On 9/12/2012, US Judge Katherine Forrest made her temporry injunction against the NDAA "indefinite detention" provision, permanent.
I anticipated this outcome and warned that it might be a Pyrrhic victory, in my (8/14/2012) article below, "Obama Lawyers' Scandalous Revelations in US Court Missed by Media & Congress: 'Secret Powers' Exceed NDAA & Imagination" (http://theglobal99movement.blogspot.com/...).
Given the ruling was announced today, I haven't yet read the decision, but fear Obama administration will continue to hold it has these authoritarian powers, according to its secret interpretations of the post-9/11 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) legislation.
In contrast to virtually all experts, I argue that the Obama administration is secretly claiming it not only has the power to murder and 'indefinitely detain' US citizens without due process, but- according to the "lesser is included in the greater " assumption of constitutional law- secretly subject US citizens to any deprivation of life, liberty or property without any due process (i.e. literally dictatorial powers vis-a-vis citizens).
(** Below is my original 8/14/2012 article, "Obama Lawyers' Scandalous Revelations in US Court Missed by Media & Congress: 'Secret Powers' Exceed NDAA & Imagination")
-------------------------------
An 8/13/12 article by Pulitzer-Prize winning plaintiff, Chris Hedges, who is one of academics/journalists suing Pres. Obama & Defense Sec. Leon Panetta to block executive power to indefinitely imprison US citizens without charging them with crime or allowing them right to defend their innocence in a trial (remember "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of guilt), "After Latest NDAA Challenge Hearing, Thoughts on the Criminalization of Dissent," provides an update on recent developments of the case, and further support for my long-standing (years) controversial claim that the Obama administration had long been secretly claiming virtually totalitarian "war on terror" powers, which went far beyond anything most of Congress, media, or public suspected.
Indeed, recent developments in the case further substantiate my allegations, analysis & warnings, more recently articulated in my (7/15/12) blog (amongst other posts), "Scandal Congress & Media Missed: How Obama's New "Legal" Authoritarian Powers, War on Whistleblowers Threatens US Security & Democracy Much More Than Even Critics Suspect," (http://theglobal99movement.blogspot.com/...) in which I criticize even the Congressional & media critics of the NDAA's controversial provisions, stating:
"I didn't hear anyone in media or Congress connect the dots that the carefully parsed assurances that despite the radical, horrifying provisions (US executive power to indefinitely detain suspects without charge or trial), the NDAA 2012, did not alter existing domestic criminal/anti-terror laws."
In other words, the Obama administration has long claimed (albeit secretly) it already had the legal authority to secretly order the indefinite imprisonment of any US citizen (& much worse) without charging them with a crime, allowing them chance to prove their innocence in a trial, and the "war on terror" power to prohibit lawyers from representing such blacklisted American Un-persons, presumably whether they're officially in a US dungeon or not.
That's why they & Congressional supporters argue the NDAA does not change existing "law."
I've been arguing that the Obama administration had already been secretly using "twisted" interpretations of pre-existing (before NDAA 2012) laws (e.g. Patriot Act, Constitution, others, etc.), and secretly claiming it already, not only had the powers explicitly formalized by the passage of the NDAA 2012, but quasi-totalitarian powers to secretly strip US citizens of all their Constitutional & human rights without charging them or trial (see my 7/15/12 blog). Painfully aware that no one was making this argument and such claims would be dismissed as hysterically alarmist, I noted:
"Remember you heard it here first."
Well, now you've heard it. You're welcome.
Hedges' article recalling the US court hearing before US Judge Katherine Forrest, suggest the Obama lawyers are begrudgingly, and circuitously revealing their true beliefs and confirming my long-standing allegations. Hedges wrote:
"Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Torrance argued in court that the government already has the authority to strip citizens of their constitutional rights (emphasis mine)."
Oh, really?!!!
Am I the only American who didn't get that memo and missed the national debate in the media, Congress & US Supreme Court, before it was decided to make the US a dictatorship?!!!! Read that quote again...slowly.
That is probably the most important quote & revelation of just how radical & "twisted" the Obama's secret interpretations of its executive powers have been, yet it will likely continue to be ignored by the media, as if this was something everyone knew about & agreed with, which is absolutely not the case.
Now, I'm probably the only American expert, who has consistently argued- for years- that both Bush & Obama administrations were secretly claiming this dictatorial power to secretly strip US of their constitutional & human rights (for recent example, see my 7/15/12 blog, "Scandal Congress & Media Missed: How Obama's New "Legal" Authoritarian Powers, War on Whistleblowers Threatens US Security & Democracy Much More Than Even Critics Suspect."
My specific allegations vs. the Bush administration were eventually confirmed on 3/2/09 to little fanfare (legal scholar Scott Horton was one of few to grasp implication in 3/3/09 Harper's article, "George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution," (http://www.harpers.org/...) that we had a dictatorship for 7 years), when Obama's USDOJ declassified some of Bush's "secret legal memos," which revealed that indeed, Bush USDOJ OLC lawyers had provided legal pretext for Pres. Bush to: 1) suspend the 1st Amendment right to free speech/press/association, 2) use the military/CIA inside US borders, & 3) treat US citizens with legal status of enemies (i.e. stripping their constitutional rights), constituting an unholy legal trinity, which justified targeting non-violent critics with covert military warfare to "eliminate the threat posed by their ideas/criticism," like the old illegal FBI COINTELPRO, or CIA's MKULTRA.
My similar long-standing allegation vs. the Obama, was confirmed- again to little fanfare- this week by it US Attorney Torrance's admission before US Judge Forrest that the Obama administration has also been secretly operating under the assumption that already had the authority to secretly strip US citizens of their constitutional rights. See my aforementioned blog about all the creative, monstrous, inhumane ways such powers have been abused in US history, and I strongly suspect are occurring now, while being concealed from the media, Congress & judiciary by totalitarian methods justified by these very dictatorial/authoritarian powers, which until this week, only I had accused the Obama administration of claiming & abusing.
That's the beauty of secretly claiming dictatorial powers; the US executive can covertly use them to manipulate Congress, media, public & US judiciary into entrusting the US executive with ever-expansive authoritarian powers it had already been secretly claiming & using.
I wonder how Judge Forrest would respond if she learned that the Obama administration has been using such dictatorial powers to destroy, detain, discredit, censor US citizens- secretly stripped of their rights- who could debunk a lynchpin of Obama lawyers' argument in this case, that the plaintiffs' fears of persecution after passage of NDAA provision 1021(indefinite detention) are unfounded because they cannot cite a single example of any US citizen being persecuted or stripped of their due process rights for the type of expressive activities these plaintiffs (Pulitzer-Prize journalist, academic, whistleblowers) mention.
While most legal scholars & judges would see such US practices (e.g. detaining, repressing, censorship, denying access to legal counsel, relevant witnesses or victims of such authoritarian persecution for political speech) as obstruction of justice & defrauding/duping the US judiciary to officially giving the US executive powers that it had already secretly claiming & using, but on a flimsy legal edifice that could not survive judicial scrutiny, this would all be "legal" according to the Obama team lawyer's secret legal reasoning, partly revealed in a US federal court hearing this week.
Hedges account reveals another critical, controversial claim by Obama lawyers claims this week:
"Torrance told the court that judicial interpretation of the AUMF [2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force] made it identical to the NDAA, which led the judge to ask him why it was necessary for the government to defend the NDAA if that was indeed the case. Torrance, who fumbled for answers before the judge's questioning, added that the United States does not differentiate under which law it holds military detainees. Judge Forrest, looking incredulous, said that if this was actually true the government could be found in contempt of court for violating orders prohibiting any detention under the NDAA."
Here, Judge Forrest sniffs out part of the Obama legal team's "secret interpretations" of pre-existing law, which had been concealed from Congress and public- despite being critically relevant- before, during & after the debates about the controversial NDAA provision 1021 (indefinite detention). This quote by Obama lawyer Torrence, clearly confirms my past allegation that the Obama administration had already been claiming the unprecedented legal "authority" (& much more) codified by Congress's passage of NDAA provision 1021.
Obama administration, and pro-authoritarian elements in both parties, media & military industrial complex aggressively tried to placate concerned citizens that they had nothing new to worry about with NDAA's passage. Pres. Obama's issued a non-binding "promise" not to use these NDAA powers to indefinitely imprison US citizens in his signing statement. The pro-NDAA propaganda from both parties used rhetorical chicanery to convince US citizens this power would only be used vs. Al Queda militants, not meddlesome academics, journalists, whistleblowers, like Wikileaks' Julian Assange & Co., or unknown blogger/journalists like myself.
Indeed, see below highlighted text in response from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) to my letter protesting the NDAA provisions legalizing "indefinite detention," in which she misrepresents the truth by: 1) falsely claiming the NDAA provision only applied to members of Al Queda & "associated forces," when actual text ambiguously includes anyone the US Pres. deems to have supported an undefined "associated force," 2) in two different sentences attempts reassure me that this NDAA does not affect existing criminal law or laws regarding detention of US citizens, which is, of course, supposed to falsely convince me to conclude this NDAA provision only applies to foreign terrorists.
It is revealing that Sen. Klobuchar still feels the need to voice her support for Sen. Feinstein's Due Process Guarantee Act, which explicitly prohibits the indefinite detention of US citizens, indicating these US senators already know- or suspect- that the "existing law" before the NDAA- according to Obama's crew- does give US President this power, though nobody has said this explicitly...though US Attorney Torrence came pretty close this week in a US federal court.
The NDAA provisions & propaganda assuring us that this did not alter or change pre-existing laws, was an attempt to exploit Americans' misplaced trust that the Obama administration had never secretly claimed he could secretly order constitutional rights stripped from any US citizen (as this hearing proves he had) or have them indefinitely detained without charges/trial if he secretly deemed them a threat of some sort, based upon Obama lawyers' interpretations of the 2001 AUMF.
These recent revelations raise several unasked- & unanswered- questions about the actual state- & future- of our democracy & Bill of Rights.
If the Obama administration has always secretly held that it has the authority to strip US citizens of their constitutional rights, and the 2001 Authorization of Military Force, already legal authorized the US President to secretly order the indefinite imprisonment of US citizens before the NDAA 2012's passage:
1) Does the Obama administration believe it has "legal" authority to ignore Judge Forrest's temporary ban on provision 1021 (indefinite detention), and/or potential permanent ban on the same provision, which she'll be deciding in the next months?
2) What other practices/methods does the Obama administration secretly claim the AUMF/Patriotic Act authorizes that have been concealed from the public &/or Congress?
3) Does the Obama administration hold that it has the legal authority to suspend the 1st Amendment right to free speech/press, and treat expressive activities as "threats," as the Bush administration secretly held?
4) Has the Obama administration used its alleged legal authority to (de facto or de jure) strip any US citizens of their constitutional rights, to either detain them or deprive them of life, liberty or property without charges/trial?
4a) If so, were any of the "rights stripping" cases related to the citizen's expressive activities, and thus, critical to the plaintiff's case & Judge Forrest's ability to make an informed judgement?
4b) Have any of the "rights stripping" cases involved military forms of warfare (e.g. cyber-, psychological) designed to conceal such cases from Congress &/or US judiciary, in order to conceal truth/empirical information that would've been critical to decisions made by other US branches, and/or citizens vote choice in any elections?
5) Is it not true that if the Obama administration can strip citizens of all constitutional rights, the US could subject this citizen to any form of abuse, including fabricating evidence to frame the targeted citizens, &/or discredit them, in a way to justify their detention or deprivation of life, liberty, property without due process?
6) Have these powers been used to prohibit US lawyers from providing legal counsel/representation of a targeted citizen, who has not been charged with any crime, but subjected to significant deprivations of life, liberty &/or property?
7) Have such powers been used to covertly persecute, blacklist, intimidate, censor, discredit, target with strategic/offensive forms of cyber-/psycholgical warfare any US citizen in order to cover-up what the Dept. of Defense euphemistically terms "questionable intelligence activities (i.e. illegal intelligence activities that would sully reputation of responsible agencies, reveal sources/methods &/or harm foreign relations)?
8) Isn't it true that this allegedly "legal authority" give US executive power to strip US judges, Congress members, press, average citizens & candidates desiring to run for elected office, of some or all of their constitutional rights? Have any US citizens expressing an interest in running for elected office, been prevented from doing so, or had their campaign (exploratory or actual) sabotaged with covert methods justified by the aforementioned powers?
I could probably list 100 questions raised by these recent revelations, which the public has the right to have answered as they are critical to defending our constitutional democracy from creeping, unwanted authoritarian powers & practices.
While I'm confident the obsequious, credulous media & Congress will miss the profoundly explosive & important revelations in the US federal court this week, I hope Judge Katherine Forrest's final decision will reflect some of these unanswered questions, and is rooted in the skeptical, incredulity and courage, she has exhibited thus far.
It is clear that if she intends to permanently outlaw the legal authority to indefinitely detain US citizens, she must go farther than merely banning the specific NDAA 1021 provision. In reality, she must write an opinion that unambiguously clarifies that such practices are unconstitutional and cannot be deemed "legal" by any secret interpretations of any legislation or newly invented inherent powers based in the US constitution.
One important implication of my analysis is that Americans may be duped into a false sense of security & trust in the current "checks & balances" if Judge Forrest ultimately orders a permanent ban on the NDAA provision allowing indefinite detention, since the Obama lawyers have already revealed that they have alternative legal foundations that justify the same practices. I can already see the plaintiffs and their supporters in media & Congress celebrating a Pyrrhic victory, unaware that the Obama administration will continue to secretly operate as if they have the "legal authority" to ignore a ban from a US Judge.
In sum, recent revelations of Obama administration's secret legal interpretations confirm my past long-standing allegations that they had been secretly claiming/using "war on terror" powers that not only justified the powers expanded in NDAA Sec. 1021 (indefinite detention), but much more expansive- virtually totalitarian- powers to strip US citizens of their Constitutional/human rights & subject them to any form of persecution, repression, experimentation imaginable that was equal to- or less than- murder or indefinite imprisonment in an American dungeon, or any facility really.
These recent revelations further confirm my legal & empirical analysis, which lead me to conclude that the Obama- like the Bush- administration has been claiming virtually dictatorial powers, and few know how they are using them, and those that do, can be stripped of their rights & silenced by any means necessary.
My advice to Congress members & rest of the media who failed to "connect the dots" before, would be to pressure the Obama to publicly reveal its secret interpretations of the Patriot Act, AUMF, Constitution & NDAA, which Senators Wyden & Udall had previously tried to warn us about by characterizing these classified interpretations of existing law as "twisted!"
If the past is any guide, Congress & the media will not heed my advice...and the march towards US authoritarianism will continue unfettered.
My advice to Judge Forrest & the lawyers for Hedges (& Noam Chomsky, Daniel Elsberg, etc.) would be to relentlessly question the Obama lawyers on these points, and loudly expose such radical claims, as this will unravel the Obama team's case and hopefully crack the door open, and create a lever to push, so we might one day see the horrific legal Frankenstein they've created in secret & are likely using vs. those who've nothing to do with any enemies or terrorists.
To those incurably credulous who "trust" that even if such authoritarian violations of fundamental rights were legal, they US would only use them vs. dangerous terrorists, I recommend learning US history of massive programs targeting innocent anti-war, or liberal/progressive citizens with Gestapo/KGB methods (e.g. FBI COINTELPRO attempt to discredit & drive MLK Jr. to suicide), back when it was clearly illegal, & remind you that American democracy is rooted in a fundamental distrust of unchecked power.
The fact that Occupy protesters/members are apparently being put on same Terrorist Watch Lists as Al Queda (see photo below), indicates just how easily a law-abiding average American could suddenly be locked up in a dungeon for life, or have their life ruined in lesser ways (e.g. employer warned of your blacklisting fires you "just to be safe," friends abandon you after FBI question them about your associations with Occupy, anti-war groups, "just to be safe").
Few likely learned from the irresponsible, power-serving media that when specifically asked by Judge Forrest, the Obama lawyers refused to guarantee the plaintiffs (journalist, academics, activists, whistleblowers, Icelandic parliamentarian supporter of Wikileaks) that they would not be prosecuted & indefinitely detained without trial under the NDAA provision 1021(b), which convinced Judge Forrest that ALL journalist/academics/citizens have a credible fear of persecution/prosecution for exercising their 1st Amendment right to free speech & association.
Given my objectively stellar record of accurately predicting "secret" powers/practices not even suspected by Congress or media, I'll go on the record predicting that the Obama administration is secretly claiming/using quasi-totalitarian powers to specifically conceal evidence & potential plaintiffs/witnesses in this case, to manipulate the judiciary to give the stamp of approval for powers they've been abusing & no judge would condone. The public will likely never learn whether this is the case, but I sure would like right to add my two cents to Hedges, his legal team & Judge Forrest.