Americans can legally be kidnapped and held without trial
Paul Joseph Watson
July 17, 2013
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 Justice Department survey, which polled group homes and jails for troubled youths, found that the teens were most often victimized by staff and counselors. A full 20 per cent of the respondents said they were assaulted more than 10 times. Over 8,500 boys and girls under 18 years old were questioned, with 1,720 reporting they had been assaulted.
Indiana, South Carolina both bucking idea of arresting, holding Americans
WASHINGTON – Bills opposing the controversial National Defense Authorization Act have popped up in both the Indiana and South Carolina state legislatures.
The NDAA was harshly criticized by some as unconstitutional due to language in Sections 1021 and 1022 that allows for the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens without due process.
Both bills would nullify the NDAA in its current form by denying law enforcement or any government official the right to carry out any act of detaining a citizen without due process.
In Indiana, the bill passed through the Corrections and Criminal Law Committee unanimously after testimony from sponsor Sen. Jim Banks and Elkhart County Sherriff Bradley Rodgers.
In South Carolina, the NDAA Nullification Act S.92 passed the Judiciary Committee 16-4. The bill was pre-filed last fall by Sen. Tom Davis who called Sections 1021 and 1022, “a direct threat to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of South Carolina.”
The next step for the bills in each state is to reach the floors of their respective Senates for a vote.
Shortly after the NDAA’s signing a bipartisan team including former Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf and Ronald Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein went to work opposing the provision of the NDAA which allows for the detention of U.S. citizens.
“Journalists aren’t safe. Union leaders aren’t safe. Activists aren’t safe. Liberty is not safe,” Wolf, an author of half a dozen books, said during a conference call to supporters.
People Against the NDAA (PANDA) Indiana Team Leader James Kerner praised Bank’s testimony saying, “I suggest the ACLU, Occupy movement, Tea Party movement and Oath Keepers throw their full support behind Sen. Banks. He should be made a household name like Ron Paul.”
Indiana and South Carolina are not the first states to take up issue with the NDAA. In early 2012, shortly after its signing, the Virginia House of Delegates passed legislation to nullify it 96-4. Arizona passed similar legislation. Numerous other states and local governments are considering similar bills.
“Concerns about NDAA detention provisions transcend political party, ideology, and geography, and representatives in these diverse jurisdictions have stood up to resist an ongoing bipartisan assault on constitutional rights by federal officials,” the committee announced.
While a debate about the scope of the NDAA’s potential abuses continues to distract congressional policymakers, who voted without realizing the law’s terrifying implications, their counterparts in state and local governments are proving more conscientious, proactively acting on their oaths of office to defend the Constitution.”
Groups including the Tenth Amendment Center, The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, The American Civil Liberties Union and Demand Progress have all been working since early 2012 to oppose the NDAA.
The detainment portion of Section 1021 of the NDAA is not the only part that has come under scrutiny over its constitutionality. Federal District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled last year that Section 1021 was facially unconstitutional because it had the potential to violate the 1st Amendment.
A group of journalists and activists had sued President Obama, Leon Panetta and a host of other government officials stating that they were forced to curtail some of their reporting and activism due to fear of violating the NDAA. Among the individuals were Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges, MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and “Pentagon Papers” activist Daniel Ellsberg.
Campaign organizes to push back against Obama provision to arrest Americans
A national campaign has been assembled and soon is to be launched to push back against a provision in a federal defense authorization law that one judge already has determined violates the Constitution by authorizing the detention of Americans.
WND has reported previously on the situation, which arose with the adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act at the end of 2011.
It includes sections 1021 and 1022, which essentially “create a new power for the federal government to ‘indefinitely detain’ – without due process – any person. Indefinitely. That’s little different than kidnapping,” said a report from the Tenth Amendment Center.
One lawsuit is pending in the courts where a trial judge issued a permanent injunction preventing application of those two sections, but the case is pending before an appeals court now.
The annual defense bill also was renewed just days ago, with the same provisions included.
Concerns are that the government will start using broad definitions about those who may have any interaction with “terrorists,” and arresting and holding them. After all, the federal government already has described those people who support third-party candidates, conservative issues, oppose abortion and are critical of special rights for homosexuals as potential terrorists.
Now a campaign has been announced by PANDA, or People Against the NDAA, to build a backlash against the Washington power grab.
Spokesman Dan Johnson said his organization is being supported by the Tenth Amendment Center, Patriot Coalition, Freedom Outpost, Western Journalism and We Are 1776 in the effort to “restoring the Constitution.”
“The goal of this operation is to stop the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) in all 50 states across America by Dec. 31st, 2013,” he said.
“We are launching this effort for two main reasons. Firstly, we now have the network and resources necessary to push back against this encroachment by the Federal government. The Tenth Amendment Center, Patriot Coalition, Freedom Outpost, Western Journalism, and We Are 1776, among others, are assisting us in restoring the Constitution nationwide.
“Secondly, we are running against the clock. Even though the courageous efforts from the plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama have elicited one ruling that the NDAA is unconstitutional, the civil liberties score of the 2nd Circuit Court of appeals and the Supreme Court leave little chance that ruling will be upheld in the higher courts. Odds are, the NDAA will be ruled constitutional by 2014,” he said.
“If the NDAA is declared constitutional before there is a major stand from the states, it will then be extremely difficult to restore the rights usurped by this legislation. Very few county commissioners, city councilmen, state representatives and sheriffs will take a stand against the NDAA once it has been declared constitutional,” he said.