Update on: NDAA "Indefinite Detention" Temporarily Reinstated By Appeals Court 9-19-12 "Lohier said the order would remain in effect until Sept. 28, when a three-judge panel was scheduled to hear arguments on the government’s effort to block a ruling that struck down the law. [see post]
***
Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law
A federal appeals court has extended a temporary stay of a district court judge's order barring the government from using an indefinite detention provision in a defense bill passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama late last year.
A three-judge motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued the order Tuesday afternoon, indicating they saw flaws with the scope and rationale for U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest's original order blocking the disputed provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. The judges [wrote]:
First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'
Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').
Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...
The case will go forward now before what will likely be a different trio of judges, but the stay will likely remain in place pending resolution of the government's appeal...All three judges on the motions panel were appointed to the appeals court by President Barack Obama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so on it goes to the next leg of it's journey, rubberstamped and downplayed in it's significance as to the stripping away of the rights of Americans. Although it is stated that "based on their stated activities, plaintiffs, journalists, and activists" ...are in no danger...of being captured and detained" (first statement) ...the simple fact is that the statute clearly gives the military the authority to supercede any and all domestic law enforcement and legal procedures whenever they claim that it is necessary - even though "existing rights", per se, remain in place (second statement). It does not take much conjecture to see that by simply making a claim that any certain individual was NOT acting according to their "stated activities", under this provision, that individual could then be whisked away without due process - indefinitely. The third statement above reinforces this, addressing the subject of 'not limiting' the "use of military force".
Semantics semantics. Military authority which can supercede domestic law enforcement at will is in essence a martial law scenario. The Zionist-NWO cannot exist without totalitarian control via military rule. As it stands, this looks to be headed to SCOTUS for permanen-tizing. Be aware. Rev. 18:4
***
See also: NDAA "Indefinite Detention" Struck Down, White House Says That "Infringes On Obama's Power" 9-18-12 "Running it through the entire court system 'for show' and afterwards giving it a SCOTUS stamp-of approval sets it forever in stone. They did it with 'Obamacare'" [see post]
-------------------------------------------------------
Psalms 12:5 'For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him'
***
Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law
A federal appeals court has extended a temporary stay of a district court judge's order barring the government from using an indefinite detention provision in a defense bill passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama late last year.
A three-judge motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued the order Tuesday afternoon, indicating they saw flaws with the scope and rationale for U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest's original order blocking the disputed provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. The judges [wrote]:
First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'
Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').
Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...
The case will go forward now before what will likely be a different trio of judges, but the stay will likely remain in place pending resolution of the government's appeal...All three judges on the motions panel were appointed to the appeals court by President Barack Obama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so on it goes to the next leg of it's journey, rubberstamped and downplayed in it's significance as to the stripping away of the rights of Americans. Although it is stated that "based on their stated activities, plaintiffs, journalists, and activists" ...are in no danger...of being captured and detained" (first statement) ...the simple fact is that the statute clearly gives the military the authority to supercede any and all domestic law enforcement and legal procedures whenever they claim that it is necessary - even though "existing rights", per se, remain in place (second statement). It does not take much conjecture to see that by simply making a claim that any certain individual was NOT acting according to their "stated activities", under this provision, that individual could then be whisked away without due process - indefinitely. The third statement above reinforces this, addressing the subject of 'not limiting' the "use of military force".
Semantics semantics. Military authority which can supercede domestic law enforcement at will is in essence a martial law scenario. The Zionist-NWO cannot exist without totalitarian control via military rule. As it stands, this looks to be headed to SCOTUS for permanen-tizing. Be aware. Rev. 18:4
***
See also: NDAA "Indefinite Detention" Struck Down, White House Says That "Infringes On Obama's Power" 9-18-12 "Running it through the entire court system 'for show' and afterwards giving it a SCOTUS stamp-of approval sets it forever in stone. They did it with 'Obamacare'" [see post]
-------------------------------------------------------
Psalms 12:5 'For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him'
No comments :
Post a Comment