Salon: Biggest Story You Missed - Civil Right Activists are Battling a Section of the NDAA

[BrendaBrick]

that could allow the indefinite detention of Americans:

Wednesday, Aug 8, 2012 04:55 PM EDT
Biggest story you missed
Civil rights activists are battling a section of the NDAA that could allow the indefinite detention of Americans
By Salon Staff

On Tuesday morning, civil rights lawyers representing Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf, Daniel Ellsberg and three other activists argued for a permanent injunction against a section of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which would theoretically allow the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military.

The lawsuit, filed in January, specifically targets a vague paragraph that identifies potential detainees as: “A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

The government argued that the law had not granted any new powers to the military, the Village Voice reported. It had only reiterated what Congress had authorized shortly after 9/11.

Judge Katherine Forrest, who granted a temporary injunction against the disputed section earlier this year, did not seem convinced, according to the Voice. Even though Forrest ended the hearing by saying she had not made up her mind, the government has already appealed in a higher court. (end of article)

Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/08/08/biggest_story_you_missed_5/
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Another article (which goes into detail) from The New American

Thursday, 09 August 2012 09:52
Obama Admin. Files Appeal of NDAA Injunction
Written by Joe Wolverton, II

On Monday lawyers representing the Obama administration filed an appeal challenging an injunction issued by a federal judge in May barring the enforcement of the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

This was likely a premature response to a ruling expected on a hearing held Tuesday to make the temporary injunction permanent.

Oral arguments on a request filed by plaintiffs to permanently enjoin the federal government from enforcing the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA were heard Tuesday during four hours of questions and answers, but at press time the court had issued no ruling.

Curiously, not a single outlet of the mainstream media reported this important event. (bold = mine)

<snip>

According to the text of Section 1021 of the NDAA, the president may authorize the armed forces to indefinitely detain:

A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Fearing that this section could be applied to journalists and that the specter of such a scenario would have a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press (Naomi Wolf writes in her affidavit that she has refused to conduct many investigative interviews for fear that she could be detained under the auspices of applicable sections of the NDAA) in violation of the First Amendment, Hedges filed his lawsuit on January 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Hedges’ complaint claims that his extensive work overseas, particularly in the Middle East covering terrorist (or suspected terrorist) organizations, could cause him to be categorized as a “covered person” who, by way of such writings, interviews and/or communications, “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,… under §1031(b)(2) and the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force]."

Specifically, Hedges alleges in his complaint that it is precisely the existence of these “nebulous terms” — terms that are critical to the interpretation and execution of the immense authority granted to the president by the NDAA — that could allow him or someone in a substantially similar situation to be classified as an enemy combatant and sent away indefinitely to a military detainment center without access to an attorney or habeas corpus relief.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Carl Mayer, an attorney representing some of the plaintiffs, repeated his argument that the phrase "associated forces" was written by the Congress so as to be purposely ambiguous, and that it could reasonably be expected that agents of the federal government could interpret articles and statements made by journalists and activists as attempts to support armed conflict against the United States and as the offering of “substantial support” to terror organizations.

Rest: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/12390-obama-admin-files-appeal-of-ndaa-injunction
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stop NDAA website: (news section) https://www.stopndaa.org/news

(You might recall that this is what the President signed into law on New Years Eve last year.) And please, no comments that this is RW anti-Obama stuff...the enforcement of this law would apply to ANY future President!!! I think Hedges along with others have an extremely valid point as to the the vagueness and nebulous terms of Section 1021 and major kudos to Judge Katherine Forrest for issuing a preliminary injunction!

[immoderate]

1. Presidents, even good ones, don't like to give up power.

--imm

[mia]

2. Thanks for this article.

Glad for the update!

[Luminous Animal]

3. Tangerine Bolen (a plaintiff) from The Guardian

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution

In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week's hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. 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.

To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.

[mia]

4. "I, like many in this fight, am now afraid of my government. We have good reason to be.

... Due to the NDAA, Chris Hedges, Kai Wargalla, the other plaintiffs and I are squarely in the crosshairs of a "war on terror" that has been an excuse to undermine liberties, trample the US constitution, destroy mechanisms of accountability and transparency, and cause irreparable harm to millions. Several of my co-plaintiffs know well the harassment and harm they have incurred from having dared openly to defy the US government: court testimony has included government subpoenas of private bank records of Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir; Wargalla's account of having been listed as a "terrorist group"; and Hedges' concern that he would be included as a "belligerent" in the NDAA's definition of the term – because he interviews members of outlawed groups as a reporter – a concern that the US attorneys refused on the record to allay.

Other advocates have had email accounts repeatedly hacked, and often find their electronic communications corrupted in transmission (some emails vanish altogether). This is an increasing form of pressure that supporters of state surveillance and intervention in the internet often fail to consider.

I've been surprised to find that most people, when I mention that I am suing my president, Leon Panetta, and six members of Congress (four Democrats and four Republicans), thank me – even before I explain what I'm suing them over! And when I do explain the fact that I and my seven co-plaintiffs are suing over a law that suspends due process, threatens first amendment rights and takes away the basic right of every citizen on this planet not to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial, their exuberance shifts, and a deeper gratitude shines through newly somber demeanors. But this fight has taken a personal toll on many of us, including myself.

My government, meanwhile, seems to have lost the ability to discern the truth about the US constitution any more; I and many others have not. We are fighting for due process and for the first amendment – for a country we still believe in and for a government still legally bound by its constitution...."

[BrendaBrick]

5. Excellent find LA.

Thank you for posting!

[BrendaBrick]

7. This important *matter of semantics* did not go unnoticed by Gene Sharp

and now brings this whole matter full circle (imo) from an older DU thread FYI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=177080

<snip>

It is very interesting (and timely) to couple Hedges comments on this vague/non existent language of definitions with that of Gene Sharp during an interview in November of last year on a YouTube video entitled: "We The People - Dr. Gene Sharp at Zeitgeist Americas 2011" (little over 30 minutes):

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You'll note that around 13:00 or so Sharp mentions that in the US Dept of Defense dictionary, "it does not contain a definition of either "Defense" or of "National Defense", its whatever people want to call defense, even though its aggression." (bold = mine)

In fact, Dr. Sharp has recently released a new book: "Sharp's Dictionary of Power & Struggle -Language of Civil Resistance & Conflict" published 11-1-11.

The amazon.com link here: http://www.amazon.com/Sharps-Dictionary-Power-Struggle-Resistance/dp/0199829888

[Ilsa]

8. This sort of thing is precisely why

some people in the middle may vote against whomever is in power, even though the replacement, unknownst to the public, might be worse.

[BrendaBrick]

9. I know -

I'm trying my best to educate those I'm in contact with to consider the bigger, long-term picture.

[BrendaBrick]

10. kicking...

Important ramifications which could potentially involve/improperly implicate many innocents.