national defense authorization act of 2012
now browsing by tag
Posted by: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. | on November 6, 2012
The good news is tonight the election will be over. The bad news is this foolish, lazy and numb nation will elect a fascist who serves not The People, but the corporate interests that will accept no reign on their abuses. These were campaigns based on lies, propaganda and manipulation and the voting population refused to hold them to account.
No matter which of the two puppets crosses the electoral college finish line, one thing is certain…..THE PUPPET CHOSEN SERVES THE INTERESTS OF GOLDMAN SACHS AND WALL STREET…THE CORPORATE PEOPLE THAT PAID THEIR BILLS.
What a grotesque caricature these two figureheads are. An alleged Constitutional Law professor guilty of signing into law the most constitutionally offensive law our nation has ever suffered….The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that suspends Due Process and allows secret renditions, prisons and detention of Amerikan citizens, this along with countless other laws and executive orders that represent wholesale shredding of the formerly applicable United States Constitution. Yes, there is very real truth to the allegations that President Barack Obama has done more to destroy and desecrate the United States Constitution than any president before him.
But what have we been provided as an alternative. A fatally flawed and hopelessly corrupted caricature of both the good and bad elements of what should be an alternative to Obama. A candidate that repeats over and over statements that are completely devoid of substance of proof and which stand in direct contradiction to everything he has done his entire lifetime.
Mitt Romney is going to create 12 million jobs….In America? His entire professional career has been spent shipping jobs out of America.
Mitt Romney is going to cut tax rates…but he refuses to describe with any detail how he’s going to cut those rates? And this from a guy that refuses to show his own tax returns but who has spent decades avoiding the US tax code entirely?
Mitt Romney, along with his children, ran and hid from military service, but he’s going to be a warrior commander in chief bulking up our military and sending us into conflict around the globe?
Mitt Romney’s going to start a trade war (which could lead to a real war) with China on the first day in office, while his entire professional success is built on the benefits those very policies have created?
I could go on and on, but what’s the point? After all, Goldman and Morgan and Bilderberg and Rothschild have already decided…
Let’s just get it over with.
Posted by: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. | on September 13, 2012
If you don’t know exactly what the NDAA is, shame on you. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is a terrifying law that allows the federal government to kick down my door, drag me away, take me to a prison or gulag anywhere on the planet, torture me, never charge me with a crime, never tell my family or loved ones where I am and refuse to give me access to a court, judge or any legal process.
The federal government and Barack Obama desperately wanted the power to do just that….they waged a fierce battle in federal court demanding that they be allowed to freely exercise those rights and have continued to fight back against everyone…including a federal judge…who asserted that such actions were violations of basic Constitutional protections.
Forget all the crazy internet chatter about what the NDAA says and the terrifying powers it gives the government…read the Order. The federal judge’s interpretation of the broad powers the feds have sought to exercise are terrifying…
Plaintiffs are a group of writers, journalists, and activists whose work regularly requires them to engage in writing, speech, and associational activities protected by the First Amendment. They have testified credibly to having an actual and reasonable fear that their activities will subject them to indefinite military detention pursuant to § 1021(b)(2).
At the March hearing, the Government was unable to provide this Court with any assurance that plaintiffs’ activities (about which the Government had known–and indeed about which the Government had previously deposed those individuals) would not in fact subject plaintiffs to military detention pursuant to § 1021(b)(2). Following the March hearing (and the Court’s May 16 Opinion on the preliminary injunction), the Government fundamentally changed its position.
In its May 25, 2012, motion for reconsideration, the Government put forth the qualified position that plaintiffs’ particular activities, as described at the hearing, if described accurately, if they were independent, and without more, would
Case 1:12-cv-00331-KBF Document 61 Filed 09/12/12 Page 3 of 112
not subject plaintiffs to military detention under § 1021. The Government did not–and does not–generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under § 1021(b)(2). The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for greater protection: it prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging speech and associational rights. To the extent that § 1021(b)(2) purports to encompass protected First Amendment activities, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.
A key question throughout these proceedings has been, however, precisely what the statute means–what and whose activities it is meant to cover. That is no small question bandied about amongst lawyers and a judge steeped in arcane questions of constitutional law; it is a question of defining an individual’s core liberties. The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention–potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity–and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2).
At the August hearing, the Government stated that preliminary enjoining § 1021(b)(2) had not altered its detention practices in any way since in its view, the executive branch maintains identical detention authority under the AUMF. See Tr. II at 138. As set forth herein, however, that position is unsupported by the AUMF itself, has been rejected by other courts (including the Supreme Court), and is rejected by this Court. (THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEFYING A FEDERAL JUDGE)
If, following issuance of this permanent injunctive relief, the Government detains individuals under theories of “substantially or directly supporting” associated forces, as set forth in § 1021(b)(2), and a contempt action is brought before this Court, the Government will bear a heavy burden indeed.
At the March hearing, the Court asked whether Hedges’ activities could subject him to detention under § 1021; the Government stated that it was not prepared to address that question. Id. at 245. When asked a similar question at the August hearing, five months later, the Government remained unwilling to state whether any of plaintiffs’ (including Hedges’s) protected First Amendment future activities could subject him or her to detention under § 1021. Tr. II at 142.1
At the March hearing, the Government was unable to represent that the specific activities in which plaintiffs had engaged would not subject them to indefinite military detention under § 1021. See, e.g., Tr. I 223, 226, 229-30. The Government changed its position several weeks later in a motion for reconsideration of the May 16 Opinion. In its memorandum submitted in support of that motion (which was subsequently denied as moot in light of the parties’ agreement to proceed directly to a hearing on a permanent injunction), the Government changed its position entirely–from its prior assertion that it would not state whether plaintiffs’ activities could subject them to detention under § 1021 to a qualified one: “the conduct alleged by plaintiffs is not, as a matter of law, within the scope of the detention authority affirmed by section 1021.”
Posted by: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. | on August 14, 2012
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 gives the President of the United States of America the power to arrest, detain and try American citizens in secret tribunals with no access to an attorney and with no regard for fundamental American rights that form the very foundation of our nation.
A federal judge found this law UnConstitutional, this judge had apparently read the United States Constitution. The current President of the United States, allegedly a Constitutional scholar objects to this judge’s interpretation of that little thing called the Constitution and has appealed her.
The decision will mark a dramatic moment in US history.
And Mainstream media is ignoring the issue entirely.
Why do I have to rely upon foreign news sources to get information about what’s happening here in this land? From UK Guardian:
I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.
In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.
Posted by: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. | on June 1, 2012
Remember the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012? The maniacs in Congress signed the bill then the tyrant Obama signed it into law while you were distracted, lying in a drunken stupor on January 1, 2012.
The law allows the federal government to “disappear” me or any citizen whenever they choose, snatching them away and sending off to secret undisclosed prisons. No trial. No charges. No disclosure that an American was arrested or is in custody….just gone.
Several journalists challenged the law, and in the hearing in front of federal judge Catherine Forrest, things got really, really scary. The federal government, by refusing to answer the federal judge’s questions, confirmed that the craziest internet theories were correct and that the intent of the act was to be able to snatch away people just like me.
The judge ruled it unconstitutional and granted an injunction barring its enforcement. Should be the end of it……right?
Well, when you’ve got a president…..and an entire Congress….who work in defiance of the people….and the Constitution…
Posted by: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. | on May 16, 2012
This is EPIC news and provides some hope that the Rule of Law and the Constitution are still alive (although clearly on life support)
At least for now, if I disappear mysteriously, my friends and family won’t be left wondering…
Did the US Government secretly pick him up and ship Matt off to a prison in some foreign land where he will be held indefinitely with no trial, no attorney, no notice, no anything…?
Posted by: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. | on March 18, 2012
Judges, you have a solemn responsibility to stand up against all this madness and tyranny.
If you don’t understand just how out of control the tyrants that run this nation have become, then you’re just not thinking clearly. But if the mainstream media is your source for news and information about what’s happening in this world and in this nation then you may very well not be fully aware of just how dangerous these times we live in really are. The mainstream media isn’t covering the profound challenges to basic Constitutional Rights that are passed or announced every day. Attorney General Holder announces that the President can execute Americans and that we are no longer entitled to Due Process. Congress passes the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and any one of us can be swept away by military forces, never to be heard from again. Congress passes HR 347 and instantly most forms of protest are felonies.
The First Amendment is dead. Freedom, liberty and justice are dying. Tyranny is alive and well. It’s flourishing in the fertile soil of economic uncertainty and the politics of division, stoked by carefully executed and constantly broadcast propaganda. Package me a simple story. Give us someone to blame, a clear and present target. Tell me where to focus my anger. Americans are mindslaves, prisoners in a dark world that is every bit 1984. But much, much worse. Orwell wrote fiction, Hitler wrote manifestos that became policies. Policies that became pretext. Pretext that became a national identity. We would all do well to study the parallels between America today and the Weinmar Republic.
The 49 state attorney general sellout is a most exacting and timely study of the power of propaganda turned into government policy. Remember the big announcement? The President, the Attorney General, Napolean Dynamite flanked by Very Important And Serious Looking People all looking very satisfied and self-assured as they faced the phalanx of reporters, cameras, microphones. They announced the terms of a deal that totaled $25 billion in “relief” for Americans. No need for reporters to actually write their own stories or ask real questions about the deal because the public relations team assembled to sell the deal produced and distributed clean and crisp sales packages, featuring glowing details of the plan, complete with bullet points. And what appeared in the news all across the country the next day? The propaganda, copied directly from the public relations team….right down to the bullet points.
Some of the actual details of the deal became more clear when the deal was filed in Federal court last week, and those actual details are even more disturbing than the talking points. The sellout (I refuse to call it a settlement) reveals that gross and systemic abuses were committed upon the American people over years….and that these abuses were fantastic profit centers for the banks. I will keep repeating it until someone reports on it….the sellout is not about robo signing…it is an indictment of the largest insurance scam in the history of mankind. The lenders made BILLIONS of dollars in insurance claims on the federal government…claims that every taxpayer paid….then it was revealed that an obscene percentage of those claims were false. Got that? Do you see how that works? The big banks submit BILLIONS (with a B) in insurance claims, the judges still foreclose on homes and vesting the title back into the name of the servicer.
It would be just like if I submitted billions of dollars in false insurance claims alleging I had totaled a brand new car, but the car in fact was not new and I forged the police reports that document the accident. And then, rather than demand I turn over the title to the car in order to receive the check, I just refused to turn the title, the insurance company cuts the check anyway then I can sell the car to someone else. Only I never actually had clear title to the car….it was owned by someone else. After years and years and billions of dollars in claims, I finally get caught…and the attorneys general from all across the country ask me…pretty please….to turn over a few thousand dollars.
But no one will report on this. It’s like an entire nation’s worth of reporters is refusing to read the 20 or so pages of the settlement agreement and the 100 or so pages of OIG Audit Summaries and then actually report on what’s right there in black and white.
But if they won’t at the very least our judges should….especially those judges that preside over foreclosure cases. In fact, it’s the responsibility of every foreclosure defense attorney to present the case….and these facts to our judges. Judges need to understand. And think. And defend the voters neighbors that put them in office and vote to keep them there…..