Can the Military ‘Indefinitely Detain’ Not Only Obama But Taxpayers Under NDAA?

Becky Akers

Lew Rockwell Blog
Aug 13, 2012

Recall that when the Liar-in-Chief signed the NDAA — which “legalizes” the military’s indefinite detention of anyone anywhere in the world, including Americans in the ole “Homeland,” for “supporting” “terrorists” —  he claimed he did so with “serious reservations.” But mere whoppers didn’t content this sociopath; he had to insult our intelligence, too: “I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Oh, right. This from the guy who promised to close Gitmo. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

That would explain why Comrade Barry’s administration appealed an “injunction against use of the provision [for tossing us in the brig]” from Judge Katherine Forrest of New York’s Southern District. Yes, in what the Los Angeles Times called a “stunning turnaround for an act of Congress,” Judge Forrest ruled in May “that Section 1021 of NDAA was facially unconstitutional — a rare finding…”

Our Rulers filed their appeal last week; just as stunning as the “turnaround” was Comrade Barry’s lawyers’ “refus[ing] to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 — the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial — has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama’s government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them. To this,Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.”

Well, heck, they’ve been in contempt of the Constitution for a couple of centuries now. Yo, Judge: now you know why it’s “rare” for courts to denounce even the Feds’ most tyrannical and patently unconstitutional crimes. Kinda humiliating that the executive branch totally ignore you, isn’t it?

Meanwhile, the blogosphere is rife with calls for the indefinite detention of Comrade Barry et al.: after all, he’s supporting Al Qaeda, and very materially, too: “Despite the fact that administrations of both parties have insisted that American citizens give up their most basic liberties in order to fight this dastardly terrorist organization, Obama is now supporting them with money, weapons, and communications gear in order to overthrow the Syrian regime of Bashar Al-Assad.”

And that, my friends, is why you should think very, very seriously before handing over any more of your wealth to government’s thugs. Our Rulers long ago threatened that if “a little old lady in Switzerland” contributes to “a charity for an Afghan orphanage, and the money was passed to al Qaeda,” they would deem her an “enemy combatant” and torture her accordingly.

Do you really expect these monsters to cut you some slack simply because the IRS extorts the funds Comrade Barry funnels to Al Qaeda?


About this entry