Yesterday, the very Honorable  Katherine B. Forrest, of the Southern District of New York, continued her commendable stand against the legalization of indefinite detention included in the NDAA of 2011, specifically section 1021(b)(2). (Complete recap of  the NDAA here) Judge Forrest had previously issued an injunction of the indefinite detention section of the Act based on the 1st Amendment and Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. However, the Obama Administration, in a continuance of it’s disregard for the order of law and separation of powers, took the brazen stand that this injunction only applied to the named plaintiffs, notably the venerable Noam Chomsky, flaunting it’s notion that it will refrain from imprisoning a few journalists and academics indefinitely, without trial but that it is free to do the same to every other person on earth. Judge Forrest explained that the Obama Administration’s had relied on inappropriate and inapt reasoning to reach these conclusions.

The learned Judge Forrest was forced to provide  Barack Obama, Leon Panneta, John McCain et. al, a primer in Constitutional law:

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that when a plaintiff claims that a law is facially vague and violates his or her Constitutional right to due process, that “party seeks to vindicate not only his [or her] own rights, but those of others who may also be adversely impacted by the statute in question. In this sense, the threshold for facial challenges is a species of third party (jus tertii) standing.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 55 n.22 (1999). A similar standard governs facial First Amendment challenges to overly broad statutes. See, Sec’y of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson CQL, 467 U.S. 947, 958 (1984) (“Facial challenges to overly broad statutes are allowed not primarily for the benefit of the litigant, but for the benefit of society–to prevent the statute  from chilling the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the Court.”) full opinion 

In her opinion Judge Forrest gave an insight into why she is taking such an important stand in this case, “the public interest in ensuring that ordinary citizens understand the scope of such a statute justifies its breadth.” Obviously, Judge Forrest understands the extreme danger that is latent in the NDAA of 2011 and this has emboldened her to slap down the very administration that put her on the bench of the S.D.N.Y. barely 9 months ago. Bravo, Judge Forrest.

The Obama Administration was handed a “victory” when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a children don’t get credit for time served living in this country, legally. Under Federal law, if a legal immigrant lives in the United States for a minimum of 5 years and continuously for the last 7, then they are not allowed to be deported without a minimum level of procedural due process. These “immigrant protections” didn’t sit well with Obama, who we all know has deported more immigrants than any other President in history. Obama argued that respecting the fact that children had grown up here for most of their lives was an undue burden, and that those years before a child turns 18 don’t count towards the 5/7 requirement. Obama’s argument centered around the need to deport “criminals”. The crimes that most of these hardened, 19 year old criminals have committed?? It won’t surprise you that petty drug charges make up a majority (as is the case with our society as a whole). To read the MSM account of the most recent slap to the face by the Obama Administration jump here:

NY Times Article 

The ever increasing neo-fascist, anti-immigration trend among western industrialized nations took an alarming step forward as Greece opened up it’s first “detention camp” for immigrants over the weekend. Greece’s upcoming elections in May have brought out the neo-nazi in all it’s political parties as they have all embraced a message of hatred and bigotry for immigrants.

Full Article hear via Reuters

As you may have heard, Charles G. Taylor, the former “president” of Liberia was found guilty of war crimes by an international tribunal known as the  Special Court for Sierra Leone. Taylor marks the first head of government to be found guilty of war crimes since the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.

What you surely haven’t heard is how Taylor was a CIA operative:

“Rumours of CIA ties were fuelled in July 2009 when Mr Taylor himself told his trial, at the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone in the Hague, that US agents had helped him escape from a maximum security prison in Boston in 1985.

The CIA at the time denied such claims as ‘completely absurd’.

But now the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s spy arm, has disclosed that its agents – and those of the CIA – did later use Mr Taylor as an informant, the Globe reports.

Globe reporter Bryan Bender told the BBC’s Network Africa programme that Pentagon officials refused to give details on exactly what role Mr Taylor played, citing national security.

But they did confirm that Mr Taylor first started working with US intelligence in the 1980s, the period when he rose to become one of the world’s most notorious warlords, Mr Bender says.

Mr Taylor was later elected Liberia’s president.”

Full BBC Article here

You would think that readers would find it interesting that the only head of state to be convicted of war crimes since the Nazis was, at the very least, aided by the CIA in his rise to power. You may also find it interesting that the nation of Liberia originated as a racist “back to Africa” experiment meant to be a testing ground for a mass exodus of American blacks freed from slavery. For a full summary of Liberia and the atrocities that our government, at best, implicitly condoned, I highly recommend watching the Vice guide to Liberia (if you can stomach it).

The Obama Administration’s cover up and protection of Bush Era criminals never ceases to disgust. Glen Greenwald, writing for Salon.com describes the story of Jose Rodriguez, a CIA official who ordered the destruction of videotapes documenting the illegal torture of terror-suspects (obstruction of justice) and is now free to make millions off of book deals describing such illegal acts as “valor”:

“In November, 2010, the Obama DOJ — consistent with its steadfast shielding of Bush-era criminals from all forms of accountability —announced that the investigation would be closed without any charges being filed. Needless to say — given how subservient federal judges are to the Executive Branch in the post-9/11 era — the federal judge who had ordered the CIA to preserve and produce any such videotapes, Alvin Hellerstein, refused even to hold the CIA in contempt for deliberately disregarding his own order. Instead, Hellerstein — who, like so many federal judges, spent his whole career before joining the bench as a partner for decades in a large corporate law firm serving institutional power — reasonedthat punishment for the CIA was unnecessary because, as he put it, new rules issued by the CIA ‘should lead to greater accountability within the agency and prevent another episode like the videotapes’ destruction.’”

The criminal describes his acts as patriotism:

“Protected by the DOJ and Judge Hellerstein from any and all accountability for what he did, the CIA official who ordered the videotapes’ destruction, Jose Rodriguez, is now enjoying the fruits of his crimes. He just published a new book in which he aggressively defends his decision to destroy those tapes (‘The propaganda damage to the image of America would be immense. But the main concern then, and always, was for the safety of my officers . . .I was just getting rid of some ugly visuals that could put the lives of my people at risk’). He also categorically justifies the CIA’s use of torture (‘I am certain, beyond any doubt, that these techniques … shielded the people of the United States from harm and led to the capture of killing of Usama bin Ladin’) as well as the agency’s network of black sites (‘Why not bring the detainees to trial?,’ asksThe Washington Post‘s Dana Priest in a review today of the book; Rodriguez’ answer in the book: ‘because they would get lawyered up, and our job, first and foremost, is to obtain information’). The title of the book: ‘Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives.’”

The full article here via Salon :