indefinite detention provision of the NDAA

The groups that use this tactic also are funded or influenced by many of the same organizations and institutions. It should be no surprise then, when one looks at former associations, donations, and other forms of support we find international financiers, corporations, etc. either running these groups or being benefitted in some way by them. A good example of this is in the European political system we see former Goldman-Sachs officials filling in positions of unelected power to help fix the financial crisis they helped create. The same example is true in America. Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and people from the Federal Reserve fill in positions of authority. A simple investigation of presidential appointments within various administrations and with whom they surround themselves exposes a gaggle of technocrats and elitists.

The most common examples we see of the false left-right paradigm in Western politics are Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberal vs. Conservative, and as the term suggest Left wing vs. Right wing. Nowhere is the dynamic tension more apparent then what we see in the mainstream news. Many times, we see video clips of congressional debates or talk radio rants criticizing one group over another but once the cameras are gone, the doors are closed, the real nature of their relationships are revealed. A good example of this was the issue of raising the debt ceiling. When no one was quite as concerned about it there was a consensus between the two parties that it would have to happen. However, just as little as five months later the Republicans made a spectacle of it. This was nothing more then a dog and pony show because Harry Reid said earlier, “I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt…They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt.” So there we have it, they knew they had to do this, they knew the Democrats had taken the dissension last time, and it was the Republicans turn to do the same. The false paradigm performs this same theatrics on any issue they want to steer. One side plays the “good guys” and the other side plays the “bad guys” depending on whose turn it is.

If we were to put forth a concise definition, it might read something like this: “A false left-right paradigm is a political stratagem that uses people’s natural propensity to belong to a like-minded group to drive public opinion and to change policies and laws to benefit their handler’s interests.”

 http://tyrannywatchblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/matrix-of-terms-false-left-right-paradigm/

FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM



David Knight breaks down anti NDAA legislation and "head fakes" being used by our national leaders.










"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson









In September 2012, United States District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA was unconstitutional and blocked it permanently. However, within 24 hours of the ruling the Obama administration lodged an appeal and the law has been under temporary injunction until now.

Americans can once again “legally” be snatched off the street and detained without trial based on the mere claim that they provided aid or support to terrorists, despite this being a total violation of habeas corpus.

The Tenth Amendment Center has a detailed breakdown of the ruling;http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/07/federal-court-permanently-vacates-injunction-against-ndaa-indefinite-detention/#.UebGV43qle5


“In layman’s terms, Forrest put a stop to indefinite detention, and the Second Circuit overturned that. It also permanently prohibited Forrest from attempting to do so again, ordering her to proceed with the case consistent with their opinion. NDAA “indefinite detention” powers are alive and well.”

The group points out that the new Second Circuit ruling is completely incorrect because it claims that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA says nothing about the government’s ability to detain citizens.

In reality, section 1021 states, “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war.”

The ruling stems out of Hedges v. Obama,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama#U.S._Supreme_Court_Proceedings_2 a lawsuit filed in January 2012. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and several other high profile figures brought the case in order to protest against the potential that the law could be used to harass outspoken journalists and political activists.

“Sadly, the “victory” lasted about 10 months. Today, US totalitarianism wins again,” laments Zero Hedge.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-17/us-totalitarianism-wins-again-appeals-court-brings-ndaas-indefinite-military-detenti