By Chuck Baldwin
May 24, 2012
In a stunning upset for the Obama administration and big-government zealots in
general, a federal judge in New York has issued an injunction against the
citizen detention portion of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Bob
Unruh at World Net Daily has the story.
"A district-court judge has suspended enforcement of a law that could strip
U.S. citizens of their civil rights and allow indefinite detention of
individuals President Obama believes to be in support of terror.
"The Obama administration has refused to ensure that the First Amendment
rights of authors and writers who express contrary positions or report on terror
group activities are protected under his new National Defense Authorization Act.
"Targeted in the stunning ruling from U.S. District Judge Katherine B.
Forrest of New York was Paragraph 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law
last Dec. 31. The vague provision appears to allow for the suspension of civil
rights for, and indefinite detention of, those individuals targeted by the
president as being in support of terror.
"Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with
such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona,
Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed
"The case was before Forrest on a request for a temporary restraining
order. The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg,
Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O'Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and
the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who
stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had
altered their activities.
"Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on
behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall, and others.
"Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND that the judge's
decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021
"affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct."
"The impact is that 'the statute does not have sufficient constitutional
guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision
whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,' Titus said.
"The judge noted that the law doesn't have a requirement that there be any
knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention, he said. The judge also
said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration
lawyers refused to answer her questions.
"The opinion underscores 'the arrogance of the current regime, in that they
will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don't
think they have to,' Titus said.'"
Unruh went on to say, "The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other
individuals and organizations including the United States Justice Foundation,
Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America,
Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck
As an aside, was I the only pastor in America to be included as an amici in this
brief? Let me challenge readers, the next time you go to church, ask your pastor
what he is doing or what he would do to prevent military personnel from taking
you off to a military prison without an arrest warrant, without issuing Miranda,
without telling you why you are being seized, without allowing you access to an
attorney, without recognizing that you have any constitutional rights, without
any requirement to release you, or even without any requirement to keep you in
the United States of America for a trial or judicial proceeding. I challenge
you: ask him! And if his answer is something like, "The Lord will take care
of you," or "That could never happen in the United States," what
in the name of liberty are you doing attending that church?
See Unruh's report at: http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/obama-citizen-detention-plan-in-trouble
Now, I wonder how many of these pseudo-conservative talking heads at FOX News,
as well as the myriads of local reporters and journalists throughout the
country, will at least be honest enough to admit that there was substantial
reason to be concerned about the citizen detention provision of the NDAA? Ever
since NDAA was signed into law, these phony guardians of liberty have been
pooh-poohing the warnings that many of us columnists and independent journalists
have been issuing. Now, a federal judge has also recognized the threat posed to
our constitutional liberties by this provision of the NDAA, and has issued an
injunction against it.
That's the good news. The bad news is the US House of Representatives defeated
an amendment that would have repealed the indefinite detention provision of the
NDAA. The Tenth Amendment Center covers the story.
"In a shameful display of disregard for the Constitution and for liberty,
on Friday, the House of Representatives voted to perpetuate the president's
power to indefinitely detain American citizens.
"By a vote of 238-182, members of Congress rejected the amendment offered
by Representatives Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan) that
would have repealed the indefinite detention provision passed overwhelmingly
last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.
"The Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA retains the indefinite detention provisions, as
well as the section permitting prisoners to be transferred from civilian
jurisdiction to the custody of the military.
"The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power
under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification
for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not
give them a charge or trial," Representative Amash said during House
The report goes on to say, "Each of these freedom-phobes [the congressmen
who voted to keep the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA] invoked the
specter of terror (in one way or another: "terrorist," "al-Qaeda,"
"enemies") to justify the abolition of constitutionally guaranteed
"Seemingly, those promoting these provisions would offer Americans as
sacrifices on the altar of safety, the fires of which are fed by the kindling of
The report astutely includes this warning from "The Father of The US
Constitution", James Madison: "It is a universal truth that the loss
of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or
pretended, from abroad."
Oh! Take a guess as to who was the only candidate for President who supported
the Smith-Amash amendment to repeal the indefinite detention provision of the
NDAA? You got it: Congressman Ron Paul.
See the Tenth Amendment Center report at:
This goes to prove that sometimes our enemies are not the courts; sometimes our
enemies are the legislatures of this country. This was the case in the
aforementioned actions. So, now we have a federal court and the US Congress
(allied by the White House) in conflict. It's going to get very interesting!
And speaking of how the legislatures are often the ones inflicting more and more
tyranny upon the US citizenry, try this report on for size:
"The federal government is moving quickly to open the skies over America to
drones--both for commercial and government purposes--and respected Washington
Post and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer is forecasting rifles aimed at
the sky all across America."
"The comments from Krauthammer, who won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary
in 1987 after serving as a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale and
then beginning his journalism career at The New Republic, were on 'Special
Report' with Bret Baier.
"I would predict, I am not encouraging, but I predict the first guy who
uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that's been hovering over
his house is going to be a folk hero in this country," Krauthammer said.
"The conversation arose as the federal government announced it is beginning
to allow public safety agencies to fly unmanned aircraft--drones--with fewer and
"According to yesterday's report from Bloomberg, police, fire and other
government agencies now are being allowed to fly drones weighing as much as 25
pounds without special approvals previously needed.
"The Federal Aviation Administration said on its website that the move was
an interim step until the agency finishes rules that will open the door for
commercial operation of drones, as well as those uses for government purposes.
"Congress has adopted the position of encouraging more drone flights, with
the goal of adapting technology used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan."
See the report at:
There you have it, folks. Your federal government--along with numerous local and
State police agencies--is preparing to use instruments of war against the
citizens of the United States. And numerous local and State police agencies are
standing in line to participate. I ask you, do the US Congress, the FAA, and our
local and State authorities plan to arm these drones with more than surveillance
cameras (as if that's not bad enough)? Should we expect that the drones that
will be flying over our neighborhoods would be armed with machine guns and
missiles? That's the technology used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan,
What is wrong with the American people? What is wrong with our representatives?
What is wrong with our State legislators? What is wrong with our local and State
police agencies? What is wrong with our pastors and churches? What is wrong with
our reporters and journalists? Are they THAT blind? Do they want a paycheck THAT
Are they THAT willing to allow this free republic to be thrown into the trash
bin of history, only to be replaced with a giant Police State? Are we THAT
ignorant of history? Is THAT really where we are?
Ladies and gentlemen, the emerging police state is the foremost issue
confronting the people of the United States today! And on this issue, the labels
Democrat and Republican mean absolutely nothing! Nothing! If the voters of this
country do not awaken quickly to what is going on in front of their very eyes,
it won't matter to a tinker's dam which party or which candidate is put into
office. If we do not have the right to live in privacy and peace, all of the
other rights we talk about mean absolutely nothing!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial
opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card,
check, or Money Order. Use this link:
And please visit my web site for past columns and much more at:
© Chuck Baldwin
NOTE TO THE READER:
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor
dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded.
He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his
wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck's complete bio at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6
This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender includes
contact information and a method of removal.
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted,
or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for
subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full
credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising
who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio
or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck
should contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is
P.O. Box 10, Kila, MT 59920. When responding, please include your name, city and
state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the
Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck's web site at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com