Historic Battle Underway - Media Silent

This may be the most important issue before the people, but the state-controlled media says nothing. The article:

Today feels super-creepy. NDAA's imprisonment without trial provisions are trying for a second chance at life. Remind me to put V For Vendetta back on the Netflix queue...

Here's what's up. As reported earlier today, "The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge's ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge.

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to 'pass constitutional muster' and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban."

If you're new to this whole thing — that's okay, the major U.S. television networks appear to be running an actual blackout on this court case today (I've been begging them for 8 months now to cover NDAA in-depth) — the key point is this: alleged terrorists.

Let's say you decide to sleep with a police officer or TSA agent's ex-girlfriend, and this annoys said law enforcement official.
He can say to his superiors, "I don't know, I think this guy might be supporting terrorism in some way — I mean, that's my guess, at least."
Boom. Rest of your life in a sketchy off-grid prison like the one Bane puts Bruce Wayne in, without charge or trial. No access to the lawyer phone call you see on CSI: Miami. You don't even have time to post a status update on Facebook to let your friends know not to expect you anytime soon at the next LAN party, because you've been black-bagged.

Now, let me clarify some stuff, since I am running for U.S. Congress (largely to fight things like imprisonment without trial and bank bailouts). I am not opposed to going after terrorists. Unlike some of my libertarian friends, I see the very real need for continuing to fund our spy programs — we can keep tabs on our enemies overseas without violating American citizens' rights here at home. When it comes to fighting violent extremists fueled by an ideology of hatred, there is zero margin of error: they cannot be allowed to succeed even once.

BUT, the NDAA's indefinite detention provisions go far beyond that noble goal. Once you allow for imprisonment without trial on suspicion alone — a practice we see in some of the most oppressive regimes on Earth — you create a VERY slippery slope where anyone who disagrees with the government, anyone who attends a peaceful afternoon protest or politically-minded cookout, and anyone who sleeps with a TSA agent's ex-girlfriend might be at risk of unimaginable injustice. It also creates a chilling effect within the media. Our journalists are lazy enough without letting them know that covering controversial issues could result in their black-bagging and imprisonment. They'll stop doing journalism altogether.

Americans shouldn't have to fear their own government. They shouldn't have to fear being taken in the night. Things like right to trial and due process are at the very bedrock of our way of life. I'd like to see it stay that way.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/histo...#ixzz22thq6OBG

As our rights are chiseled away the media remains silent.
What will happen when they finish the take over of the media and start making the decisions on not just what will be reported but who will do the reporting.
Do the libs think they will be protected?

zooooooooooooooooooooom

didya see that drone that just flew over your head collecting your credit information with a tsa agent hanging from the tail trying to feel your balls

huh?

As our rights are chiseled away the media remains silent.
What will happen when they finish the take over of the media and start making the decisions on not just what will be reported but who will do the reporting.
Do the libs think they will be protected? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Thank our lucky stars that we have the likes of COsFb, T2Nutlickers, Whrilygig, and the other fringe, lunatic, righty-tighty Flat Earthers to step into the void.

I feel so much more secure now.

Explain to me how this is a "flat earth" issue? I'd be interested in that. We have a piece of legislation that allows the President to place any American citizen in custody, on his word alone, without habeas corpus, or any judicial review whatsoever. A group of citizens sued, and obtained an injunction against the provision. The Administration then vigorously seeks to get the injunction removed, which, as stated, would allow the President of the United States to arrest, detain indefinitely, and deny counsel to American citizens on his assumption alone. Does this not sound like tyranny? Explain to me how this can happen in a so-called free country where the rule of law is supreme, and human rights inviolate?

C'mon, Raggedy Andy, CBJ7. Explain that to me.

And don't give me any "Well, Romney" shit, either. He supports this, too.

Don't tell me you love America, don't tell me you love freedom, don't tell me you respect the rule of law if you support this. If you support this, you don't support any of those things.