NY judge blocks law permitting indefinite detention

from RT

A US judge has blocked a military law that permitted indefinite detention of anyone without trial for aiding terrorism, declaring it unconstitutional. Journalists and activists claim the law impedes free speech, and could be used against them.

NY Federal District Judge Katherine Forrest said that the law affected anyone who provided so-called material support to organizations such as al-Qaeda or the Taliban. This definition includes text, video or speech that could be deemed favorable of such groups, written by anyone on US soil.

Court Finds Homeland Battlefield Act of NDAA to be Unconstitutional

by Scott Creighton

In a developing story, a U.S. District Judge, Katherine Forrest, has declared unconstitutional an extremely controversial part of the 2012 NDAA which declared that the entire world was part of the global battlefield in the still ongoing “Global War on Terror” which Barack Obama signed into law on Dec. 31st, 2011.

This is part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by Chris Hedges and other journalists and scholars who worried that the language of the Homeland Battlefield Act was purposefully vague and could ensnare journalists and activists in a military crackdown on terrorist organizations or those who support them (MeK anyone?) without them even knowing it was happening of that they were considered to be aiding the organizations simply by writing about them.

Hedges: “No Outcry Within Media” on NDAA

S. 1867 NDAA 2012 – The Udall Solution is the Threat

by Scott Creighton

There has been a great deal of debate these last few days as to whether or not NDAA 2012 (pdf) actually mandates the use of the U.S. military in policing actions here on U.S. soil, in direct contradiction to Posse Comitatus. Republican, Liberal, “Progressive“, and Libertarian websites are lit up over this issue and yet most of them are saying the exact same thing. Ironically, they are all saying the same thing that the Obama administration is saying and that is that NDAA 2012 needs to be changed.  Obama has threatened to VETO it (can you imaging the seated president VETOing the defense spending bill this close to an election?) because it will inhibit his ability to fight the Global War on Terror (aka The Global Free Market Wars).

How is it that so many “dissident” sites and organizations are taking the exact same position as the Obama administration, the first administration by the way who claims the authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad without due process of law and the same administration who has refused to prosecute the obvious war-crimes of the previous administration? Remember, there have been more whistle-blowers arrested under Obama’s rule than any other administration in our history.

The fact is, that is what controlled opposition sites do. They are usually free to discuss a wide range of topics, using them to garner the trust of the reader, but when something really important comes along, they all line up on the same side and in this case, as is usually the case, that is the side of the corrupt administration.

So what is the end result and how do they intend to get there? Does the NDAA 2012 actually provide the needed congressional act to allow the president to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens or did someone write into it constitutional protections that the administration rejects? Is the famed Udall amendment there to save us or to help the president and his senior advisers get what they want in spite of the language of NDAA 2012? Are sites like David Swanson’s and Prison Planet actually helping the Obama administration set in motion a congressional act which will grossly expand the powers of the unitary executive in spite of their best interests or because of them?

We will attempt to address these questions and explain how misdirection and left cover are being carefully crafted in this case to get opponents of totalitarian rule to openly call for it.

As Written Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 Do NOT Apply to U.S. Citizens

by Scott Creighton

“Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” section 1031 NDAA 2012 page 360

“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” section 1032 NDAA 2012 page 362

“…modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.” Udall amendment replacing above language

All across the “internets” liberal and libertarians alike are screaming about sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (pdf). They are breathlessly claiming they it will give the military the ability to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens under the law of war clause. These claims, this internet panic, is based ENTIRELY on an article from the ACLU’s Chris Anders which wrongly makes the claim and then strangely suggests that we all get behind Mark Udall’s proposed amendment to the bill.

In Mr. Anders’ article, he makes the mistaken claim right in the title; “Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window“

First thing to notice about Mr. Anders’ article is that he makes absolutely no attempt to link the readers to the actual text of the bill which he bases his panic inducing headline. Instead what he does is repeatedly link the reader to his “oppose section 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA” action page. I count 9 links to his action page which are cleverly disguised as “Udall Amendment” and other things that would make the reader think would be links to things which support his argument, but they don’t. Nowhere in the article does Mr. Anders supply a link to the Udall amendment which he expects you to support, sight unseen I suppose.

Section 1034 of HR 1540 – The 2012 NDAA Chairman’s Mark: Perpetual War Authorization, AnyWhere, Any Time Against Any Enemy Perceived or Real

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: It would appear that this clause was inserted after the staged “killing” of Osama bin Laden in an effort to ensure the Global War on Terror continued after his alleged demise. (see end of article)

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), there is a clause hidden deep within the National Defense Authorization Act, Section 1034 of the Chairman’s Mark aka House Resolution 1540 (pdf), which will give the president unprecedented power to engage the United States in wars anywhere in the world at any time. It appears to be an open-ended declaration of war against “terrorists” whomever they may be so deemed at the time and where ever they may be at the time. And the ACLU seems convinced that the scope of the declaration would also include targets within the continental United States.