SCOTUS does to NDAA attorneys the same they did to me. Now US citizens can be kept in military installations indefinitely without trial based on a suspicion only. Welcome to the NAZI states of America. US Dept of “Injustice” and the Supreme Court follow the footsteps of the Dept of Justice and Supreme Court in NAZI Germany. Are you going to be silent about it?
Posted on | February 24, 2013 | 21 Comments
This means that the emergency stay which was placed on Judged Forrests’ injunction against Section 1021 and indefinite detention will remain in effect.
Now we wait on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling.
More thoroughly: THIS is what happened:
Our attorneys asked the Supreme Court to consider lifting the “stay” on our injunction against Section 1021 and indefinite detention. As you’ll recall, we won our lawsuit last September and were granted a worldwide injunction against this provision – ensuring people could not be indefinitely detained under the sweeping and unchecked scope of the NDAA.
Despite having issued a signing statement in January of 2012 claiming he would not use these powers against American citizens, Obama immediately appealed Judge Forrest’s ruling and our win, then went further and asked her to grant a stay on the injunction, essentially “lifting” that injunction. She refused.
Next, the DOJ attorneys went to the second circuit court and asked them to lift the stay as well, claiming “irreparable harm” would be incurred by the US if the government did not have these unchecked powers. The second circuit court judges granted their request and put a stay on our injunction.
We applied to both Justice Ginsberg (who said no) and Justice Scalia (who said yes) to convene a conference of the entire Supreme Court to consider lifting that stay and restoring our injunction. They told us yesterday that they will not lift the stay – indefinite detention under the NDAA stands.
Now, it is up to us to convince the media in time to cover the TRUTH about the AUMF and the NDAA and what the United States government has been doing, and why they needed to conflate these two laws, and why they think they are allowed to have unchecked powers to detain anyone, anywhere based on suspicion alone.