The NDAA replaces the definition of FREE MARKET economy from our US sovereign, domestic economy to the rights of global foreign corporations to compete without impediment inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. The fundamental goals of any nations' CONSTITUTION is of course to protect SOVEREIGN rights. An economy----property rights-----sovereign military are all fundamental necessities for a SOVEREIGN nation.
When the entirety of a nation's economy is technology and energy and all that is declared NATIONAL SECURITY and all that ties to global private military corporations-----then what we see MOVING FORWARD in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES like BALTIMORE CITY-----is MILITARY expansion into our local, domestic economy. When we shout our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE are loosing our RIGHTS TO OWN PROPERTY ----property rights have been central in UK common law for several centuries----UK common law is central to our US Constitution and BILL OF RIGHTS. So, property rights ARE protected in our US Constitution and 300 years of FEDERAL COURT RULINGS------property rights are dismantled in global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH NDAA -------
The NDAA makes all that is the INTERNET OF EVERYTHING----a MILITARY priority and pretends all this is vital to our NATIONAL SECURITY. When OBAMA era dismantled our Federal agencies tied to PUBLIC RESEARCH and tied them to global hedge fund corporate universities-----required to place an emphasis on STEM ----those global hedge fund corporate universities and all global corporations tied to manufacturing technology and energy products is made MILITARY ====NATIONAL SECURITY=====
PROCUREMENT OF LAND FOR MILITARY ACTIVITY --------THE MILITARY CAN SEIZE ANY LAND IT DEEMS OF MILITARY AND SECURITY PRIORITY.
Research, development, test, and evaluation
Authorization of appropriations
Advanced manufacturing activities
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering shall jointly, in coordination with Secretaries of the military departments, establish not less than three activities to demonstrate advanced manufacturing techniques and capabilities at depot-level activities or military arsenal facilities of the military departments.
The activities established pursuant to subsection (a) shall--
support efforts to implement advanced manufacturing techniques and capabilities;
identify improvements to sustainment methods for component parts and other logistics needs;
identify and implement appropriate information security protections to ensure security of advanced manufacturing;
aid in the procurement of advanced manufacturing equipment and support services; and
enhance partnerships between the defense industrial base and Department of Defense laboratories, academic institutions, and industry.
Cooperative agreements and partnerships
The Under Secretaries may enter into a cooperative agreement and use public-private and public-public partnerships to facilitate development of advanced manufacturing techniques in support of the defense industrial base.
Below we see an article written in 2009, the year these few decades of ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of our American wealth and people's pockets centered on using SUBPRIME MORTGAGE LOAN FRAUDS and real estate FLIPPING as a NON-ECONOMY----with a goal of making it impossible to assess who legally has title to any property in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Baltimore City was ground zero with this attack----no real estate title remains secure. For whom did global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA work these few decades? Global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH. This article addresses the growing attack on our US BILL OF RIGHTS tied to COMMON LAW enshrining PROPERTY RIGHTS guaranteed to our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE----yet it never mentions the GORILLA-IN-ROOM issue of designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----and NDAA in eliminating all that US Constitutional history as well as centuries of European/British history.
So, we KNEW global banking 5% freemason/Greek players were attacking US property rights----and we knew they were doing it illegally.
Remember what our original US CONSTITUTION guarantees:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
T“One great object of government is personal protection and security of property.” – Alexander Hamilton..............
Yet, here we have global banking 1% now with their own global private praetorian military once called our US military-----MOVING FORWARD the ending of all US property rights.
Taking Back the Constitution - Part 16 - What Property Rights?
Article | February 25, 2014 | By Don Anderson
Photo courtesy Pei Ketron, Flickr, May 23, 2009
What is private property?
Property is all that a man possesses; his exclusive domain. Man has the right to acquire property and dispose of property. He has the right to control his property, exclude others, to prevent trespass, and the right of quiet enjoyment. He also has the right to the active use of his property provided that his use does not violate the right of others to the quiet enjoyment of their property.  Property need not be tangible, but can be ideas to which he has established exclusive claim.
Many countries in the world maintain that rights are created by legislation, however, our founders insisted that man is born with rights. Those rights may be regulated, but exist independent of and prior to any legislation. Democratically legislated rules can assist in the maintenance of one’s property, but only in extreme situations can those rules permit forfeiture of property without the owner’s consent. “Rights” provided by democratically enacted legislation make them into what Abraham Lincoln called “the wolf’s understanding of liberty: that those with power–whether they be a democratic majority or a legislature or a regulatory agency–have a basic the right to do as they please with other people and the product of their labor.”  Our founders did everything possible to protect our rights from the will of the majority.
The right to property far predates our Constitution and was well developed under the common law. The laws of each colony recognized the right to property, and our founders made no change except to give the new government the right to take property for public use provided just compensation was made. 
Private property is the fundamental right!
The right to own property has always been the critical attribute of a free man. The following quotes are a small sample of the many folks who appreciate this fact:
“The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive people of this is in fact to deprive them of their liberty.” – Arthur Lee, a colonist in Virginia 
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of god … anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” – John Adams 
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort …. This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,… nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has … is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” - James Madison 
“One great object of government is personal protection and security of property.” – Alexander Hamilton 
“Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. Every legal claim, after all, is a claim to something–either a defensive claim to keep what one is holding or an offensive claim to something someone else is holding.” – Roger Pilon 
The word “property” was used only once in the original Constitution and that concerned only the property of the new government. The 5th Amendment provides briefly for the compensation of property owners when their property is taken for public purposes. The 14th Amendment reiterates the 5ths prohibition against taking property without due process of law, but applying it specifically to the states. In spite of the scant use of the word “property” in the Constitution, a great number of its provisions protected property.  The list would have been even longer if our founders had designed the federal government to have any significant power over property. They left the states as the primary protectors and regulators of property.
The process of condemning private property for purchase or regulating it in such a way that it losses legitimate value is called a taking.
The Supreme Court in the 20th century has separated two types of takings.
The first are condemnations. They have permitted government to take over property often below fair market value. In extreme cases the ultimate beneficiary has not been directly the public (as specified in the Constitution) but some redevelopment or “urban renewal” scheme. In the case of Kelo v. City of New London,  the City was permitted to condemn Susette Kelo’s property only to transfer it to another private party they thought would use it in a way they approved. The Constitution’s “public use” restraint was bent into “of benefit to other taxpayers.” This case caused such an outcry that 40 states enacted legislation to prevent such an outrage. It is doubtful that the Supreme Court will repeat this highly questionable interpretation.
Regulatory takings are an even more obnoxious denial of individual property rights. In most cases the Supreme court has permitted significant reduction in the value of a persons property before they will permit recovery from the government of the value taken.
Two other types of takings are not compensated and have often become so excessive that they significantly reduce the value of the owners property; to the point of outright theft.
These are property/inventory taxes and required permits. You truly do not own property if you have to pay rent to the government in order to retain ownership. Unfortunately most local governments depend on property taxes to fund their government and schools. These taxes have been with us since colonial times, and in most cases the proposed replacements are equally obnoxious. In this column, I propose making this slow confiscation constitutional.
Permits are a two-sided coin. Many just allow the government to dictate how you use your property. These permits protect no one’s property and represent the essence of bureaucratic theft of property. Other permits prevent actions that will damage the property of others and although preemptive do offer some value when severe damage would be beyond the resources of the active property owner to redress.
Our property may be our most important right, but it is also one of the most difficult to protect. There are constant attempts by others who want to control property without paying for it
The US Supreme Court has made it unnecessarily difficult to bring property rights cases into federal court by requiring owners to use every possible avenue for recovery before turning to the courts. This prevents all but the exceptionally well-healed from recovering property taken by government. Many give up and permit various levels of government to confiscate their property or much of its value. Most people, rather than having a true right to the property they own, are able to use their property only at the forbearance of the government.
This is a travesty. Common law courts were protecting owner’s property rights well before there was a United States. If you have the use of the property you own only with the permission of the government you are not a free man.
To help protect property owners from the very agency set up to protect their property rights, this amendment below sets up a special court, gives it the tools, and tasks it with protecting each individual’s property.
Here is an article written in 2015 Baltimore Sun PRETENDS it is identifying MILITARY'S role in Maryland economy but in doing so is looking at an economy based on our military bases----like FORT MEADE. Meanwhile, in Baltimore alone----we have expanding global hedge fund JOHNS HOPKINS CORPORATION ----ground zero for global 1% private military corporations ----we have AMAZON.COM tied to military drones and security policing----we have UNDERARMOUR ---building that military CYBER-SECURITY campus we were told was promoting their SPORTS WEAR.
All this is the INITIAL Greater Baltimore Development of these few decades. As we shout over and again---these are FOOTPRINTS of global corporate campuses which will claim EMINENT DOMAIN throughout GREATER BALTIMORE and they will use NDAA------as the CONSTITUTION giving global banking 1% the property rights inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
ANY GLOBAL CORPORATION WHETHER CALLING ITSELF US---OR FOREIGN TIED TO THE INTERNET OF EVERYTHING----ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID IS OFFICIAL MILITARY BUSINESS.
New study highlights military's role in Maryland economy
Natalie ShermanContact Reporter
The Baltimore Sun May 11, 2015
Maryland's military installations account for 15% of 2012 economic output
Maryland's military installations represented about 15 percent of the state's economic output in 2012, according to a report released Monday by the state that showcases the close ties between the military and Maryland's economy.
The study estimated that Maryland's 15 military installations contributed more than $51.8 billion in economic activity in fiscal 2012, up nearly 46 percent from 2008, the last time the state Department of Business and Economic Development commissioned a study.
The growth was powered by the consolidation of military bases to Maryland locations, such as Aberdeen Proving Ground, where the number of direct employees increased to 15,780, up about 4,685 people or 42 percent. Other installations, such as Fort Detrick, also experienced growth unrelated to the base realignment.
The state's 2008 analysis did not estimate what portion of the state's economy was represented by local installations. But Daraius Irani, chief economist at Towson University's Regional Economic Studies Institute, which worked on the report for DBED, said it had increased by about 4 percentage points.
"It's become a bigger chunk of our local economy," he said.
That bigger role, however, means that fiscal belt-tightening in Washington poses a bigger risk to Maryland's economy, Irani added.
"The concern now is to basically figure out how do we diversify," he said. "How do we make sure that those manufacturers that are really tied into the defense industry have a Plan B in case the defense industry slows down?"
ALL US TREASURY AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND FRAUD IS TIED TO BUILDING GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES MOST BEING DEFINED AS 'MILITARY' RELATED....THAT IS $20 TRILLION IN NATIONAL BOND DEBT.
Overall, the military posts, led by Fort Meade, generated roughly $23.9 billion in wages and supported about 350,411 jobs in 2012, according to the report. Direct employment at the bases rose roughly 36 percent, to 149,000, while outside payrolls supported by the installations rose about 30 percent, according to the report.
That's a far faster rate of hiring than Maryland overall. Between 2008 and 2012, employment dipped by about 1 percent, according to annual estimates by the Department of Labor. Those figures do not include active duty military members, but do include federal civilian employment.
Since 2012, hiring likely has leveled off or declined at some locations, including Aberdeen, said J. Michael Hayes, a retired Marine Corps brigadier general who heads DBED's office of military affairs. Other places have been hit less by the budget decisions, such as Fort Meade, where the rise of cybersecurity has softened the blow.
"There's been a plateauing if not some slight decreases in the Aberdeen area because of cutbacks in hiring and procurement, but the numbers overall are probably understated because the growth overall, particularly at Fort Meade, continues to progress on a steady basis," Hayes said in an interview after the meeting of the Maryland Military Installation Council.
The Anne Arundel County base accounted for more than 40 percent of the jobs attributed to the state's installations in 2012 and about 43 percent of overall spending in 2012, DBED reported.
The post has about 13 construction projects underway— a building surge driven by new, technology-driven infrastructure needs — and expects to add about 2,310 personnel through fiscal 2019, according to a presentation by Col. Brian P. Foley, the base commander at Fort Meade.
In other areas, the state is trying to prepare to ease the anticipated shift away from the defense industry.
Maryland received a roughly $2 million grant from the Department of Defense's office of economic adjustment, which is being used to identify the small businesses likely to be affected and how they might shift from defense as a primary client.
Rep. John P. Sarbanes, who spoke at the meeting, said he hopes Congress will find a way to increase spending flexibility, rather than adhere to the deep spending reductions lawmakers put in place in 2011.
DON'T WORRY JOHN SARBANES------GLOBAL BANKING 5% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA DID THAT DURING YOUR TERMS IN OFFICE!
But the approach would have to apply to non-defense parts of the budget as well as defense spending to win widespread political support, the Baltimore Democrat added, echoing comments made by top Democrats after Senate Republicans approved a budget blueprint last week.
OH, REALLY JOHN????
"Politically, there isn't going to be a path, I don't think, to get where we want to get if the approach is to provide relief on one part of the budget and not others," Sarbanes said.
Jill McClune, president of the Army Alliance, which lobbies in support of Aberdeen Proving Ground, said the economic analysis produced for DBED underscores how important the outcome of the budget process will be for Maryland.
"The economic analysis helps us understand just how much that economic impact trickles down through our communities and out to the general population," she said. "We're really not separate. We're all one big community, and everybody's going to get impacted by what's going on in Congress and D.C."
So, how has global banking 1% illegally secured land for expanding global banking 1% military corporate campuses in Baltimore these few decades? The same happening in your neck of the woods------we discuss often the use of tax policy that violates TAX UNIFORMITY LAWS------we discuss often the use of WATER BILLS using fraudulent monthly water bills controlled by GLOBAL VEOLA ENVIRONMENT-----to end property rights and ownership------VEOLA ENVIRONMENT is of course that ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID military corporation.
GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY HAS BEEN MADE A WORLD BANK/UNITED NATIONS MILITARY GOAL.
Below we see from where our local FAKE NEWS DATA comes ---ABELL is one of many 'foundations' tied to GREATER BALTIMORE never addressing GORILLA IN ROOM policy issues here pretending to support the protection of citizens' property rights while being the GREATER BALTIMORE COMMITTEE pushing global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS development policies.
'Another recommendation in the Abell report is to eliminate the ability of city officials to sell properties for unpaid water bills. An outstanding water bill of at least $350 that's nine months delinquent can trigger a tax sale, even if all of the homeowner's taxes are paid'.
Whether the issue is losing property rights for a crude oil and natural gas pipeline disguised as a RED LINE LIGHT RAIL----our losing communities to failure of infrastructure development----
THIS IS ALL MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS CONTROL OF ALL PROPERTY INSIDE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Baltimore City council and mayor-----Maryland Assembly and governor-----all pass the laws MOVING FORWARD these NDAA PROPERTY RIGHTS never mentioning what policies are driving these new laws---or mentioning the goals-----they JUST DO IT.
City homeowners lose property for just $250 in unpaid taxes
Yvonne WengerContact ReporterThe Baltimore Sun Oct 27, 2014
You can lose your home in Baltimore for unpaid taxes of as little as $250, new report finds.
Homeowners in Baltimore can lose their houses for as little as $250 in unpaid taxes — a threshold far lower than in other cities — according to a new Abell Foundation report that urges a change in the practice.
The report calls on Baltimore officials and the Maryland General Assembly to add protections for owner-occupied homes and simplify a city system that often confuses homeowners, enriches investors and adds to the number of vacant properties that line neighborhood streets.
City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke said she's seen many residents, often elderly, get swept up in tax lien sales, and she wants the city to raise the threshold that triggers a sale to $750 in back taxes.
"So many elderly people go into tax sale," she said. "They get confused. They maybe don't account exactly for what's owed. Bills get misplaced and sometimes they don't have the money. We need to raise the limits."
A homeowner in Washington needs to be $2,500 behind in taxes before a property is subject to a tax lien sale, 10 times higher than the threshold in Baltimore. Residential homes in New York City are subject to tax sales at $1,000.
Property taxes are a primary source of revenue for government budgets, and holding the tax lien sales is a way for cities to collect the money to pay for services, such as police and fire protection.
In Baltimore, the city sells tax lien certificates to third-party investors that charge 18 percent interest and act as collection agencies for the city. If property owners don't pay up, the investors can ask the court to foreclose on the properties and take ownership.
To reclaim their houses — and all the equity in it — after a tax sale, homeowners must pay the debt, the interest and hundreds of dollars in court costs and legal fees, according to the report. A $500 tax bill could turn into $3,000 two years after the tax sale.
More than 2,800 open tax lien cases were pending in Baltimore Circuit Court as of Jan. 31, the report found. Advocates say those sales can lead to eviction and homelessness for low-income homeowners.
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said she's committed to finding ways to make sure residents can stay in their houses, but her administration sees the $250 threshold as constructive by forcing homeowners to address the debt before it grows any larger.
RAWLINGS-BLAKE BEING A RAGING FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% MOVING FORWARD BALTIMORE AS US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE.
Rawlings-Blake pointed toward multiple programs the city has in place to help low-income and elderly residents, including discounts on water bills, savings accounts for future tax bills and energy assistance. She said the city also has an early warning system in which city agencies reach out to identify residents at risk of losing their homes.
"My administration is currently in the process of identifying additional reforms to help families in need, because no one wins when residents are forced from their homes due to situations that oftentimes are avoidable," the mayor said in a statement.
City officials contend that increasing the threshold would take a change in state law, but the Abell report found that Baltimore County made the change administratively in 2008, increasing the threshold from $250 to $500. The threshold of tax sales in much of the state remains at $250 in back taxes.
City Council passed a resolution in 2010 urging the General Assembly to increase the threshold to $750, but the legislature hasn't changed state law.
Janice Simmons, chief for Baltimore's Bureau of Revenue Collections, said city officials discussed whether to seek an increase in the threshold, but decided raising the debt limit was too risky for vulnerable homeowners.
"To leave it at $250, we feel like we're doing a service," Simmons said. "They could borrow the money or have the means to get it. At $750 or $1,000, you're in too deep."
Simmons also challenged the report's comparison of Baltimore to other cities.
"The housing stock in Baltimore is different than in Washington and New York City," she said. "You can't compare the locations."
Another recommendation in the Abell report is to eliminate the ability of city officials to sell properties for unpaid water bills. An outstanding water bill of at least $350 that's nine months delinquent can trigger a tax sale, even if all of the homeowner's taxes are paid.
Homes in Washington or New York City can't be sold at a tax sale based on an unpaid water bill.
The city no longer allows tax sales for delinquent water bills that were issued based on estimated water use. The policy changed after officials discovered in 2012 that the city had overbilled 38,000 customers, owing residents $4.2 million in refunds, according to the report.
Joan Jacobson, author of the Abell report, called Baltimore's tax sale system more "punitive" than any other she researched.
"In places like New York City and Washington D.C. and the state of Rhode Island, they have found ways to still collect taxes and hold tax sales, but protect homeowners," Jacobson said. "The study is a road map for how to change the laws."
The report recommended the threshold for tax sales in Baltimore be increased to $1,000 and called for homeowners' unpaid water bills to no longer be used as a trigger.
Recommendations also included lowering the interest rate that homeowners pay to redeem their houses, improving the process to notify residents of the tax sale process, offering installment payment programs based on income and creating an ombudsman position to assist at-risk homeowners.
Lester Davis, spokesman for City Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young, said tax lien sales have been a matter of ongoing discussion between Young and the administration.
"In the council president's mind, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to kick someone out of their home for what's in the grand scheme of things a minuscule amount," Davis said. "You're being penny wise and pound foolish, and you run the risk of having someone be even more dependent on social services."
Margaret Henn, foreclosure prevention project manager at the Pro Bono Resource Center, urged city and state officials to change laws and policies based on the report's findings. She said much is at stake, especially for elderly and low income residents.
"They are facing homelessness over such a small bill," Henn said. "It's people who have built up a lot of equity in their house and are losing everything."
Again, here is yet another US national FAKE NEWS media back in 2012 focusing all of the discussion on NDAA tied to the same two sections taking away our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE's rights to DUE PROCESS/FACING THE PERSON CHARGING US WITH CRIMES. We will not look to BUSINESS INSIDER to fight for gorilla in room issues of NDAA making INTERNET OF EVERYTHING the entirety of our US sovereign economy and tying all that to a global private military corporation replacing our US sovereign public military-----
BUT, YES-----THE NDAA DOES NEED TO BE REPEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ---VIOLATING 300 YEARS OF US FEDERAL COURT RULINGS AND CENTURY'S OF COMMON LAW.
So, we have UNITED NATIONS---HUMAN RIGHT WATCH placing all our attention on -----two sections of a great big NDAA coup against our US sovereignty.
WE MUST LOOK LOCALLY AT WHAT MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ARE DOING---STOP ALLOWING GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS FOOTPRINTS---STOP ALLOWING THE INTERNET OF EVERYTHING BE THE ONLY ECONOMY.
We cannot create a 99% populist movement if we are focusing on a very narrow problem for NDAA.
The NDAA Is Ridiculously Unconstitutional And Must Be Repealed
David Seaman Online
Feb. 16, 2012, 6:51 AM
I hesitate to label this piece as "opinion," because it is fact -- rather than one's editorial opinion -- that the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contains indefinite detention without trial provisions which violate a shocking number of Constitutional and international civil rights protections.These imprisonment without trial provisions were drafted by a bipartisan group in Congress, and then quietly signed into law by President Obama on New Year's Eve -- after his administration withdrew an earlier veto threat on NDAA.
The lack of media coverage of this historic event has been stunning, and as awareness of the NDAA grows online, some individuals are seeking clarity as to what laws, specifically, are violated by the NDAA's indefinite detention provisions.
The video segment below gives you a brief, two-minute rundown on the legal specifics, and the rights violated by the NDAA. Special thanks to the National Lawyers Guild; I've relied heavily on their analysis for this piece. Also, other leading legal and civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) have come to similar conclusions about the NDAA's unconstitutionality and threat to our democratic values.
At time of publication, multiple bills have been proposed in the House which would seek to "de-claw" or repeal the most egregious portions of the NDAA. The public's support of such bills is, in my view, crucial at this time.
Again, here is the same global banking 5% freemason/Greek players pretending to be fighting the civil liberties violations of NDAA-----all focusing on these same two detention issues.
The US SUPREME COURT RULING in this case ONLY relates to NDAA detention issues----it does not address the military sovereignty issues of having NDAA controlling all our US COMMERCE-----the attack on COMMERCE CLAUSE-----the consolidation of POWER TO US PRESIDENT over all that is economy and military.
This is what our far-right wing global banking FAKE CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES groups have done these few decades---they focus on ONE POLICY ----and pretend passing a law at national or state level will correct this NDDA MESS.
So, we are supposed to think our Federal court protected us from second coming of REAGAN ----OBAMA fascism-----when our US Federal court and US Supreme Court should be AGHAST at the attack of NDAA on US sovereignty
This is far-right wing global banking 1% FAKE MEDIA OUTLET----Russian Times ---
'Sorry, Mr. President. A US Federal judge has clarified a decision made last month with some news sure to upset the Obama administration: the White House cannot use the NDAA to indefinitely detain American citizens'.
NDAA unconstitutional: Federal judge bans Obama from indefinitely detaining Americans
Published time: 7 Jun, 2012 16:15 Edited time: 7 Jun, 2012 20:45
Sorry, Mr. President. A US Federal judge has clarified a decision made last month with some news sure to upset the Obama administration: the White House cannot use the NDAA to indefinitely detain American citizens.
Judge Katherine B. Forrest has answered a request made by US President Barack Obama last month to more carefully explain a May 16 ruling made in a Southern District of New York courtroom regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. Clarifying the meaning behind her injunction, Judge Forrest confirms in an eight-page memorandum opinion this week that the NDAA’s controversial provision that permits indefinite detention cannot be used on any of America's own citizens.
Last month Judge Forrest ruled in favor of a group of journalists and activists whom filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 1021 of the NDAA, a defense spending bill signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. Specifically, Judge Forrest said in her injunction that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and ruled that no, the government cannot imprison Americans over suspected ties with terrorists.
"In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more,” said the judge.
The Obama administration responded nine days later by asking Judge Forrest to reconsider her ruling, adding that, in the interim, the government would interpret the injunction to mean that only the few plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit would be excluded from indefinite detention. One of those named, journalist Chris Hedges, had previously said, “I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists … but that does not make me one.”
GOOD THING CHRIS HEDGES IS EXEMPT FROM THESE INDEFINITE DETENTIONS!
Responding to the White House’s demands, Judge Forrest writes in a June 6 memo, “Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court — or by Congress. This order should eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order’s scope.”
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.
Attorney Carl Meyer represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and told RT last month that he expected the Obama administration to challenge Judge Forrest’s ruling, but warned that “it may not be in their best interest because there are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law.”
Previously, state lawmakers in both Utah and Virginia have proposed legislation that would negate provisions of the NDAA on a local level.