The Obama administration, fighting hard to strip US citizens of their due process rights

[MadHound]

"“The administration of President Obama within the last 48 hours has decided to engage in an all-out campaign to block and overturn an order of a federal judge,” said co-lead counsel Bruce Afran. “As Judge Forrest noted in her opinion, nothing is more fundamental in American law than the possibility that journalists, activists and citizens could lose their liberty, potentially forever, and the Obama administration has now lined up squarely with the most conservative elements of the Republican Party to undermine Americans’ civil liberties.”

The request by the government to keep the law on the books during the appeal process raises a disturbing question. If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?

"A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the U.S. and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran said. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA—so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/17-4

Just one more example of how a bipartisan campaign to strip us of our civil liberties is underway. I'm sure that there will be Obama defenders stating that Obama wouldn't use these new powers, but even if he doesn't, do you want them in the hands of the next Republican president?

Slowly but surely, our civil liberties are vanishing. It is time to stop this madness before they are completely gone.

[ProSense]

1. Nice hyperbole

Liberal apologists for Barack Obama should read Judge Forrest’s 112-page ruling. It is a chilling explication and denunciation of the massive erosion of the separation of powers. It courageously challenges the overreach of Congress and the executive branch in stripping Americans of some of our most cherished constitutional rights.

The President has already rejected indefinite detention in his signing statement. It's Congress' move to revisit the provision.

WASHINGTON -- Civil liberties groups are asking the Obama administration to stand down and give up defending America's law allowing the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects after a judge Wednesday issued a permanent injunction against it.

Federal Judge Katherine Forrest reaffirmed on Wednesday her May ruling that the provision was unconstitutional, and made the ruling permanent. She had previously found that the law could be used to imprison activists and journalists without trial, noting that it does not define what it means to substantially "support" Al Qaeda or "associated" forces.

<...>

The group Demand Progress, which backed the lawsuit, is launching a petition asking President Barack Obama not to appeal the ruling. They also want the Senate to stop the detention provision from being added to the NDAA for 2013, which has not yet been brought up for a vote.

"It's wonderful to see Judge Forrest -- a recent Obama appointee -- buck the administration and stand up for the Constitution," Demand Progress executive director David Segal said in a statement. "Our members urge Obama to stop defending this obscene abuse of executive authority, and ask our senators to oppose indefinite detention when they vote on the NDAA later this fall."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/indefinite-detention-national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa_n_1880315.html

Federal Judge Blocks Indefinite Detention Provisions Of NDAA

A federal judge in Manhattan has blocked enforcement of provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which allow the government to place individuals they claim supported al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” in indefinite military detention.

“Before anyone should be subjected to the possibility ofindefinite military detention, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that individuals be able to understandwhat conduct might cause him or her to run afoul of [the law],” wrote District Judge Katherine Forrest. “Unfortunately, there are a number of terms that are sufficientlyvague that no ordinary citizen can reliably define such conduct.”

Forrest ruled that Congress “can add definitional language to the statute and resolve the issues the plaintiffs have raised” and “resolve the issues with the statute and proceed with enforcement activities it deems fit.” But for now, there are “a variety of other statutes which can be utilized to detain those engaged in various levels of support of terrorists,” so enjoining enforcement of the provisions “does not divest the Government of its many other tools.”

President Barack Obama signed the law in December despite his objections to the military detention provisions of the statute. The administration later issued guidelines in February which essentially made it nearly impossible for a terrorism suspect to end up in the hands of the military.

- more -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/federal-judge-blocks-indefinite-detention-provisions-of-ndaa

We've seen how the government can pursue cases (see DOMA) on technicalities when the administration's position is clear. The President does not support the provision.

[MadHound]

2. Again, even if the President doesn't support the provision,

Even if he pretty please pinky finger promises not to use that provision, he is still putting in play for the next Republican administration.

Don't you think that is just plain stupid? I do.

[woo me with science]

6. Thank you.

Not stupid. Unconscionable.

[MadHound]

7. It amazes me how many people simply don't think ahead,

It isn't like we're going to have a Democrat in the WH forever.

[msanthrope]

8. I think we will hear from the 2nd shortly. nt

[leveymg]

4. Just wait until we start bombing Syria and Iran. That's when the hammer really comes down.

The pretense of the right to protest and most civil liberties will vanish, and the mechanism is in place, just waiting

[woo me with science]

5. K&R

Wake the hell up, America.

[SidDithers]

9. ...

Keep trying.

Sid

[MadHound]

10. So, do you want the next 'Pug in the White House to have the power to strip you of due process?

If not, then why are you supporting Obama's ongoing expansion of Executive Branch powers in this matter?

On edit, oh, that's right, you're from Canada, you won't have to live with the consequences of this insanity.

[Fumesucker]

12. Even a Republican couldn't do that to Sid..

Sid is Canadian and lives in Canada, this has no bearing on his rights.

[Rwolf]

11. Next Stop: NDAA Hell for Americans' Civil Liberties?

Americans deemed by President Obama as Belligerent are vulnerable to Arrest and Indefinite Detention under the passed NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act.

Recently the Obama Administration asked a NYC Federal judge to (stay) suspend a ruling by a U.S. District Judge (Katherine Forrest) that permanently blocked enforcement of vague provisions of NDAA that give the President authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. According to the Obama Administration—they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Obama could use NDAA provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge (Katherine Forrest) to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence millions of Americans alleging they are belligerents or threat to National Security. Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Immediately after German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens without probable cause or evidence; delegated power to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

During the Obama Administration's recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Federal Government—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under NDAA, the U.S. Government or President could claim anyone was (directly aligned with militants) e.g. any political or other association; charge any activity, statement, writing or communication was (directly aligned) with an individual or group the government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

The 2012 and not yet passed 2013 NDAA, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees allow forced government censorship; warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in 2012 NDAA keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act, lending itself to Government / police corruption, the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

Sections of 2013 NDAA are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

Under NDAA It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.