US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle As Judge Permanently Blocks NDAA's Military Detention Provision

Tyler Durden's picture

Back in January, Pulitzer winning journalist Chris Hedges sued President Obama and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, specifically challenging the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or, the provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces." Hedges called the president's action allowing indefinite detention, which was signed into law with little opposition from either party "unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous." He attacked point blank the civil rights farce that is the neverending "war on terror" conducted by both parties, targetting whom exactly is unclear, but certainly attaining ever more intense retaliation from foreigners such as the furious attacks against the US consulates in Egypt and Libya. He asked  "why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens." A few months later, in May, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of the authorization for military detention. Today, the war againt the true totalitarian terror won a decisive battle, when in a 112-opinion, Judge Forrest turned the temporary injunction, following an appeal by the totalitarian government from August 6, into a permanent one.

From Reuters:

The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.


The opinion stems from a January lawsuit filed by former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and others. The plaintiffs said they had no assurance that their writing and advocacy activities would not fall under the scope of the provision.


Government attorneys argued that the executive branch is entitled to latitude when it comes to cases of national security and that the law is neither too broad nor overly vague.


"This court does not disagree with the principle that the president has primacy in foreign affairs," the judge said, but that she was not convinced by government arguments.


"The government has not stated that such conduct - which, by analogy, covers any writing, journalistic and associational activities that involve al Qaeda, the Taliban or whomever is deemed "associated forces" - does not fall within § 1021(b)(2)."

What is ironic, is that in the ongoing absolute farce that is the theatrical presidential debate, there hasn't been one word uttered discussing precisely the kind of creeping totalitarian control, and Orwellian loss of constitutional rights, that the biparty-supported NDAA would have demanded out of the US republic. Why? Chris Hedges said it best:

The oddest part of this legislation is that the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the Pentagon and the attorney general didn’t support it. FBI Director Robert Mueller said he feared the bill would actually impede the bureau’s ability to investigate terrorism because it would be harder to win cooperation from suspects held by the military. “The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we’ve been fairly successful in gaining,” he told Congress.


But it passed anyway. And I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.

He is 100% correct, and today, if it weren't for his lawsuit, the saying that someone, somewhere in the world might possibly "hate America for its liberties" would have been the biggest lie conceivable.

Also, the total fascist takeover of America would now have been a fact.

Some other insights from Hedges, who explained back in January, just why he is suing Barack Obama:

This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.


The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous. The threat and reach of al-Qaida—which I spent a year covering for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East—are marginal, despite the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist group poses no existential threat to the nation. It has been so disrupted and broken that it can barely function. Osama bin Laden was gunned down by commandos and his body dumped into the sea. Even the Pentagon says the organization is crippled. So why, a decade after the start of the so-called war on terror, do these draconian measures need to be implemented? Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did in the killing of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen? Why is this bill necessary when the government routinely ignores our Fifth Amendment rights—“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”—as well as our First Amendment right of free speech? How much more power do they need to fight “terrorism”?


Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

Today's full ruling presented below in its entirety:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dalago's picture

If you're a veteran, active duty soldier or know someone that would be interested take a look at this link.  Its a link to Oath Keepers.  You may have heard of it.  The military and veteran's are the last line of defense of the Republic so it is best to be properly informed.  A leader is not a leader if his followers know the Oath they took and the Oath they keep.  "Not on our watch."


Watch here:

otto skorzeny's picture

those guys are a joke. kind of like the fat 'Nam burnout  HD bikers that escort soldiers to their homes when they return from duty

Clashfan's picture

Otto, are you sure your name isn't Michelle Obama? 'Cos you sure got a lotta junk in yer trunk!

UGrev's picture

I joined OK a while back and they banned me for talking politics. They asked me to stop and when I refused, they banned me. So much for freedom of speech eh? I refused because I wanted to prove a point; that NO ONE in control has the balls to allow freedom of expression.I made my point and they can now, officially, suck my schlong. 

Dalago's picture

Yea it seems like you need to prove things.

UGrev's picture

Question it all, baby.. question it all.  Address your cognitive dissonance and ask why they would ban free speech when they purport to keep and hold an oath?  yeah.. thought so. Control fuckers.. 

I would like to clarify that my anger is pointed at the leadership of OK, not the many members who have been fooled by them. However, that being said.. you've been fooled. 

James's picture

UGRev is spot on!

Riddle me this.

Do you want your freedom or do you want to join a club?

That place reeks of the same approach of what happened to

the tea partiers which in this case is loyal to the country service members being hoodwinked/distracted and NOT A DAMN THING accopmplished.

Look service members, You are our strongest. You are our bravest.

You are being decieved. JMO

Western's picture

The fact that Noam Chomsky's name is in there is troubling.

Comay Mierda's picture

This is great news!

Now watch for the onslaught of FALSE FLAGS

James's picture

Truth hurts bitchez

Watauga's picture

Do you get that freedom of speech has to do with the Congress?  "Congress shall make no law. . ."  A private organization may do so.  Such is not a violation of the Constitutional protection of free speech.  If you don't like the organization, find another one or go lone wolf.  That is your freedom.  It has to do with the marketplace of ideas.  If Oath Keepers drive enough people away, it loses.  In the meantime, stop crying like a little baby.

UGrev's picture

Believe me, I get what you're saying. However, that being said.. don't start a group that is "All about the constitution" if you can't have an organization that is willing to abide by what they believe in. In other words, practice what you preach. It's that simple. 

This is not whining or crying. This is simply pointing out deception. 

Dalago's picture

Eh... I guess.  But these guys don't talk politics.  What were you saying?

UGrev's picture

I'll say it another way. 

These guys are trying to be defenders of freedom, defenders of the constitution, yet they cannot even creat a microcosm of what they are trying to defend. Doesn't that seem squarely fucked up to you at all? answer your question: 

I was discussing the political topics that were in the forefront. Things like the economy, bad policy, the patriot act.. politics, man. I posted them in a blog format. Half the time, I just posted a link with a one liner and let people comment. I replied to people in the forum.. standard interaction. Trust me, I was not alone in this either. Others were warned as well and some people I knew, left OK because of it. They are vets and they called BS on the group. 

Redleg's picture

Wow, it sounds like they went even further down hill and became what they are supposedly standing in opposition to after I got booted. There were quite a few control freaks among the moderators. Some of them were absolutely no different whatsoever than the control freaks we have running the government right now. I saw this coming yeras ago as they started allowing these types of people into positions of power.

robobbob's picture

I understand your point, but you have to remember what a fine line OK is trying to walk. Remember what happened to the active duty RP supporter? The marine with the face book page? And the OTHER marine Brandon Raub being illegally throw into a psych ward and threatened with a chemical lobotomy?

The regime is taking any criticism as a serious threat to their existence. Probably a significant number of OK membership are informants, and anything said can and WILL be used against you at some point. And by the amount of attention the OK gets from the DHS and SPLC, they must be doing something right.

While it may be frustrating, the group has to be kept politically neutral. Not only because unity is needed to defeat the manufactured partisanship that is being used to divide and conquer, if they didn't discourage certain talk, just think about the damage a provocatuer could do in their midst. If the establishment can get them catagorized as a political movement, they will grind them to pieces. Once they get them on a gov watchlist, they could easily ban any active duty members from joining. According to the DHS, just having a third party bumpersticker is considered a suspicious and threatening activity. All they would need is a viral vid of a single OK member making a controversial statement and it would be over.

It may sound hypocritical or ironic, but the sacrifice required to defend the constitution is to voluntarily forgo practicing themselves, so that others can practice freely. The US will only remain a republic so long as there are enough of those willing to make those sacrifices. If that is not a sacrifice you can make, then hopefully there are other areas you are more suited to where you can continue the fight.

UGrev's picture

If you think they are not on a .gov watch list with a name like "Oath Keepers" which is heavily about defending the Constitution.. I think you're fooling yourself. If you don't think there are loose canon's in there already.. you're fooling yourself. 

Maintaining neutrality is fine. I'm not arguing that. My gripe is that they can't even balls up and allow the freedoms they defend in their own group. That is not ironic. That's chicken shit. They are not the military and no one signed a contract waiving their rights. For once, I just want a group to do the things they say. Unti then, they are just another list for .gov and a distraction for fools. 

Redleg's picture

You are exactly correct.

tip e. canoe's picture

sounds like they were painted into a corner of a cage of self-censorship.   if so, this seems to be precisely the objective.  they should learn from the Chinese then, as the people there have much experience with this kind of stuff.

Clashfan's picture

Ty Robobob. Not taking sides here, but I wanted to make that point earlier, decided to wait to see if anyone else would.

Political neutrality for a group like that is very important, and if they don't reign in the blabbering, they are prey for sterotypes, prejudice (in the root sense of the word), disunity, and failure.

Again, not taking sides, just seeing that there might be reasons for their concerns.

Bogdog's picture

I make it a point never to join a group that would have me as a member.

Grinder74's picture

This is why our country is going down: because dumbasses lke you think free speech means saying anything you want at anytime and in any setting. If a PRIVATE group like O.K. wants to limit certain activities, they absolutely can, especially since you CHOSE to join them.

UGrev's picture

You don't get it. I'm not against private organizations creating their own rules. I didn't like the rules, so I questioned them. But for fucks sake, don't start a group and not allow what you're trying to defend. It would be like the NRA not allowing guns at a shooting event. WTF?

Redleg's picture

Great analogy UGrev! You said in two sentences what it took me multiple paragraphs below to convey.

Redleg's picture

UGrev is right. I was a very early member, a site moderator, and a state regional director. I was booted (as were quite a few other patriots with whom I correspond with) for challenging the cognitive dissonance of its LEO members and also for exploring the foundational and constitutional basis of the militia in accordance with the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Strike one for me was discussing the militia even though my discussions were done from a purely historical and philosophical perspective. I had never even been a member of any militia but I felt that discussion of the concept had merit as just one of the many checks on government built into the framework of the Constitution. Unfortunately they didn't want any mention of the dreaded “M” word whatsoever and multiple threads and comments were completely deleted for that reason. Although those threads and comments were based on the founder’s personal writings and quotes on the subject and they explored the founder's intent on the matter they were unwelcome. It was my first realization that all was not well over there. I found it rather ironic that discussing a concept codified in the Constitution caused the leadership of an organization professing to support that very document to get highly agitated and start censoring comments and to delete entire threads. One of the conclusions that can be drawn from this is that they pick and choose which parts they support and the currently unpopular [to government] aspects get ignored. I was later told that they feared that the discussion of the evil "M" word would alienate LEOs and prevent them from joining the organization or cause existing members to leave. This admission basically confirmed what I felt about them only supporting the popular parts.

The next strike was to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions of LEOs. One LEO in particular started a post called "Damn 5-0" where he asked people to discuss what bothered them about the police so that he could address their concerns. Many people obliged him and he (as well as the Oath Keepers leadership) didn’t like the questions which were asked, questions like “it’s great that you won’t enforce the 10 orders that Oath Keepers won’t obey but what about all of the other unconstitutional orders you enforce every single day on the job [they were all listed and discussed]? Why are you being selective? If you won’t enforce some unconstitutional orders why not stop enforcing all of them? Why not use your discretion and only go after violent offenders who harm other people and ignore the victimless crimes?” The response after myriad comments back and forth was basically, “if you don’t like the laws then change them, I’m only doing my job. Don’t be mad at me for doing my job, be mad at your legislators.” And “if I don’t do my job [enforcing unconstitutional laws] then I’ll lose it as well as my pension and won’t be able to take care of my family.” The bottom line ended up being that their personal well being is far more important than honor, integrity, and supporting the constitution. They will do whatever they are told to keep their paychecks and pensions. There is no such thing as discretion for cops anymore (according to them). It became apparent after much discussion that they are no longer “Peace Officers” now but Law ENFORCEMENT Officers (you will submit, obey, and comply!). All threads and comments regarding this topic were also deleted by OK leadership. Heaven forbid we challenge cops to confront and examine their beliefs!

The last straw was going back on their word to appear at a 2A rally where they were going to be keynote speakers. I was critical of them for breaking their word to attend at the last minute due to political correctness and pressure from their LEO run Board of Directors who felt it was not a good idea. Apparently a man’s word means nothing.

After pointing out all of the blatant cognitive dissonance they just deleted me. No letter, no notification, nothing. After I had opened up my home to the entire state leadership they didn’t even have the courage to tell me I was no longer welcome or to confront my accuser. I tried to log in one day and got the “you are not authorized” message. I guess pointing out the truth and their cognitive dissonance was too much for them to handle. The concept of Oath Keepers is a great one and most of the membership means well but the leadership, which is controlled by a bunch of LEOs, is just another incarnation of the current system that has caused all of our problems. Stewart’s organization has been subverted from the inside by a bunch of cops. I was told in no uncertain terms in the moderator forum that “they [OKers] would rather lose 100 veterans than lose even one single police officer!” That is pretty much the mentality which infects the organization and it starts at the top with their board of directors.

Perhaps some of you may have faith in the organization but I now know better. The cognitive dissonance over there is mind boggling!


Coast Watcher's picture

But he did manage to divert attention from the original post for quite a while, didn't he?

Michael's picture

And with this event that happened today in America, lots of people should show up with all their guns at the MO police barracks and demand justice for this, or else.

Central Missouri Copblocker Jeffrey Weinhaus Shot by MO St. Patrol Employee(s), Airlifted


Let's not forget what set off the Muslim countries revolutions.

Reason #1; Police and Government Tyranny and Torture.

Reason #2; US Federal Reserve Corporation exporting food inflation with their monetary policy all over the planet.


Suicide that Sparked a Revolution


Justice for Khaled Said, End torture in Egypt

We are all Khaled Said Murder at 2:22

xavi1951's picture

Nimrod!  What set off the muslim revolution????  ISLAM you idiot!  Haven't you read a single book about Islam?  FH's like you think you iknow what you are talking about but you haven't read anything except what is on the internet.  I have studied Islam for 10 years, reading every book I could find, and I have quite a library.  It is HELL bent on destroying the infidels (sestern civilization/Jews/Hindus/Budists/etc)  If you are tollerant of others, you are a target, because Islam is NOT tollerant of others.  Oh yes, they do have option of of the tax on the non believers, but to go to heaven, it is better to cut the throats of the non believers, "when ever you can".


I know you are a regular.  But you really are an ignorant regular!

Michael's picture

Shut the fuck up you fucking moron! Go sell your mind delusions some place else, we're all stocked up here.

My Father taught me;

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will Never hurt me.

It's really that simple folks.


In Arabic, al-Qaeda has four syllables. However, the closest naturalized English pronunciations include /æl-ka-d/, /æl-ke-d/ Al-Qaeda's name can also be transliterated as al-Qaida, al-Qa'ida, el-Qaida, or al-Qaeda.

The name comes from the Arabic noun q'idah, which means foundation or basis, and can also refer to a military base. The initial al- is the Arabic definite article the, hence the base.

Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:

The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.

redpill's picture

Michael, you're wrong, and a completely disallusioned fuckface.  But I like your spirit.

vast-dom's picture

fuckface is putting it politely. 

Michael's picture

I don't know,

We have 5,000+ nukes that says otherwise, and all the other toys too.

Good luck with your Caliphate.

Dr. Sandi's picture

You really love hijacking threads of substance, don't you.

Which branch of the fucking corporate government do you work for anyway, or are you just a volunteer troll?

putaipan's picture

and it kinda sounds like toilet in arabic so........

palmereldritch's picture

Weren't they CIA bases?...

Hence the term el-CIA-duh!

Michael's picture

Yes, they spread the confusion, but really, it's just, "The Base". English, please?

All Your Base Are Belong To Us

Sometimes I wish I were Arab so every time I heard the words "Al Qaeda" I could;

But then again, I still do.


palmereldritch's picture

Spreading confusion is all part of the game isn’t it?

As heirs to and essentially being re-animated by the ex-Nazi Gestapo, the CIA continued the tradition of being the secret police for the Globalist Bankster patrons that gave rise to Hitler but survived...we’ll call them the Glazis...and of course they can’t go anywhere these days without the support of their paramilitary brown shirt shock troops... really the the ground and base of such an organization...let’s call them el Qaeda...

The National Security Act of 1947 was an act of security for what nation? Or to secure which nation?

Know your base.

Michael's picture

So we've pretty much been taken over by a military strategy since then?

The National Security Act of 1947

palmereldritch's picture

There is, according to an understanding of The National Security Act, a Secret Government.

By the facts, that part is admitted.  Makes you wonder, What are the parts not freely admitted?...

Michael's picture


I think we've figured out the most secret of secret societies secrets together on this one.

Good job.

Michael's picture

I have never seen a real live Member of "The Base" on Live Television, and Alive, Interviewed on TV Ever, since the beginning of 9/11.

Why do you think that Is?

Dr. Sandi's picture

I haven't seen you there either. Why do you think THAT is?

Problem Is's picture

al-Qaeda: aka al-CIA-Qaeda

The CIA data base of paid patsies, dupes and mercenaries on the CIA payroll since the anti Soviet actions in CIA supported Poppy-land...

I mean Afghanistan since the 1970s...

See: "al-Qaeda is Now Our Friend", Libya, Syria, 2012...

NoClueSneaker's picture

Yeah, but the neat feat was the fact that CIA established acomplete new industry, starting 1978. Illegal financing of the thugs around the world needed the money and new networks. Fanatics became the cash-cows, and the heroin trail trough the Europe the new network. Switzerland loundered the money, CIA financed butchering in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua etc. - and lookie, Juntas even made an POTUS, her majesty Mittina Romney. ROI in no time. We do live in an perfect world.

Overfed's picture

Yeah. They hate us for our freedoms. Right.

Look, we don't need a DHS or a TSA. The war on terror is bullshit. WE set the ball rolling long ago by meddling in the affairs of ME countries for corporate gain in the name of national security. WE keep acting like WE can intimidate and browbeat them to our will. The US needs to close the great majority of it's military bases and worry about our own problems.

JOYFUL's picture

So yu've 'read some books' on Islam, an yu have assembled 'quite a library'!<!>>!??

Yu are the klassic modern moron in detail...who eschews the needless effort of empirical study for the komfort of their mental E|ZY CHAIR, a form of hat rack where knowledge n wisdom go to die.

Yu know enuff about Islam to konfirm all of yur prejudices, but nothing at all about the peeple who practice it, or the kind of life that they lead or the wishes that they might have...why bother me with the details?

And yu dare to pontificate in public about what these peeple really are all about.

Today celebrates the third anniversary of my departure from the fallen lands, Three years of livin as a minority group Europoid Xristian amongst the followers of Muhammed...have I ever in that time been threatened or discriminated against by peeple intolerant of my differences from them in that time? No. Have I ever felt it necessary or prudent to hide from any one my minority status in that time? No. Have I felt anything other than acceptance of my distinction from the cultural milieu in which I have placed myself in that time. No.

Do I look back on my decision to leave behind everything familiar to me to place myself in the midst of those said to wish me only ill, and who according to great pundits like yurself are hell bent on destroying me? No. But don't let anyone's actual experience interfere with yur fantasy projektions of personal intolerance onto others, yur malevolent slandering of everybody who yu've never met outside the pages of yur lurid library of literary blood-lust.

It is the hatred and intolerance of the sionist parasitical hegemonists who yu front for which is the klear n present danger to all peace luvin folk in this world today. Having now to witness the sorry spectacle of my former kountry kotowing to yur\their masters by actually removing their embassy  personnel from Iran is the final proof of the wisdom of my decision to remove my person from the sionist puppet state of Kanada in order to find somewhere I could live amongst peeple with mutual respect and appreciation for our diversity.


Yu are low life scum...lacking even the wit to present yur kase in a grammatically acceptable fashion. Those books yu have enchained yur enflamed and wretched mind to will be the anchors which will weigh yu down to the very fiery depths yu have fantasized. Bon Voyage!

pazmaker's picture

Good thing your not a coptic christian living in egypt:


You can't call coptic christians fact coptic christians believe the true israel to be the christian church not the political state of Israel.

So all though you may live amoungst peaceful people that is not tru the world over where christians are descriminated against and persecuted by muslims.

Try growing up in a muslim family being third or 4th generation and convert to being christian in Saudi Arabia and see what happens.