Amash testifies feds can 'snatch Americans from homes' under indefinite detention law

In nearly four pages of testimony for a Feb. 21 public hearing for the bill by the Washington legislature’s Public Safety Committee, Amash continued his long-time assault on the NDAA.

via megalextoria.com

Indiana, South Carolina Anti-NDAA Bills Fly Through Committee

Today, Feb. 12, “anti-NDAA” legislation passed senate committees in both Indiana and South Carolina.

via megalextoria.com

McCain-led NDAA Conference Committee Strips Right to Jury Trial

Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury.

via megalextoria.com

Rand Paul Slams John McCain For Stripping NDAA Of Protections Against Indefinite Detention

The decision by the NDAA conference committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of the amendment that protects American citizens against indefinite detention now renders the entire NDAA unconstitutional," Paul said in an emailed statement.

via megalextoria.com

Rand Paul's victory over the NDAA Indefinite Detention clause

Liberty activists were hoping that the massive public outcry which ensued following the passage of the 2011-2012 NDAA bill would pressure some Senators to swing over to Sen. Paul’s side. However, due to the fact that his colleagues in the Senate this lame-duck session were mostly supporters of last year’s NDAA bill, Sen. Paul’s chances of getting them to undo that legislation seemed slim.

On Wednesday evening, something different happened.

via megalextoria.com

Sen. Rand Paul renews fight over indefinite detention of US citizens

Paul’s amendment takes a new tack to curb the military’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism by affirming they have the right to a speedy trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment.

via megalextoria.com

NDAA: The Biggest Election Issue No One's Talking About

The NDAA is so poorly defined that it becomes a bit of an inkblot test for its possible effect. But the thing is, when it comes to basic, constitutionally protected, fundamental freedoms, we typically don’t take an “Ahh, y’know what I mean” approach. What we do know is, pursuant to the NDAA, American citizens on American soil can be jailed indefinitely without the right to legal counsel if suspected of being a terrorist. And as Senator Rand Paul has pointed out, there are already all sorts of things on the books that can make you a suspect, such as missing fingers or having more than a week’s worth of food in your house.

via megalextoria.com

NDAA Plaintiffs Say Obama Flipped Out When A Judge Blocked The Act Because He Was Already Detaining People

“Anyone who dissents is in threat,” Hedges wrote in response to a question about who should fear the act. “The legislation, as the dumped emails by Wikileaks from the security firm Stafford illustrated, allows the state to tie a legitimate dissident group to terrorism and strip them of their right of dissent.”

via megalextoria.com

Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.

via megalextoria.com

So Obama signs the NDAA into law but talks about how he opposes this particular provision. But later he sues to keep the provision in place? And people believe anything this man says?

Obama's NDAA Law Allowing Indefinite Military Detention of Citizens Ruled Unconstitutional

They argued that the phrasing of the law, which allows for the detention of anyone who has “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,” is so broad that in infringes on their own first-amendment rights.

Judge Katherine Forrest, a recent Obama appointee to the federal bench, was clearly sympathetic, and granted a preliminary injunction of the offending sections of the law.

via megalextoria.com

Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans

Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest’s injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA.

In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president’s authority to hold a terrorism suspect “without trial, until the end of the hostilities” is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Just Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later.

via megalextoria.com

I guess it shouldn't shock me anymore that a president would support such a blatantly unconstitutional and un-American law but it still does.