Obama & the NDAA: Through the looking glass.

     Actions speak louder than words, or in this case, a signing statement.  Actions are also a good indicator of intent. Despite all of the assurances from Barack Hussein Obama that he would not implement the provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) pertaining to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, he is certainly fighting hard to retain that ability. AS is customary with Obama, nothing is as it appears. On New Year’s Eve, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  This year’s version contained the controversial section 1021, which is arguably unconstitutional as it grants the government to detain anyone without the right of due process.
      Shortly after passage, New York Times journalist Chris Hedges joined with several other journalists and activists to challenge the constitutionality of the act. (For important background information,see report “Behind the scenes: Obama and the NDAA” from 7 August 2012). On 16 May, federal Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiffs’ request, writing that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.” The temporary injunction was granted, and the judge later made the injunction permanent.

      One would think that the ruling would be sufficient for all concerned, given Obama’s public position that he has no interest in exercising his extra-constitutional authority under the NDAA.  His public position is apparently inconsistent with his actual intent, especially considering the speed at which team-Obama took the matter back to court to fight the ruling.

On Monday, New York federal Judge Raymond Lohier granted an “emergency” stay to the controversial NDAA, temporarily blocking the ruling of Judge Forrest. In a “through the looking glass moment,” team-Obama argued that the ruling of Judge Forrest was “unconstitutional,” and Lohier, an Obama appointee and successor to Judge Sonya Sotomayor, agreed.

The question that needs to be asked is why Obama and his legal team are so intent on keeping Section 1021 alive, especially now. As noted by the plaintiffs and as further concurred by Judge Forrest, the act could have a chilling effect and adverse consequences to free speech

.