Home

In Unanimous Vote, House Says No Legal Right to Attack Iran

1 Comment

Has congress finally gotten a spine???

Counter Information

By Marjorie Cohn

June 06, 2018 “Information Clearing House” –  In a little noticed but potentially monumental development, the House of Representatives voted unanimously for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 5515) that says no statute authorizes the use of military force against Iran.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota), states, “It is the sense of Congress that the use of the Armed Forces against Iran is not authorized by this Act or any other Act.”

A bipartisan majority of the House adopted the National Defense Authorization Act on May 24, with a vote of 351-66. The bill now moves to the Senate.

If the Senate version ultimately includes the Ellison amendment as well, Congress would send a clear message to Donald Trump that he has no statutory authority to militarily attack Iran.

This becomes particularly significant in light of Trump’s…

View original post 971 more words

U.S. SUPREME COURT GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

2 Comments

strip banner

 

U.S. SUPREME COURT GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
04-30-2014 12:47 am – Bob Unruh – World Net Daily
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court.

The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.

A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”

The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.

The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.

They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.

The brief was on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.

Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York’s Zuccotti Park.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.

Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.

Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.

It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back” on DVD. This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea” DVD.

“It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges said of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.”

Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.

The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case.

“The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explained.

“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.

“According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government,” he said.

It’s not like rounding up innocent U.S. citizens and stuffing them into prison camps hasn’t already happened.

In 1944, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and locked them up, under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.

The newest authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to jail those “suspected” of helping terrorists.

The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.”

The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who “associate” or “substantially support” terror groups.

“These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities,” Rutherford officials reported.

At the trial court level, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.

Obama then appealed, and his judges on the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.

Since the fight started, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.

Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”

“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote. “To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/#r3IAig6fLWioaQWy.99 – See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_35369.php#sthash.uo27Loqv.dpuf

new-logo25Bob Unruh – World Net Daily

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1459169_743562532338888_201663292_nA decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court. More

Operation Homeland Liberty: Nullifying the NDAA in Michigan

2 Comments

painy

Join us Wednesday January 9th, 2013 at 7:00 CST! More

The GOP: A post election soap opera

10 Comments

 Marti Oakley                    (c) copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

______________________________________________________________

The Ways of our Lives…….

The election is over and no one is surprised or even excited about the outcome.  We already knew Obama was the pre-selected winner regardless of how anyone supposedly voted.  It is ironic that Republican voters are now feeling the anger that Democratic voters felt when they watched the 2000 and 2004 elections rigged for Bush the Dolt.  Apparently, vote fraud is ok if you are on the right, but quite hard to endure when it comes from the left. No matter, walking into the voting booth was an exercise in futility…..we already knew Obama would get four more years.  That was the plan and it was the plan all along and nothing, not even your votes, was going to change that. The scripted stage shows we call debates revealed nothing of any real interest to the public.  The absolute silence from Romney on subjects such as:

The TSA molestation of travelers,

The coming UN Small Arms Treaty meant to by-pass the 2nd Amendment,

The LOST treaty which will cede all of our rights on the open seas,

The growing police state here in the US,

The unconstitutional NDAA,

Ending the Czars offices which were unlawfully created, and,

Not one hint of the mountain of executive orders, written not as president of the United States, but issued as Chief Executive of the corporation operating as “The USA, a.k.a. The United States of America”.

Ultimately, this is what both men were fighting over…….who would be the new Chief Executive of the Corporate United States. More

War, Drones, Pot & Other Forbidden Topics: The 3rd Party Debate

14 Comments

War, Drones, Pot & Other Forbidden Topics: The 3rd Party Debate
 John Boering
Op-ED
_____________________________________________________________________

Mainstream media has long ignored candidates who run outside of the left/right paradigm, thereby perpetuating the belief that there are only 2 choices.  When people become angry with Republicans, they vote for Democrats the next time (and vice-versa), failing to realize that both parties work toward the same end goals.  For example, both Romney and Obama support corrupt banking, illegal wars, drones and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial.

Free and Equal Elections sponsored a debate between 4 third-party candidates:  Libertarian Gary Johnson, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party.
We are pleased to report that all of the candidates supported ending the wars and/or cutting the military budget to levels that discourage aggression and nation-building.
Watch the full debate here: More

P.A.N.D.A…..Nullifying the NDAA

2 Comments

Join us Wednesday October 10th, 2012 at 6:00 CST! More

IS LIBERTY IN AMERICA IN MORTAL DANGER OF BEING LOST?

2 Comments

My guest this week is Ms Marti Oakley, a nationally known Freedom and Liberty activist, who also hosts the Truth Squad Radio Show on BlogTalk Radio.  More

Congress: We are insane to let these people even assemble

35 Comments

Marti Oakley

copyright 2012

__________________________________________________________

The attempts to take over the net, regardless of what reasons they give are indicative of a government that has removed itself so far from the people it claims to represent that I believe we are insane to even let these people assemble. Its too much like watching an invading army that is fully determined to destroy us at any cost.

Just today, another of those staged “committee hearings” was taking place in the efforts to revive the federal governments intention to launch a full frontal attack on the first amendment and free speech.  Of course no one of any consequence appeared as a witness opposing this intent to take over the net, but we did have the usual line-up of the Permanent Political Class sitting front and center ready to deliver what could be nothing less than their own personal version of the dooms-day scenario they envision for us if we do not comply with their desire to throttle the net for political purposes.

Among these political hacks who are cheering on the assault on freedom of speech was Diane Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Susan Collins and of course our all-time despised political puppet, good ol’ Joe Lieberman.  These characters were accompanied by Tom Ridge, Janet Napolitano and whomever else Lieberman could drag in to this stage show, willing to do their part in attempting to terrify the nation into viewing an open and free internet as not only a threat to national security, but to economic security as well.  More

America No Longer the Land of the Free

5 Comments

 

By Michael Webster: Syndicated Investigative Reporter. Jan 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM PST
op/ed /PPJcontributor
 
 
 
The United States is no longer the shining light leading the rest of the world in regards to freedom and liberty. The President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) under the radar late on New Years Eve of 2011.  The new law  takes away American basic constitutional rights.
 
The new law now in effect robs all Americans of our due process of law which nullifies many principles and rights afforded all Americans in our Constitution and Bill of rights guaranteed by our founding Fathers. These rights were given to us by our founding fathers and many Americans have given there lives to protect these basic and fundamental rights. President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including on American soil anywhere in the United States.

Americans can be arrested and taken to jail without the right of a phone call, right to a lawyer, and without being charged with any crime of any kind. More

Fort Sumter, False Flags, and The Empire’s Coming Crusade Against Iran

16 Comments

Mark Dankof’s America

Mark Dankof in Washington, D. C. in November of 2011

It is no accident that Michael Gerson, a major schill of the Establishment Corporate Media’s (ECM) chorus for a Zionist-inspired war with Iran, has stepped forward in the Washington Post to broadside Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and to concurrently publish a breathtaking synthesis of ignorance and duplicity regarding the American War Between the States in the 19th century. Gerson is joined in his transparent machinations for the Israeli Lobby against the Presidential campaign of the Texas Republican Congressman by fellow agents Wolf Blitzer and Dana Bash of CNN, who pulled the plug on U. S. Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen during an on-air interview with the Corporal on the night of the January 3rd Iowa Caucus. It seems the young man’s comments on why the United States didn’t need to be a surrogate military force in the Middle East for the Jewish State were too much on target to be placed before the American people for honest examination and consideration. George Orwell lives. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), which has ruthlessly exposed the backgrounds of Blitzer and Bash, has the video of the latest version of the Hasbara Project online. Check out the following synopsis from WRMEA:

Blitzer is a former employee of AIPAC, Israel’s behemoth Washington, DC lobby (see former Sen. James Abourezk’s “Wolf Blitzer, AIPAC, and the Saudi Peace Initiative” in the July 2007 Washington Report, p. 16, also posted on our Web site). The CNN anchor also is the author of Territory of Lies: The Exclusive Story of Jonathan Jay Pollard: The American Who Spied on His Country for Israel and How He Was Betrayed (the title seeming to imply that it was Pollard, rather than his native country, who was betrayed).

Senior congressional correspondent Bash joined CNN as Dana Schwartz, her maiden name. Her father, Stu Schwartz, is a senior broadcast producer at ABC News and her mother, Frances Weinman Schwartz, is, according to Wikipedia, “an educator in Jewish studies and author of the book, Passage to Pesach, and co-author with Rabbi Eugene Borowitz of two books, Jewish Moral Virtues and A Touch of the Sacred.” In 1998 the CNN correspondent married her first husband, Jeremy Bash, chief of staff to Leon Panetta in his capacities as both defense secretary and former CIA chief. The son of the chief rabbi of the Arlington Fairfax (VA) Jewish Congregation, Bash was chief minority council to the House Intelligence Committee when the pro-Israel Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was its top Democrat prior to the 2006 elections. The Bashes divorced in 2007. The following year Dana Bash married fellow CNN congressional correspondent John King, who converted to Judaism prior to their marriage.

But we are not to worry. There was no conspiracy to silence Corporal Thorsen on international television on January 3rd. And there is nothing to the allegation that Jews disproportionately control major American and world media outlets. . . . More

%d bloggers like this: