First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion,
the government clarifies unequivocally that, ‘based on their stated activities,’ plaintiffs, ‘journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.’
Of course, they'll be captured and detained by domestic operatives. Duh!Second, on its face,
the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) (‘Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.’).
Of course, with 24/7 visual and digital surveillance capability of every man, woman and child in the nation...evidence can be looked for until it is found...or planted...so excuse me if your assurances don't amount to a bucket of scat!Third, the language of the district court’s injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government’s authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force…
Yes, the force is with them...and the will to use it...on anybody...anywhere...anytime... I can hear the famous last words forming already...we...didn't...think...we...didn't...know...http://decryptedmatrix.com/live/court-extends-stop-on-order-blocking-ndaa-indefinite-detention-law/Welcome to the Unified Security-state of Amerika. Enjoy your state-granted privileges and remember, they are watching everything you do!
