Most incredibly, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama’s government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.

Lest people think I’m a supporter of President Obama, I should point out that neither of these candidates of the duopoly should get our votes. Romney’s taxes would decline under 1% should Paul Ryan’s tax plan go through the House. But Obama has also played fast and loose with the use of drone aircraft for targeted assassinations, a practice that was roundly condemned during the Church hearings some 30 years ago. 

My story, which has been reported on relatively sane pages (the UK Guardian) involves a lawsuit against the implementation of the NDAA. In a recent court hearing, US attorneys working for the administration refused to confirm or deny that Americans had ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO indefinite military detention since the act was signed last December. Here’s the quote from the article that should matter to you: