September 17, 2012
by Jim Hoft
Source: The Gateway Pundit
Obama’s Libya Story Unravels–
** New information reveals the attack on the US Consulate on 9-11 was pre-planned and highly organized.
And… According to an intelligence source there was no protest at the consulate at the time of the attack. This totally destroys the administration’s wild story that a protest over the YouTube Mohammad video was behind the murder of the US ambassador. This is damning new information especially considering the administration had warnings the area was not safe and reportedly refused adequate security at the consulate.
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 17, 2012, 4:20 PM
Obama’s Libya Story Unravels–
** New information reveals the attack on the US Consulate on 9-11 was pre-planned and highly organized.
And… According to an intelligence source there was no protest at the consulate at the time of the attack. This totally destroys the administration’s wild story that a protest over the YouTube Mohammad video was behind the murder of the US ambassador. This is damning new information especially considering the administration had warnings the area was not safe and reportedly refused adequate security at the consulate.
Islamists dragged the dead body of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens from the consulate safe house after his murder. The radical Islamists attacked the embassy with rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire.
UPDATE: FOX News posted this breaking report:
An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.
“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”
The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.
The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.
“There wasn’t a single ant outside,” the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.
These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.
Showing posts with label NDAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NDAA. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
White House demands military prisons for Americans under NDAA
September 18, 2012
Source: Secrets of the Fed
The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the president’s power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.
On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately.
Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last week’s ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through.
At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier.
“Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision,” writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the lead plaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrest’s most recent ruling an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope,” and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay.
“The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction,” Hedges writes. “This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.”
Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit.
“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedge’s blog.
Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the White House could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administration has ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domestic demonstrations.
“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran tells Hedges. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”
Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interact and converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the US government.
Under the NDAA, Americans “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” can be held in prison cells “until the end of hostilities,” vague verbiage that essentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretion of US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him.
“Because the language is so vague in this law,” Mr. Mayer explains to RT, “if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies”
“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”
Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White House’s relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, “If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”
Source: Secrets of the Fed
The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the president’s power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.
On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately.
Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last week’s ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through.
At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier.
“Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision,” writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the lead plaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrest’s most recent ruling an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope,” and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay.
“The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction,” Hedges writes. “This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.”
Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit.
“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedge’s blog.
Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the White House could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administration has ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domestic demonstrations.
“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran tells Hedges. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”
Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interact and converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the US government.
Under the NDAA, Americans “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” can be held in prison cells “until the end of hostilities,” vague verbiage that essentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretion of US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him.
“Because the language is so vague in this law,” Mr. Mayer explains to RT, “if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies”
“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”
Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White House’s relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, “If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Constitutional victory: Controversial NDAA provisions blocked, at least temporarily, by federal judge
May 22, 2012
by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Source:Natural News
NaturalNews) In a rare display of constitutional patriotism by a government authority, an Obama-appointed federal judge has put an indefinite block on the egregious National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). According to Bloomberg, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of Manhattan, N.Y., ruled in favor of plaintiffs who earlier had sued the Obama administration over the bill's unconstitutional arrest and detainment provisions, which provide no protection for American citizens.
The loosely-worded Section 1021 of the bill cunningly grants the president unrestrained authority to use military force in detaining practically anyone for any suspected "terrorist-related" activity, without warrant and without a trial (http://www.naturalnews.com). This section, which was the primary focus of the lawsuit, admittedly provides no protection for American citizens, and is patently unconstitutional no matter how you look at it.
"The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and 'associated forces' -- i.e., 'foreign terrorist organizations," said Forrest in her opinion. "The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope."
Unless the U.S. Congress amends the bill to protect Americans against having their constitutional rights abolished in the name of national security, NDAA will remain blocked, at least formally. However, NDAA is really just an extension of the horrific USA Patriot Act, which was the Bush administration's precursor to NDAA that was passed immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html).
Obama administration appears to have fully intended to use NDAA against American citizens
Speaking on the details of how the case has proceeded thus far, Judge Forrest explained that Obama attorneys made absolutely no attempt to defend the administration against the allegations. They also made no attempt to claim that the ambiguous provisions were intended only for foreign suspects, which in and of itself points to sinister intentions with the bill.
"The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs -- or others -- are not within Section 1021," said Judge Forrest. "It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable -- and real."
Efforts to amend NDAA to specifically protect American citizens on U.S. soil from illegal arrest and detainment, however, have been met with resistance by "neoconservatives" such as Charles "Cully" Stimson, a former Bush administration official who is now Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He and others claim that amending NDAA will somehow encourage more terrorists to come to the U.S. (http://dailycaller.com).
These wildly absurd claims, however, were enough to convince the traitorous House of Representatives to recently vote down an amendment authored by Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mi.) and Adam Smith (D-Wa.) that would have prohibited the detainment, capture, or arrest of any person in the U.S under NDAA. According to The Daily Caller, the House rejected this amendment in an overwhelming vote of 238 to 182.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.bloomberg.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035939_NDAA_Constitution_terrorism.html#ixzz1vyMmRYhL
by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Source:Natural News
NaturalNews) In a rare display of constitutional patriotism by a government authority, an Obama-appointed federal judge has put an indefinite block on the egregious National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). According to Bloomberg, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of Manhattan, N.Y., ruled in favor of plaintiffs who earlier had sued the Obama administration over the bill's unconstitutional arrest and detainment provisions, which provide no protection for American citizens.
The loosely-worded Section 1021 of the bill cunningly grants the president unrestrained authority to use military force in detaining practically anyone for any suspected "terrorist-related" activity, without warrant and without a trial (http://www.naturalnews.com). This section, which was the primary focus of the lawsuit, admittedly provides no protection for American citizens, and is patently unconstitutional no matter how you look at it.
"The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and 'associated forces' -- i.e., 'foreign terrorist organizations," said Forrest in her opinion. "The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope."
Unless the U.S. Congress amends the bill to protect Americans against having their constitutional rights abolished in the name of national security, NDAA will remain blocked, at least formally. However, NDAA is really just an extension of the horrific USA Patriot Act, which was the Bush administration's precursor to NDAA that was passed immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html).
Obama administration appears to have fully intended to use NDAA against American citizens
Speaking on the details of how the case has proceeded thus far, Judge Forrest explained that Obama attorneys made absolutely no attempt to defend the administration against the allegations. They also made no attempt to claim that the ambiguous provisions were intended only for foreign suspects, which in and of itself points to sinister intentions with the bill.
"The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs -- or others -- are not within Section 1021," said Judge Forrest. "It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable -- and real."
Efforts to amend NDAA to specifically protect American citizens on U.S. soil from illegal arrest and detainment, however, have been met with resistance by "neoconservatives" such as Charles "Cully" Stimson, a former Bush administration official who is now Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He and others claim that amending NDAA will somehow encourage more terrorists to come to the U.S. (http://dailycaller.com).
These wildly absurd claims, however, were enough to convince the traitorous House of Representatives to recently vote down an amendment authored by Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mi.) and Adam Smith (D-Wa.) that would have prohibited the detainment, capture, or arrest of any person in the U.S under NDAA. According to The Daily Caller, the House rejected this amendment in an overwhelming vote of 238 to 182.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.bloomberg.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035939_NDAA_Constitution_terrorism.html#ixzz1vyMmRYhL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)