Chomsky, Hedges, Ellsberg file lawsuit against "anti-terrorism law" that curbs free speech and press

[Better Believe It]

Journalists, Activists Challenge NDAA Law
Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, among the plantiffs involved in the case
by Common Dreams staff
March 30, 2012

A group of prominent activists and journalists presented a legal challenge to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) yesterday, claiming to a New York City federal judge that the law inhibits their First Amendment Rights.

Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg are among the seven plaintiffs on the case. They argued the law, which includes controversial provisions authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world, without charge or trial. Critics say the the law is written in a way that it could put journalists who report on terror-related issues at risk for detention for supporting enemy forces.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/30-5


---------------------------------------------------------------------



US anti-terrorism law curbs free speech and activist work, court told
Controversy over NDAA centres on loose definition of key words, such as who are 'associated forces' of named terrorist groups
Paul Harris in New York
March 29, 2012

A group political activists and journalists has launched a legal challenge to stop an American law they say allows the US military to arrest civilians anywhere in the world and detain them without trial as accused supporters of terrorism.

The seven figures, who include ex-New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, professor Noam Chomsky and Icelandic politician and WikiLeaks campaigner Birgitta Jonsdottir, testified to a Manhattan judge that the law – dubbed the NDAA or Homeland Battlefield Bill – would cripple free speech around the world.

They said that various provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Bill, which was signed by President Barack Obama at the end of 2011, effectively broadened the definition of "supporter of terrorism" to include peaceful activists, authors, academics and even journalists interviewing members of radical groups.

Controversy centres on the loose definition of key words in the bill, in particular who might be "associated forces" of the law's named terrorist groups al-Qaida and the Taliban and what "substantial support" to those groups might get defined as. Whereas White House officials have denied the wording extends any sort of blanket coverage to civilians, rather than active enemy combatants, or actions involved in free speech, some civil rights experts have said the lack of precise definition leaves it open to massive potential abuse.

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/29/journalists-us-anti-terrorism-law-ndaa?newsfeed=true


--------------------------------------------------------------------



NDAA Lawsuit Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against ‘Unprecedented Threat To Civil Liberties’
By Ashley Portero:
March 29, 2012

Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg and Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir are among the seven witnesses expected to testify in a New York federal court on Thursday in support of a class action lawsuit against the United States government over controversial provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a military spending bill they claim threatens American's civil liberties and basic human rights.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest will hear arguments for a preliminary injunction against certain sections of the legislation, which was signed into law on Dec. 31. Buried in the otherwise mundane budget and expenditure bill is a provision under Section 1021 of the law that permits the indefinite military detention, without a formal charge or public trial, of anyone suspected of participating in or aiding a terrorist organization "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

Although the bill explicitly states the military detention provision does not apply to U.S. citizens, but only American al-Qaeda members overseas, some critics fear the language could eventually be interpreted to apply to all citizens, something Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said would be an "unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties."

"If there is no rolling back of the NDAA law, we cease to be a constitutional democracy. Totalitarian systems always begin by rewriting the law," Hedges said this week. "They make legal what was once illegal... Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security."

Read the full article at:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/321445/20120329/ndaa-lawsuit-obama-chris-hedges-daniel-ellsberg.htm

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[99th_Monkey]

2. but Chris Hedges used that nasty c-word

to describe Black Bloc ... so he must be dismissed and demonized forEVER!


Bet you dollar to a doughnut that someone posts that -- or some equally inane
nonsense -- in reply to your OP..

[ananda]

3. I hope they win!

nt

[BeHereNow]

4. They will lose, but that is not what matters-

What matters is that it will become public record.

BHN

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Very unpragmatic people

Real Democrats know that we must end civil liberties to save them.

And that war is peace.

[freshwest]

6. Wow. By that standard, I must not be a Democrat. I say go to court and fight it.

[Dragonfli]

15. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you missed the sarcasm in what you replied to.

Either way, I am glad to see you agree with the poster you responded to.

If your post was sarcastic, Bravo! It is well done then.

[Monk06]

7. Chomski lawyers up? This should be a interesting. He'll probably write the brief and it will be

brilliant.

[bart95]

8. you'd better believe it - what?

[_ed_]

9. REAL progressives fighting Democrats

It's about time.

[fascisthunter]

10. Excellent! (nt)

[KG]

11. rec.

can't wait for the woodchucks to show up.

[woo me with science]

12. Stay out of small planes, Noam.

And thank you.

[indepat]

13. How neat: terrorize the citizenry with terrible laws purporting to quell terrorism but

quelling only constitutional freedoms. How special indeed.

[Dragonfli]

14. This is excellent news, I believe it is too rigged for them to win, but I

am grateful for the attempt as I know it will shine a spotlight on the restructuring of our Gov't into an oppressive authoritarian corporatocracy.


Thanks BBI, I appreciate your posts.

[inna]

16. wish i could rec this more than once

[idwiyo]

17. K&R

[WorseBeforeBetter]

18. K&R

[sad sally]

19. from Naomi Wolf's notes:

O’Brien produced into evidence a DHS [Department of Homeland Security] memo that sought to link US Day of Rage to their cyberterrorism initiative. The government lawyer was given a chance by Judge Forrest to dispute the memo as fraudulent and did not do so.

Kai Wargalla, co-founder of Occupy London, submitted into evidence a memo from the City of London Police Department that categorized Occupy London as a terrorist organization.
Obama lawyer: “What evidence do you have that the government has harmed you?”
Wargalla: “Other than putting my organization on a list of terrorist groups, none.”

Chris Hedges testified: “It is my belief that if Reagan officials had had the power of the NDAA to detain journalists covering conflicts in Nicaragua and El Salvador, they would have used it. “ Government lawyers made the case that nothing has changed since the FISA [Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act] law allowed electronic surveillance, and the NDAA. Hedges said that “Every investigative reporter will tell you that sources have critically dried up since six were charged under the Espionage Act.”

Hedges noted that the difference between FISA and the NDAA was “a quantum deterioration in free speech.” He also said: “NSA [National Security Agency] surveillance has far more effect on my sources than on me,” he said, but “the NDAA is about me.”
-----
Judge Forrest distinguished between journalist and US Day of Rage founder Alexa O’Brien, who does not spend time around people identified by the US government as terrorists, and Chris Hedges, who, as a reporter on such groups, does do so.
Judge Forrest, to the Obama attorney: “Can you say he will not subject to … solitary detention?”
Obama attorney: “I cannot say that today.”
Judge Forrest: “Well, why is [Hedges’ fear] unreasonable: if you have an individual engaged on a regular basis with interviewing, travelling with, “associated forces” [in combat with the US] – and you can’t tell us that his activities won’t subject him to 1021 – why is it [Hedges’ fear] unreasonable?”
Obama lawyer: “Given all the factors – looking at this case, looking at them as a whole, they sufficiently rebut reasonable fear at this stage.”

http://naomiwolf.org/2012/03/ndaa-hearing-notes/