Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act

Published: 17 January, 2012, 02:28

U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington January 13, 2012 (Reuters / Kevin Lamarque)

In the past, journalist Chris Hedges has worked for NPR, The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor. In his latest endeavor, however, he is teaming up with an unlikely pair: a couple of attorneys that will help him take on the president.

US President Barack Obama is the target of a suit filed by Pulitzer Prize-winner Hedges, and the reasoning seems more than obvious to him. The decision to take the commander-in-chief to court comes as a response to President Obama’s December 31 signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, a legislation that allows the US military to detain American citizens indefinitely at off-site torture prisons like Guantanamo Bay.

Obama amended the NDAA with a signing statement on New Year’s Eve, insisting that while the Act does indeed give him the power to detain his own citizens indefinitely without charge, that doesn’t mean he will do so. Specifically, Obama wrote that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Under another piece of legislation, however, the government is being granted the right to suspend citizenship of any American if the Enemy Expatriation Act joins the ranks of the NDAA as an atrocious act approved by the president.

“Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial,” journalist Stephen Foster Jr. wrote earlier this month of the Act.

In a blog post published on Monday to TruthDig.com, Hedges announces his effort to take Obama to court, and says his team of attorneys will challenge the president over the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a provision promised under the NDAA.

In his explanation, Hedges says the signing signals “a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.”

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” writes Hedges. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”

Like other NDAA opponents, Hedges addresses in his explanation the issue that vague verbiage throughout the legislation creates an almost open-ended scenario for the government to grab anyone in America and put them behind bars. Instead, rather, the legislation leaves American authorities to go after anyone it can use the Act to attack.

As an international correspondent and world-renowned journalist, Hedges has traveled the globe and says he has been put in some hairy situations. Under the NDAA, he says, he might as well be considered a war criminal in the eyes of America.

Under NDAA, the military can enforce indefinite detention on anyone “who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” As Hedges and others point out, groups such as “associated forces” are never defined, nor are determinations like “substantially supported.”

“I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists,” writes Hedges. “But that does not make me one.” Regardless, any affiliation with a group branded as such could lead authorities to leap to such conclusions.

Everyone from presidential candidate Ron Paul to the American Civil Liberties Union have questioned Obama’s intentions in signing the NDAA, but Hedge’s lawsuit is the first legal filing lobbed at the president. Regardless of what the president intends by putting the NDAA into law, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero wrote, “Obama’s action … is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

Hedges thinks he knows what those intentions are, however.

“I suspect the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state,” says Hedges. “The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up.” When that piece of legislation is coupled with NDAA, the end result could be catastrophic.

“I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them,” concludes Hedges. “They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.”

via Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act — RT.

Advertisements

Preppers Are Now Considered To Be Potential Terrorists?

December 12, 2011
By T Kelly

If you and your family store up lots of food, will you be identified as “potential terrorists” by law enforcement authorities?  That sounds like an insane question, but sadly it has gotten to the point where “preparing for the worst” has become a “suspicious activity“.

Today, there are millions of preppers all across the United States, and the vast majority of them just want to be left alone and do not want the government to interfere in their lives.  Storing up food is a completely peaceful activity, and preppers are generally some of the most patriotic and law-abiding people that you could ever hope to meet.  Unfortunately, prepping has become associated with “extremism” by many in the government, and lately we have seen some very disturbing signs that authorities are actively seeking to gather information on preppers.  So are preppers now considered to be potential terrorists? 

Well, read the evidence posted in the rest of this article and decide for yourself.

The other day, U.S. Senator Rand Paul gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate during which he suggested that having “more than seven days of food” in your house could potentially get you branded as a “potential terrorist” by the federal government.

The following is an excerpt from that speech:

Know good and well that some day there could be a government in power that is shipping its citizens off for disagreements. There are laws on the books now that characterize who might be a terrorist.

Someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist.

If you are suspected by these activities do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?

It is incredibly chilling to hear a defender of liberty such as Rand Paul warn of such things.

But just because a politician says something that does not always mean that it is true.

So is there any evidence that Americans that are storing up food are being watched by the federal government?

Unfortunately, there is. In fact, Oath Keepers has posted a report about one incident in which federal agents actually visited a food production facility and demanded the names of anyone that has been “purchasing bulk food”. The following come from an article about this incident that was recently written by Rand Cardwell, the president of the Tennessee chapter of the Oath Keepers….

A fellow veteran contacted me concerning a new and disturbing development. He had been utilizing a Mormon cannery near his home to purchase bulk food supplies. The man that manages the facility related to him that federal agents had visited the facility and demanded a list of individuals that had been purchasing bulk food. The manager informed the agents that the facility kept no such records and that all transactions were conducted on a cash-and-carry basis. The agents pressed for any record of personal checks, credit card transactions, etc., but the manager could provide no such record. The agents appeared to become very agitated and after several minutes of questioning finally left with no information. I contacted the manager and personally confirmed this information.

Why in the world would federal agents be so interested in Americans that are “purchasing bulk food”?

Don’t they have anything better to do?

As I have written about previously, authorities are also now using a tool developed by the CDC to conduct “door to door disaster preparedness assessments” in some areas of the United States.

The following comes from a local news report in Tennessee….

The Metro Public Health and the Tennessee Department of Health will be using a tool designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to go door to door and check to see how disaster ready you are.

The door to door assessment will take place from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Thursday and from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Friday. It will be in 30 neighborhoods in Davidson County that have been randomly selected to be the target of a door to door assessment.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want anyone coming to my door to “assess” how “prepared” I am.

This is all very, very disturbing.

Lately, the federal government seems absolutely obsessed with the distribution of food.

As author Brandon Turbeville noted recently, “the U.S. government has publicly raided organic food shops, raw milk distributors, and the Amish with guns drawn” in recent years.

Aren’t there bigger threats to national security than the Amish?

Unfortunately, we now live in a “Big Brother” police state where just about anything can be considered a “suspicious activity”.

In fact, according to the FBI a bulk purchase of “meals ready to eat” is now considered to be “suspicious activity” that should be reported to them.

When the “war on terror” started a decade ago, we were told that we needed to fight the terrorists “over there” so that they would not come over here.

Well, now we are being told that the United States itself is part of the “battleground” and that the “terrorists” might just be our neighbors.

We are being told that if we “see something” that we should “say something” to the government.

In essence, the federal government wants us all to “inform” on one another.

Now that most of the big name terrorists have been removed from the picture, the Obama administration and the mainstream media are really hyping the idea that “homegrown terrorism” is a grave danger.

Just check out these headlines from the past few days….

ABC News: “White House Unveils New Strategy to Fight Homegrown Terrorism
USA Today: “White House unveils new strategy to combat homegrown terror
CNN: “Measuring the homegrown terrorist threat to U.S. military

The entire focus of the “war on terror” has shifted. According to FBI Director Robert Mueller, “homegrown terrorists” represent as big a threat to American national security as al-Qaeda does at this point.

America is rapidly changing, and not for the better. All of this paranoia is going to rip this country apart.

In addition, have you noticed how they have taken the word “Islamic” out of their description of the terrorists and have replaced it with words like “extremist” and “extremism”?

Well, the truth is that just about anyone can be considered an “extremist” in one sense or another.

In fact, a recent Salon article asked this question: “Are Evangelicals A National Security Threat?“

These days, if you support an “alternative” political candidate there is a good chance that you will be labeled as an extremist.

During the 2008 election, one law enforcement report identified supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as potential terrorists.

Today, if you have a religious or political ideology that differs from the “orthodoxy” of the federal government then you are probably considered to be an “extremist”.

Beliefs that were once considered normal are now considered to be “dangerous” and “radical”.

For example, one unclassified Department of Homeland Security report published a couple of years ago entitled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“ claimed that a belief in Bible prophecy “could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons.“

During a Congressional hearing earlier this year, U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee warned that “Christian militants” might try to “bring down the country” and that such groups need to be investigated.

Back on February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri issued a report entitled “MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement“. That report warned that the following types of people may be potential terrorists….

*anti-abortion activists
*those that are against illegal immigration
*those that consider “the New World Order” to be a threat
*those that have a negative view of the United Nations

As I have written about previously, a very revealing document obtained by Oath Keepers shows that the FBI is actually instructing store owners to report many new forms of “suspicious activity” to them.

So what does the FBI consider “suspicious activity” to include? According to the document, the FBI now considers “suspicious activity” to include the following….

*paying with cash
*missing a hand or fingers
*”strange odors”
*making “extreme religious statements”
*”radical theology”
*purchasing weatherproofed ammunition or match containers
*purchasing meals ready to eat
*purchasing night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks

All of this is completely and totally ridiculous.

Law enforcement authorities should quit worrying about preppers. The vast majority of us that are preparing for the hard times that are coming truly love this country, are completely and totally non-violent, and just want to be left alone.

There are real threats to national security out there, but the federal government refuses to address them. For example, our border with Mexico is wide open and it has been documented that terror groups are working in northern Mexico and have been coming across the border on a regular basis.

But instead of securing the border, the Obama administration is granting “backdoor amnesty” to illegal aliens instead.

In addition, law enforcement authorities should look into the massive breach of national security that the “Fast and Furious” scandal represents. With the full knowledge of the Department of Justice, ATF agents facilitated the sale of thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels and dropped all surveillance on those weapons once they crossed the border. Those guns will be used to kill people (including Americans) for many years to come.

In fact, there is so much corruption and so many “potential terrorists” in Washington D.C. that it should be more than enough to keep law enforcement officials busy for a very long time.

So leave preppers alone.

Preppers are not a threat. They are not going to hurt anyone. They just want to store up food and prepare for the difficult times that are coming.
So what do all of you think about preppers?

Source: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/preppers-are-now-considered-to-be-potential-terrorists

via Preppers Are Now Considered To Be Potential Terrorists? – Exposing The Truth.

%d bloggers like this: