The Obama Administration is fighting tooth and nail to keep the portions of the NDAA that would allow for the U.S. government to lock you up indefinitely without trial. It is a safe bet to say you have not heard much about this battle, despite it being one of the most encompassing precedents to be enshrined in law that has ever occurred within the U.S.A. BusinessInsider elaborates, but the exchange that should pique your interest is the following:
Recall that when the Liar-in-Chief signed the NDAA — which “legalizes” the military’s indefinite detention of anyone anywhere in the world, including Americans in the ole “Homeland,” for “supporting” “terrorists” — he claimed he did so with “serious reservations.” But mere whoppers didn’t content this sociopath; he had to insult our intelligence, too: “I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Oh, right. This from the guy who promised to close Gitmo. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”
That would explain why Comrade Barry’s administration appealed an “injunction against use of the provision [for tossing us in the brig]” from Judge Katherine Forrest of New York’s Southern District. Yes, in what the Los Angeles Times called a “stunning turnaround for an act of Congress,” Judge Forrest ruled in May “that Section 1021 of NDAA was facially unconstitutional — a rare finding…”
Our Rulers filed their appeal last week; just as stunning as the “turnaround” was Comrade Barry’s lawyers’ “refus[ing] to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 — the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial — has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama’s government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them. To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.”
Well, heck, they’ve been in contempt of the Constitution for a couple of centuries now. Yo, Judge: now you know why it’s “rare” for courts to denounce even the Feds’ most tyrannical and patently unconstitutional crimes. Kinda humiliating that the executive branch totally ignore you, isn’t it?
Translation: even if the significant portions of the NDAA are struck down, the executive is intent on ignoring the judiciary. You can thank a long line of Republicans and Democrats that have sought the kingship of their respective presidents year after year for this behavior. It is obvious, really. When you give your representative powers that you would be upset if your rivals representative had, chances are it is not a good idea to give it to your guy. The presidents will now languish in the power, until the democratic republic collapses into a totalitarian clusterf***.