Judge Strikes Down Part of NDAA, Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution

Judge Strikes Down NDAA, Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution [westernjournalism.com]

In a considerable setback for a president eager to ravage the due process rights of the American people, Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, striking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5th Amendment rights.

Signed very quietly into law on New Year’s Eve, the controversial Act has been roundly criticized as unconstitutional by groups on both the political left and right. Of greatest concern was Section 1021, which grants the United States military authority to exercise police powers on American soil. Upon order of the president and at his sole discretion, agents of the military are empowered to detain “until the end of hostilities” anyone the president believes to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”

At least the judicial branch hasn't proven totally useless.

Obama/Romney will find another way.

Quote from cruizerfish : Obama/Romney will find another way.

So now do we see that the 2 party corrupt system is bent on destroying American Rights and Freedoms?

The USA will be forever sorry.

This is merely a push back, that will be short lived. The Military Police state is being refined as we speak.

Chicago NATO summit is one of the largest freedom stealing training campaigns to date.

Wake up, we are losing our Freedoms exponentially.

Quote from Xygonn : At least the judicial branch hasn't proven totally useless.

Quote from cruizerfish : Obama/Romney will find another way.

I wish people could realize not everything is Republican vs. Democrat... They are all politicians they don't give a crap about us... Its a rich elitist vs. the people thing... Once people realize that we might get somewhere...

I'd request that the OP provide a credible source. [google.com]



the truth seems to be quite a distance from what the OP posted, oddly.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-national-defense-authorization-ruling-20120518,0,2046039.story


it appears that one section of it only has been ruled upon.

Quote from vaultaddict : I'd request that the OP provide a credible source. [google.com] the truth seems to be quite a distance from what the OP posted, oddly. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-national-defense-authorization-ruling-20120518,0,2046039.story it appears that one section of it only has been ruled upon. here is the ruling itself, for anyone interested [uscourts.gov]

Actually... That's what the article says...

Quote from NM 156 : Judge Strikes Down NDAA, Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution [westernjournalism.com] In a considerable setback for a president eager to ravage the due process rights of the American people, Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, striking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5th Amendment rights. Signed very quietly into law on New Year’s Eve, the controversial Act has been roundly criticized as unconstitutional by groups on both the political left and right. Of greatest concern was Section 1021, which grants the United States military authority to exercise police powers on American soil. Upon order of the president and at his sole discretion, agents of the military are empowered to detain “until the end of hostilities” anyone the president believes to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”

Quote from NM 156 : Actually... That's what the article says...

We agree then.

Your title is an intentional lie.

Quote from vaultaddict : We agree then. Your title is an intentional lie.

Actually... No, the title is the same as the title of the article...

Quote from NM 156 : Actually... No, the title is the same as the title of the article...

Yes. An intentional lie from a disreputable source without facts to back up the title.

Judge Forrest is clearly an unpatriotic and unAmerican judge who should be impeached immediately. Doesn't she realize that freedom isn't free? Doesn't she understand that we MUST have this type of law in order to stop the terrorists from staging another 9/11?

NDDA is the right law at the right time. We need the President to have the power to indefinitely detain ANYONE for ANY period of time in order to neutralize any 9/11-type terrorist threats.

So what if the Constitution is violated in the process? Remember, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!! Some tyranny is necessary to give us a sense of security!

Quote from kharvel : Judge Forrest is clearly an unpatriotic and unAmerican judge who should be impeached immediately. Doesn't she realize that freedom isn't free? Doesn't she understand that we MUST have this type of law in order to stop the terrorists from staging another 9/11? NDDA is the right law at the right time. We need the President to have the power to indefinitely detain ANYONE for ANY period of time in order to neutralize any 9/11-type terrorist threats. So what if the Constitution is violated in the process? Remember, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!! Some tyranny is necessary to give us a sense of security!

Laughed so hard I sprained a rib. You're goooood.

Quote from kharvel : Judge Forrest is clearly an unpatriotic and unAmerican judge who should be impeached immediately. Doesn't she realize that freedom isn't free? Doesn't she understand that we MUST have this type of law in order to stop the terrorists from staging another 9/11? NDDA is the right law at the right time. We need the President to have the power to indefinitely detain ANYONE for ANY period of time in order to neutralize any 9/11-type terrorist threats. So what if the Constitution is violated in the process? Remember, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!! Some tyranny is necessary to give us a sense of security!

I hope that was sarcastic...

Quote from vaultaddict : Yes. An intentional lie from a disreputable source without facts to back up the title.

I get it... Obama never signed NDAA... Is that what you mean?...