Don't think you could be indefinitely detained by Barack Obama?

Think again.

Naomi Wolf reports: "The transcript from the hearing has some jaw-dropping exchanges between Judge Forrest and the US government attorney representing Obama. Repeatedly Judge Forrest asked Obama's lawyers to define "associated forces" and "material support" or "substantial support" and repeatedly they declined to do so, or were unwilling to do so, as you see below.

In my notes, Judge Forrest gave them six or seven chances to define the NDAA in a way that would not endanger peaceful US critics, activists, commentators or journalists, and they could not or would not take those opportunities she gave them to do so.

Specifically, the government's lawyers could not or would not rule out detaining reporter Chris Hedges under section 1021 or 1022 of the NDAA, and they did not rule out the example of a nonviolent book that simply showed support for the Taliban's worldview that the US was excessively imperialistic, falling under its aegis.

Most distressingly, the fact that the United States' lawyers confirmed on the record that NDAA could be used for those purposes, makes the many letters I have seen, sent from Congresspeople and Senators to their constituents -- in which these leaders directly asserted to their constituents the contrary of what the Government's lawyers confirmed last Thursday -- all the more distressing: either Congress' disinformation, sent from their offices to US citizens at a critical moment, emerged out of our leaders' serious ignorance about what this law does, or else the disinformation was disingenuous:

Judge Forrest was pushing to determine the boundaries of the NDAA law

Obama’s lawyer said that it would take a case of someone being detained under the NDAA, to find the parameters of the law. (OP Note: Sound familiar? We have to pass it to see what's in it. Now someone has to be detained to find out if they have any rights.)

Judge Forrest: “Is it really adequate to say you have to go to a DC court, in detention, to figure this out? Are you going to have to wait for courts other than this one to decide who ‘associated forces’ are? Is this the only way we can figure this out?”

She asked the government lawyer for an example of a boundary around “associated forces.”

Judge Forrest: “I don’t want precision. I want a boundary.”

Obama lawyer: “I don’t have specifics.”

Judge Forrest: “Associated forces”? What are they?”

Pause.

Judge Forrest: “If you can’t stand here and say, “1021 won’t touch Ms O’Brien …unless, if you did, we would be done — if you can’t do that, you leave us in a tough spot here.”"

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...aa-free-speech

Read More of Naomi Wolf's #NDAA Hearing Notes: http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/

Read Alexa O'Brien's Letter about the NDAA and her lawsuit: http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsig...nd_family.html

Sign & Share the STOP NDAA Petition: www.STOPNDAA.Org

Learn More & Share Like You Care
www.PeopleOverPolitics.Org

Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA: https://www.facebook.com/antiNDAA

From the People Against the NDAA Facebook page.

snick

any minute now ..

Part of the text of Obama's signing statement when he signed this fucking thing that COG will not stop bleating about. I've highlighted the part that answers the question COG has posted.

>>>Obama then strongly debunked once and for all the notion that the NDAA detention provisions apply to American citizens, “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”<<<<<

Get it now COG?

The signing statement is not law, and is not binding. How dumb are you, Timmy? And what if Obama keeps his pledge, which is unlikely considering his history, what's to keep future presidents from abusing the law?

Why is this even an issue? What is the problem with removing the language completely, instead of demanding its inclusion, then promising not to use it?

still waiting ....

snick+2

The signing statement is not law, and is not binding. How dumb are you, Timmy? And what if Obama keeps his pledge, which is unlikely considering his history, what's to keep future presidents from abusing the law?

Why is this even an issue? What is the problem with removing the language completely, instead of demanding its inclusion, then promising not to use it? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Don't need you to lecture me about the binding effect of a signing statement. And either you're the dumb one or you don't remember your own post....Your question was about indefinite detainment by Barack Obama. The signing statement answers your question. As usual, it's paranoia and much ado about nothing from you.

stillllllllllll waiting ...