Post Reply 
Why I’m Suing Barack Obama - Chirs Hedges
01-17-2012, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 01-17-2012 04:13 PM by Joe-Nathan.)
Post: #1
Why I’m Suing Barack Obama - Chirs Hedges
SO WHY ARE FOLKS TAKING THIS LAYING DOWN??? THIS IS FAR WORSE THAN THE PATRIOT ACT EVER WAS:

FROM Chris Hedges:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_..._20120116/

By Chris Hedges

Quote:Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.

To read Chris Hedges’ legal filing aimed at overturning a new law that would allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens deemed terrorism suspects, click here. To read the law itself, click here.

I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have “disappeared” into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.

Section 1031 of the bill defines a “covered person”—one subject to detention—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.”

Advertisement
The bill, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.”.....
read whole article here:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_..._20120116/

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE FILED COMPLAINT:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78496151/Text-...nt-Updated

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE NDAA REPORT:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78392113/NDAA-Official-Text







[COLOR="#A9A9A9"]
If I should disappear please tell my family I loved them...[/COLOR]

Trained Weather Spotter
CoCoRaHS Volunteer
https://www.instagram.com/bostickjm
https://twitter.com/BostickJM
http://www.livechasers.com/JonathanBostick
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-21-2012, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 05-21-2012 12:57 PM by Joe-Nathan.)
Post: #2
Why I’m Suing Barack Obama - Chirs Hedges
Well it looks like a federal judge has ruled in favor of the U.S. citizens in forcing Congress (ie Obama) to either re-write section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA or remove it completely:

Judge Strikes Down NDAA, Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution

http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-s...stitution/

PHP Code:
In a considerable setback for a president eager to ravage the due process rights of the American peopleFederal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesdaystriking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAAof 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5th Amendment rights.

Signed very quietly into law on New Year’s Eve, the controversial Act has been roundly criticized as unconstitutional by groups on both the political left and right. Of greatest concern was Section 1021, which grants the United States military authority to exercise police powers on American soil. Upon order of the president and at his sole discretion, agents of the military are empowered to detain “until the end of hostilities” anyone the president believes to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”

Judge Forrest concluded that the Section “…failed to ‘pass Constitutional muster’ because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.” In a statement clearly directed to lawmakers, she added,   ”Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster.” That is, Congress failed—perhaps deliberately– to define “substantial support” of terrorist groups or describe those activities which might be construed as crossing the legal line. And no law may be enforced if those to whom it applies are unable to clearly understand what a violation of that law entails.

Nothing could more plainly reveal the rank corruption and lust for power of the Manchurian Candidate than his involvement in crafting and then misrepresenting the final text and authority of the NDAAAccording to Democrat Senator Carl Levinit was Obama himself who demanded American citizens be included under the detention law and that the President have exclusive authority to invoke the statute. “The language which precluded the application of Section [1021] to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin after the NDAA was signed into law.

Yet in his signing statementObama wrote that he had in fact forced Congress to “…[revise] provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security and liberty of the American people.” So rather than the grand inquisitor, committing to prison any American citizens he chose to view as enemies, Obama claimed to be their champion and savior, protecting them from the excesses of an over-zealous Congress!

“I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” wrote Obama. “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” This of course was an outright lie, given the expressed meaning of the statute as Obama himself had demanded it be written. Leave it to Barack Obama to demand he be given absolute authority over the American public, yet claim in the next moment that he will not take advantage of it!

The Department of Justicewhich defended the NDAA before Judge Forrestwill undoubtedly appeal her rulingIt is a judicial process Americans must watch closely as the free exercise of our Constitutional rights depends upon the outcome 

ANOTHER SOURCE:

Judge Blocks Controversial NDAA

By ADAM KLASFELD

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm
PHP Code:
MANHATTAN (CN) - A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism.
     
Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects "substantially supported" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." The indefinite detention would supposedly last until "the end of hostilities."
     In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to "pass constitutional muster" because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.
     "There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."
     Weeks after Obama signed the law, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges filed a lawsuit against its so-called "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.
     Several prominent activists, scholars and politicians subsequently joined the suit, including Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg; Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky; Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir; Kai Wargalla, an organizer from Occupy London; and Alexa O'
Brienan organizer for the New York-based activist group U.SDay of Rage.
     
They call themselves the Freedom Seven.
     
In a signing statementObama contended that the language in Section 1021 "breaks no new ground" and merely restates the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).
     
Government lawyers whistled the same tune to swat away the lawsuitbut they failed to convince the judge that no changes had been made.
     
"Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little - it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster," Forrest wrote.
     
Scienter refers to a person's knowledge that a law is being violated.
     "For the reasons set forth below, this court finds that Â§ 1021 is not merely an '
affirmation' of the AUMF," Forrest wrote. "To so hold would be contrary to basic principles of legislative interpretation that require Congressional enactments to be given independent meaning. To find that Â§ 1021 is merely an 'affirmation' of the AUMF would require this court to find that Â§ 1021 is a mere redundancy - that is, that it has no independent meaning and adds absolutely nothing to the government's enforcement powers."
     Brushing aside that argument, Judge Forrest took aim at government arguments that the NDAA did not affect Hedges and his co-plaintiffs personally.
     "
Herethe uncontradicted testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that the plaintiffs have in fact lost certain First Amendment freedoms as a result of the enactment of Â§ 1021," Forrest wrote.
     At a hearing in March, three of the plaintiffs testified that the possibility of government repression under the NDAA made them reconsider how they approached their journalism and activism.
     Guardian journalist Naomi Wolf read testimony from Jonsditir, who prepared a statement saying that she would not visit the U.S. for fear of detention.
     Forrest alluded to this testimony in her decision.
     "
HedgesWargalla, and Jonsdottir have changed certain associational conduct, and O'Brien and Jonsdittir have avoided certain expressive conduct, because of their concerns about Â§ 1021. Moreover, since plaintiffs continue to have their associational and expressive conduct chilled, there is both actual and continued threatened irreparable harm," she wrote.
     "In addition, it is certainly the case that if plaintiffs were detained as a result of their conduct, they could be detained until the cessation of hostilities - i.e., an indeterminate period of time," Forrest continued. "Being subjected to the risk of such detention, particularly in light of the Government'
s inability to represent that plaintiffs' conduct does not fall with Â§ 1021, must constitute a threat of irreparable harm. The question then is: Is that harm immediate? Since the Government will not say that the conduct does not fall outside of Â§1021, one cannot predict immediacy one way or the other. The penalty we know would be severe."
     The judge added that she did not make the decision lightly.
     "This court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution," she wrote. "However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights. As set forth above, this court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public'
s constitutional rights are protected."
     In a phone conference, the plaintiffs' attorneys Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer hailed what they called a "
complete victory." "America is more free today than it was yesterday due to the courageous and righteous and very sound ruling by Judge Forrest," Mayer said. "I think this is a hugely significant development... I think it's also a testament to the courage of the plaintiffs here."
     One of those plaintiffs, O'
Brienwas also jubilant in a separate interview.
     
"I am extremely happy right now, and what I'm most happy about it is that this ruling has given me trust," O'Brien said, "Trust is the foundation of just and stable governments, and this ruling gives me hope that we can restore trust in the foundations of government."
     While the U.S. Attorney'
s office declined comment on the rulingMayer urged the Obama administration to "drop it," and forego an appeal.
     
"They have to come to terms with the fact that it's wholly unconstitutional," Mayer said

A LINK TO A COPY OF THE COURT DOCUMENT:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16...0Obama.pdf

Trained Weather Spotter
CoCoRaHS Volunteer
https://www.instagram.com/bostickjm
https://twitter.com/BostickJM
http://www.livechasers.com/JonathanBostick
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)