standing, the government’s memo in opposition to the injunction, and the declarations of Kai Wargalla, Alexa O’Brien, and Brigitta Jonsdottir.

The plaintiffs have two main arguments, which they summarize:

The Act improperly authorizes that civilians in the United States be detained indefinitely by the military, that they be tried by military commission or military court and that they may be subject to removal to other jurisdictions in violation of the Amendments V and VI of the Constitution.

The Act fails to give reasonable notice of the acts and conduct that will render a person liable to military detention and is overbroad thereby chilling and impinging upon protexted expressive and associative acts.

Share It With Others!

"Federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest, who repeatedly asked the government’s lawyers to define the terms “substantially supported” and “associated forces,” a request that was unanswered, despite restating her question seven or eight times.

Forrest also repeatedly asked for assurances – at least five times – that the NDAA would not sweep up people like the plaintiffs: journalists engaged in journalism and citizens engaged in peaceful protest. Again, every time, the lawyers for Obama and Panetta said that they could not give her such assurances."

Share It With Others!

"Landry had already introduced legislation that would have amended the NDAA to see that no American citizen would be stripped of habeas corpus under the act's provisions.Landry tells us that in the negotiations among other congressmen with concerns about the NDAA, protections would be extended to anyone in the country."

Share It With Others!

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT