Obama administration: Trust us on detention

 

The Obama administration

 

obamadash (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

is pulling out all the stops in its defense of a provision in a federal law that critics say allows the unrestricted detention of Americans should Washington decide the citizens are in “support” of any terror group or activity.

 

 

This from a government that previously has called those who support third-party presidential candidates, the Second Amendment

 

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

pro-life positions possible domestic terrorists.

 

Just this week, the Obama administration appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals a district judge’s decision to grant a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the detention provision, which is found in the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by Obama just last winter.

 

The notice states the Obama administration is appealing the preliminary injunction as well as an order from the judge that the injunction bars the enforcement of the provision against anyone. Further, the Obama administration is upset that the judge denied its motion for reconsideration.

 

At the same time, Obama administration officials have filed a memorandum with the U.S. District Court where Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued the injunction because of the possible injury to citizens, including the loss of their rights.

 

Her ruling came after Justice Department officials refused to affirm that the journalists and others who brought the lawsuit would not be subject to detention for their work.

 

Wait, said Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and assistants Benjamin H. Torrance and Christopher B. Harwood.

 

Their response in the newest filing was that the plaintiffs are protected. But the affirmation was conditional.

 

“As a matter of law, individuals who engage in the independent journalistic activists or independent public advocacy described in plaintiffs’ affidavits and testimony, without more, are not subject to law of war detention as affirmed by section 1021(a)-(c), solely on the basis of such conduct.”

 

They went further, but also made it conditional.

 

“Put simply, plaintiffs’ descriptions in this litigation of their activities, if accurate, do not implicate the military detention authority affirmed in section 1021.”

 

A brief filed by the case’s plaintiffs also pointed out the number of references to “independent” in the government’s statement.

 

“As the italicized qualifiers, and similar qualifiers elsewhere in the May 25 filing show, this standard is no safe harbor. It does not provide the assurance the court sought. It is a vague gloss on a vague statute; its vagueness and reach merely reinforce the plaintiffs’ standing,” said the document from David H. Remes of Appeal for Justice and his co-workers on the project.

 

Obama stated it first when he wrote in the accompanying signing statement when he put his signature to the legislative plan stipulating “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.”

 

But government officials said the mere “speculation” that a future president may “reverse the current policy and apply section 1021 against U.S. citizens is insufficient to show an injury in fact,” meaning the plaintiffs shouldn’t be allowed to continue their case.

 

The case was brought before Forrest’s court because the law includes a vague provision that appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights and the detention of citizens linked to terrorism.

 

Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have considered similar legislation.

 

The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

 

Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall and others.

 

Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND the judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 “affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.”

 

The impact is that “the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,” Titus said.

 

The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.

 

Titus said the opinion underscores “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”

 

The judge explained that………….

 

EXCERPT

 

via Obama administration: Trust us on detention.

 

Related articles

 

GyGRet (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

• Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans (rt.com)
• Behind the scenes: Obama and the NDAA (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Indefinite Detention Ruling Appealed By Federal Prosecutors (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• U.s. Federal Judge to Treasonist John Mccain’s Citizen Detention Scheme: I Said No! America Should Be Deeply Disturbed About Rabble Rouser John Mccain. (politicalvelcraft.org)

• 

  romino (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

• Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans (investmentwatchblog.com)
• Obama Administration Doubles Down for Indefinite Detention Authority (federaljack.com)

 

About these ads