Protesters posing as terrorist suspects in front of the White House on Monday
AFP photo/Paul J. Richards
Why isn't the following front page news in America? "Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans". 
Are the MSM in America in collusion with the Obama administration regarding the dissemination of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) and what it portends?
Some background is in order. The NDAA is the law signed by Obama on December 31, 2011 giving the president the authority to have the American military hold an American citizen in indefinite detention for "alleged terrorist ties without due process until the end of hostilities".
Currently the NDAA Act is under temporary injunction by order of Manhattan Federal Judge Katherine Forrest who ruled in May that the law failed to "pass constitutional muster".
The original plaintiffs in the case included journalist Chris Hedges, the former New York Times correspondent who has covered numerous wars in Central America, the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Iraq in the 1990's. He interviewed members of groups the U.S. labels as terrorists and he believed he could fall within the parameters of this law and be held in detention for his "alleged ties." He and other plaintiffs in the case requested Judge Forrest's temporary injunction made permanent.
On Monday, the White House filed an appeal with the 2 nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Forrest's injunction.
It is an absolute abomination and a disservice to the American people that the NDAA act hasn't been publicized by the MSM and a serious debate begun on the ramifications and Constitutional grounds under which it was signed into law.
The American people need to fully understand that any citizen under this law can be targeted and held for indefinite detention without due process if this law is allowed to be fully implemented.
Some of us already know the president has targeted and ordered the assassination of American citizens alleging their terrorist ties all authorized and given "legal" cover by Justice Department memos, but kept secret for reasons of national security.
Well let's call these "legalisms" for what they are; police state tactics under the guise of following the Constitution and the rule of law. They are not legal as Judge Forrest correctly surmises. But from here the consternation and objection to this presidential usurpation seems to be confined to the internet savvy visiting progressive insightful web sites and "occupy" activists.
It's presidential campaign season with the major party conventions a few weeks away and televised debates to follow soon thereafter.
In a truly free society indefinite detention and the assassination of American citizens would be topics on the agenda and posed to the candidates during those debates. Yet as choreographed as these "debates" are don't expect these critical issues to be on the questioners agenda.
Such issues being ignored would be a clear indicator of how we've transformed from a republic to an empire, the rule of law under the Constitution sacrificed for an autocracy that has secret legal memos undergirding the authority which "Caesar" operates.