|
Sunday, May 26th, 2013 |
|
Home
RSS Feed
Newsletter
Boomark Us
Facebook
Twitter
|
|
Obama & the NDAA: Through the Looking Glass
The Hagmann & Hagmann Report
Actions speak louder than words, or in this case, a signing statement. Actions are also a good indicator of intent. Despite all of the assurances from Barack Hussein Obama that he would not implement the provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) pertaining to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, he is certainly fighting hard to retain that ability. AS is customary with Obama, nothing is as it appears. On New Year’s Eve, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This year’s version contained the controversial section 1021, which is arguably unconstitutional as it grants the government to detain anyone without the right of due process. Shortly after passage, New York Times journalist Chris Hedges joined with several other journalists and activists to challenge the constitutionality of the act. (For important background information, please see our report “Behind the scenes: Obama and the NDAA” from 7 August 2012). On 16 May, federal Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiffs’ request, writing that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.” The temporary injunction was granted, and the judge later made the injunction permanent. One would think that the ruling would be sufficient for all concerned, given Obama’s public position that he has no interest in exercising his extra-constitutional authority under the NDAA. His public position is apparently inconsistent with his actual intent, especially considering the speed at which team-Obama took the matter back to court to fight the ruling. On Monday, New York federal Judge Raymond Lohier granted an “emergency” stay to the controversial NDAA, temporarily blocking the ruling of Judge Forrest. In a “through the looking glass moment,” team-Obama argued that the ruling of Judge Forrest was “unconstitutional,” and Lohier, an Obama appointee and successor to Judge Sonya Sotomayor, agreed. The question that needs to be asked is why Obama and his legal team are so intent on keeping Section 1021 alive, especially now. As noted by the plaintiffs and as further concurred by Judge Forrest, the act could have a chilling effect and adverse consequences to free speech. In Pursuit of the Truth…
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple Contributed by The Hagmann & Hagmann Report of Northeast Intelligence Network. Copyright Douglas Hagmann Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET. Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website. Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide
Leave A Comment... |
Break away from the herd and stay up to date with The Daily Sheeple.
           |
v.8
It’s because he will use it in the near future.
The powers that be can only try. Doesn’t mean that they say they can, doesn’t mean they will succeed. Let’s declare are own Martial Law and take back our handed down liberty. A movement of mass defect, of much revolt, and infite will.