Federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled in favor of activists filing a lawsuit challenging Obama’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), specifically Section 1021, which allows the Government to detain militarialy and indefinitely, without trial, Americans suspected of terrorism, referred to as ‘rendition.’ How could this possibly get through Congress you might ask? Here are two hints.
1) The 1000 page NDAA was submitted late, with little time for Congress to read it. Senator Jim Inhofe said it was the third year in a row that the legislation had been submitted long after the deadline.
2) The bill funded all facets of the military – as in ‘urgent need.’
The Obama administration asked that the Judge further explain her original injunction. She obliged in an eight-page memorandum opinion, concluding that indefinite detention of Americans is illegal and unconstitutional.
In the memorandum, the Judge intimates that the legislation is “facially vague” yet violates a person’s Constitutional right to due process. On December 26, 2011 I wrote a comprehensive summation of everything I could find among the Internet’s known and lauded legal minds about the NDAA. The end result was maybe the legislation does not allow for rendition, but it’s possible it does.
Now that’s scary, right? One of my Senators, Jim Inhofe (R-OK) a conservative warrior, voted for the bill and put a statement on his website explaining that Americans would not be unconstitutionally detained. My other Senator, Dr. Tom Coburn, always a fiscal conservative warrior, but not always conservative in other matters, took the right road and voted against it.
Senator Inhofe’s concern was funding the Military – a valid point of reasoning, but at some point, the blackmail must stop. To see Inhofe vote against emergency funding for the Military might shock some sense into other less principled factions in the Senate. Republicans voting against the NDAA were Mike Lee (UT), Rand Paul (KY) and Tom Coburn (OK).
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, withoutdue process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Think about this: Judge Forrest didn’t hesitate to tell Congress that they didn’t get it quite right this time, but Chief Justice John Roberts was so concerned about trampling on the people’s elected officials that he decided ObamaCare was a tax even through Congress didn’t pass a tax. We live in strange and perilous times.
There is one exception found by Judge Forrest, and I can live with this (unless we find those doing the detaining to be scoundrels – which would be nothing unusual):
Judge Forrest does include in her ruling, however, that Americans can be indefinitely detained, but only providing that the government can link suspects directly to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
I seriously trust no one these days, but realize with years behind us, we know who those suspected Americans tied to 9-11-01 were/are: one is dead – Anwar al-Awlaki, and Adam Gadahn (Adam Pearlman), once a senior advisor to bin Laden. Maybe there are more, but those two come to mind immediately. Tell me what you think about the Judge’s exception in comments if you have time.