Meet the kreeps wikileaks

Meet the Kreeps: #2 New Step Mummy : Kiki Thorpe :

Meet the Kreeps has 47 ratings and 2 reviews. A weird new family has moved into the deserted old mansion on Polly's street, and she doesn't like it one b. Common KnowledgeSeriesMeet the Kreeps Meet the Kreeps #1: There Goes the Neighborhood by Kiki Thorpe, UK title) (1. Meet the Kreeps #2: The New. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they've written as it's not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. .. WikiLeaks: The Washington Post Communicated with WikiLeaks, United States Justice Foundation & Gary Kreep.

Since the status of citizenship occurs at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen. One must have two citizen parents, at the time of birth, and be born on U.

It happens at birth, according to the law. While Senate Bill fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution was passed on April 30, as a non-binding resolution. World Net Daily reported on November 13, An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.

lgstarr: January

Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Then what of Sen. What possible interest could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her proposals? Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or rather a political one? Digging further into the record we find that according to Wikki and subsequent footnotes therein: She has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign. But if these candidates were legitimate already, there would obviously be no reason for these proceedings.

The Truth Squad was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to media station managers who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA.

Citizen outrage prompted this response from Governor Blunt: What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen. McCain - Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe - both of whom are extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S. President Obama issued a signing statement that reiterated his position that Section "breaks no new ground and is unnecessary.

Proceedings Below Plaintiff Christopher Hedges filed the initial complaint in this case on January 13,alleging that Section violated, inter alia, the First and Fifth Amendments and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court granted the preliminary injunction by opinion filed May 16, It rejected the government's contention that Section was just an "affirmation" of the AUMF that did nothing new.

Discussion The parties raise a number of important and difficult questions, but we need not reach most of them. We begin with a brief discussion of the basic principles of Article III standing. After clarifying what Congress did and did not do in passing Sectionwe consider plaintiffs' standing given the record in this case.

In that regard, we address first the American citizens, Hedges and O'Brien, and then the non-citizens, Jonsdottir and Wargalla. But the Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff in some circumstances may have standing to sue even when the plaintiff shows only an imminent threat of future harm or a present harm incurred in consequence of such a threat.

We discuss these criteria in more detail as needed below. When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: Yet Section a states that it only "affirms" authority included under the AUMF, and Section d indicates that Section is not "intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the [AUMF]. Plaintiffs create a false dilemma when they suggest that either Section expands the AUMF detention authority or it serves no purpose.

Indeed, there are perfectly sensible and legitimate reasons for Congress to have affirmed the nature of AUMF authority in this way. At the same time, Section d ensures that Congress' clarification may not properly be read to suggest that the President did not have this authority previously — a suggestion that might have called into question prior detentions.

  • There Goes the Neighborhood
  • HEDGES v. OBAMA
  • Meet the Kreeps

That provision states that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. As discussed above, in stating that Section is not intended to limit or expand the scope of the detention authority under the AUMF, Section d mostly made a statement about the original AUMF — that is, it indicated that the specific power to detain those who were part of or who substantially supported the enumerated forces had been implicit in the more generally phrased AUMF.

Rather, it states only a limitation about how Section may be construed to affect that existing authority, whatever that existing authority may be.

Meet the Kreeps Series

As discussed above, Senator Feinstein and others feared that Section would greatly expand the power of the government with particular reference to the authority to detain American citizens captured domestically. Senator Feinstein explained that she did not believe the government had such authority while Senators Graham and Levin, perhaps among others, believed that the government already did.

Thus, Section e was introduced specifically to effect a "truce" that ensured that — as to those covered by Section e — courts would decide detention authority based not on Section bbut on what the law previously had provided in the absence of that enactment.

This is not to say that Section e specifically "exempts" these individuals from the President's AUMF detention authority, in the sense that Section expressly exempts United States citizens from its requirements. But with respect to citizens, lawful resident aliens, or individuals captured or arrested in the United States, Section simply says nothing at all. But that is neither here nor there.

It is only our construction, just described, that properly gives effect to the text of all of the parts of Section and thus reflects congressional intent. American Citizen Plaintiffs With this understanding of Sectionwe may dispose of the claims of the citizen plaintiffs, Hedges and O'Brien.

As discussed above, Section says nothing at all about the authority of the government to detain citizens. There simply is no threat whatsoever that they could be detained pursuant to that section. For similar reasons, plaintiffs cannot show that any detention Hedges and O'Brien may fear would be redressable by the relief they seek, an injunction of Section Plaintiffs appear to contend that, even if Section is not applicable to Hedges and O'Brien, the wording of Section e seems to "assume" that citizens may be detained if they have substantially supported al-Qaeda and that Hedges and O'Brien therefore have standing to challenge it.

There is nothing in Section that makes any assumptions about the government's authority to detain citizens under the AUMF. Rather, Section e quite specifically makes clear that the section should not be construed to affect in any way existing law or authorities relating to citizen detention, whatever those authorities may provide.

Non-citizen Plaintiffs The claims of Jonsdottir and Wargalla stand differently. Whereas Section says nothing about the government's authority to detain citizens, it does have real meaning regarding the authority to detain individuals who are not citizens or lawful resident aliens and are apprehended abroad.

To be sure, Section in substance provides also that this authority was implicit in the original AUMF. But, as discussed above, that the th Congress in passing Section expressed such a view does not mean that Section itself is a nullity.

It is not immediately apparent on the face of the AUMF alone that the President had the authority to detain those who substantially supported al-Qaeda, and indeed many federal judges had concluded otherwise prior to Section 's passage. Where a statute codifies an interpretation of an earlier law that is subject to reasonable dispute, the interpretive statute itself may affect the rights of persons under the earlier law.

As the standing inquiry as to these two plaintiffs is more involved, we discuss the relevant facts and applicable law in detail. Relevant Facts Jonsdottir is a citizen of Iceland and a member of its parliament.

She is an activist and spokesperson for a number of groups, including WikiLeaks, an organization famous for releasing troves of classified information of the United States government to the public. In earlyJonsdottir helped WikiLeaks produce the video Collateral Murder, which allegedly depicts an American helicopter opening fire on unarmed individuals in Iraq.

She testified that, around the same time, she had been working with people around the world, including some at WikiLeaks, to create a safe haven for freedom of information in Iceland. Jonsdottir testified that Collateral Murder made WikiLeaks known to the world shortly before its release later in of the Afghan and Iraq war logs and a substantial number of State Department cables — classified information allegedly leaked to WikiLeaks by one Bradley Manning. Jonsdottir further testified that she is aware that Manning has been charged by the United States government for aiding the enemy on the ground that he knew the classified information he provided to WikiLeaks would end up in the hands of al-Qaeda.

She testified that a number of American politicians have called WikiLeaks a terrorist organization and that the government has been considering criminal charges against the organization and its founder, Julian Assange. As part of this investigation, she has received a subpoena from a federal grand jury for content from her Twitter account.

She has received a number of invitations to speak in the United States, but will not travel here — thereby forgoing contacts and compensation — because of the subpoena and her fears of detention under Section She testified that Occupy London has been listed as a terrorist group by the City of London police department.

Moreover, she testified that she has been a supporter of WikiLeaks since as it was releasing the classified information noted above. Since Januaryshe has organized rallies, demonstrations, and protests on behalf of Assange and Manning.

She testified that she has met Assange, who is familiar with her support, and has had contact with other employees of WikiLeaks.

Wargalla testified that her fears of detention under Section have made it nearly impossible to pursue her everyday work. The district court found that both Jonsdottir and Wargalla had an actual fear of detention under Section and had incurred costs and other present injuries due to this fear. Fear-based Standing Law We have no occasion to disturb the factual findings of the district court, which are well-supported by the record, or to question the truth of the factual testimony of the plaintiffs, which the district court found credible.

As discussed earlier, the Supreme Court has recognized that such fears may support standing when the threat creating the fear is sufficiently imminent. Ludwig von Mises "The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship.

They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!