NDAA: Bezterminowy areszt i tortury już legalne w USA

pszek

Senate approves indefinite detention and torture of Americans
The terrifying legislation that allows for Americans to be arrested, detained indefinitely, tortured and interrogated — without charge or trial — passed through the Senate on Thursday with an overwhelming support from 93 percent of lawmakers.
Only seven members of the US Senate voted against the National Defense Authorization Act on Thursday, despite urging from the ACLU and concerned citizens across the country that the affects of the legislation would be detrimental to the civil rights and liberties of everyone in America. Under the bill, Americans can be held by the US military for terrorism-related charges and detained without trial indefinitely.
Additionally, another amendment within the text of the legislation reapproved waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” that are currently outlawed.
całość http://rt.com/usa/news/detention-legislation-torture-senate-891/
_________________
sasza.mild.60@mail.ru

Bimi

Bimi

NDAA Nullification^* Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote

The Virginia Senate took a firm stand in support of liberty, the Constitution for the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia by voting in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.”

The final vote was 39-1.

After a motion to recommit (delay until next year) went down to the wire before being rejected yesterday (report here), groups across the political spectrum activated in support of the legislation, which codifies in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

czytaj dalej: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/.....39-1-vote/

*) Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

Bimi

US judge blocks indefinite detention of Americans

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a section of the controversial National Defense Authorization Act that allows for the indefinite military detention of US citizens.

In a 68-page ruling, US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed on Wednesday that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its language could be interpreted quite broadly and eventually be used to suppress political dissent.

"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote, according to CourtHouseNews.Com. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."

The Manhattan judge therefore ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued US officials, including President Barack Obama. They claimed that the act, which was signed into law on December 31, makes them fear possible arrest by US armed forces.

Among those who filed the complaint, Bloomberg reports, was former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. According to the journalist, NDAA would allow federal authorities to hold him in custody just for interviewing individuals who were detained on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to people engaged in hostilities against the US.

The order by Judge Forrest prevents the enforcement of the statute provision, pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by the US Congress.

http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-judge-blocked-detention-437/

Bimi

Judge Upholds Ban on NDAA Detentions
Rejects Obama Call to 'Reconsider' Decision

Judge Katherine Forest has upheld her previous ban on the use of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provisions that allowed the president to summarily detain “terror suspects” in military custody for indefinite periods of time with no legal oversight.

In her initial ruling, Forest had accepted the arguments from a number of political dissidents, including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, that they had a reasonable fear that they could be disappeared off the street and held in military custody for constitutionally protected political speech. The Administration did not argue that they wouldn’t be detained, but insisted that since they hadn’t been detained yet they had no standing to contest the law.

The Administration responded by demanding that Forest reverse last month’s preliminary ruling, insisting that it was unreasonable for a court to restrict the president’s potential use of military detention “during wartime.” The Administration went on to say that it only planned to interpret the ruling as a specific ban on detaining the dissidents in the lawsuit, and not a broad ban on detaining dissidents as such.

In her ruling, Forest conceded that the lawsuit only applied to one portion of the NDAA military detentions law, and didn’t cover those directly involved in 9/11. On the other hand, she did insist that the ruling was not restricted to just keeping Ellsberg, et al. out of the brig, and that she was declaring the whole provision regarding summary detention outside of the 9/11 attackers unconstitutional.

źródło: http://news.antiwar.com/2012/06/06/judge-upholds-ban-on-ndaa-detentions/

Bimi

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit In American History That No One Is Talking About

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA.

In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial.

At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!

In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others.

While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment.

By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal elite political and economic oligarchy.

dalej: http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/08/16/ndaa-.....ing-about/