Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Thursday, May 01, 2014

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NDAA Legal Challenge, Allowing President and Military to Arrest and Detain Americans Indefinitely Without Due Process

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In refusing to hear a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. By denying without comment a petition for review in Hedges v. Obama, the high court not only passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, but also let stand a lower court ruling empowering the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to indefinitely detain persons associated with or “suspected” of aiding terrorist organizations. In weighing in on the case before the lower court, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute challenged the Obama administration’s claim that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, arguing that the NDAA’s language is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrests and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.

“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.”

More

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Think of it - by reelecting the current batch of clowns in office, we allowed the Supreme Court to be changed to suit the socialist agenda...

Anonymous said...

Only an IDIOT would vote for another Democrat. Sad but true, they are amongst us. Look at Jim Ireton, Norman Conway, Rick Pollitt and Chuck Cook.

lmclain said...

Here's the problem -- THEY define "suspected terrorist". And since the government has already labeled returning veterans possble domestic terrorists, you can see that just about anyone can be pictured as a "terrorist" or as someone "aiding" terrorists. Anyone who believes that citizens have any rights whatsoever is deluding themselves. Under our law today, ANYONE can be picked up (secretly), detained indefinitely (in secret), never be charged with a crime, and if they are, can be secretly imprisoned.
We started (and won) a revolution over a LOT less than this. A lot less. They speak about the rule of law and praise the Bill of Rights and the Constitution only to mollify the population.
They know the truth, though. And they know that sooner or later, "we the people" will not stand for any more two-faced facist propaganda. Can't come soon enough...

Anonymous said...

The Patriot Act is illegal unconstitutional and should never have been passed or approved twice...call your rep now...it needs to be overturned...thats the first step...if you didn't see this coming you had your head in the sand ...they got the foot in the door with this illegall act..funny how it was drafted so quickly??was it sitting on a shelf waiting for the NWO funded911 crisis...dam they cant get a budget put together so fast..kinda makes you go um..

Anonymous said...

Any politicians that support The Patriot Act/NADA are not worthy of your vote. One day you will wish you had supported Ron Paul.