Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
OPE

'Hedges v. Obama' Lawsuit Challenging NDAA Begins Today in NYC

Rate this topic

10 posts in this topic

[NEW YORK, NY] The first rounds of statements from seven high-profile plaintiffs suing President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, House Speakers and DOD Representatives for injunctive relief barring the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)'s “Homeland Battlefield” provisions of indefinite detention and suspension of Habeus Corpus will be heard in federal court today, March 29, 2012.

 

The hearings will begin at 9am at the US District Court Building at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan (Room 15A) and will be immediately followed by a press conference outside the court at 2:30pm beside the center statue at nearby Foley Square (Junction of Center Street & Federal Plaza map link). Taking questions at the press conference will be Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and plaintiff Chris Hedges, film maker Michael Moore, author Naomi Wolf, lead counsel for the plaintiffs Carl Mayer, as well as other plaintiffs and their activist supporters. At 3pm, following the press conference, activists with Occupy Wall Street are expected to stage at the square for an anti-NDAA protest action.

 

The plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama include: New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, celebrated writer and linguist Noam Chomsky, Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, Tangerine Bolen founder of the activist media group RevolutionTruth, Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla, and Alexa O’Brien founder of the web campaign “US Day of Rage.” Each of the plaintiffs share common narrative that their constitutionally protected work, either in activism or in journalism will be chilled by the over-broad provisions set forth under the NDAA. Naomi Wolf and Dr. Cornel West are in the process of becoming plaintiffs in this lawsuit; Wolf will read her statement in court today.

 

“I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists. But that does not make me one,” said Hedges ”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. They make legal what was once illegal.” He continued, “Crimes become patriotic acts. The defense of freedom and truth becomes a crime. Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security. We obey the new laws as we obeyed the old laws, as if there was no difference. And we spend our energy and our lives appealing to a dead system.”

 

“The Homeland Battlefield Law is as Orwellian as its name implies. America is not a “battlefield”; it is a democratic republic. This law is unconstitutional because it violates the free speech and due process rights of American citizens” says Carl Mayer, lead attorney on the case.

 

http://www.sparrowmedia.net/2012/03/ndaa-lawsuit-hedges-v-obama/

 

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/21448165

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler, and his Nazi henchmen in the Reichstag, re-wrote German Law concerning the German Jews. What they did subsequently to their Jews was perfectly 'legal', but morally reprehensible. Also with the Soviets, and their gulags. It is the same with this law. For now, it means nothing. If & when the SHTF, it will mean everything. Why the MSM doesn't do its job, and vet this bullspit legislation, is beyond me. :dismay:

 

The time to stop totalitarianism is BEFORE it is settled 'law', not after. :squid:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheesh, this guy has more lawsuits going on at one time than you can count. It must suck being wrong about EVERYTHING. :read:

 

 

.....so did Clinton. It's what happens when your political enemies are crybabies. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....so did Clinton. It's what happens when your political enemies are crybabies. :p

 

I don't know if that's it TMD. The way I read the NDAA makes it sound like any American can be detained indefinitely for no reason without due process. That's kind of scary, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that's it TMD. The way I read the NDAA makes it sound like any American can be detained indefinitely for no reason without due process. That's kind of scary, no?

 

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.

 

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the AUMF, a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States."

 

An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the senate.

 

Requirement for military custody: Section 1022

 

All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the AUMF, a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States."

An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the senate.

Requirement for military custody: Section 1022

All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces.

 

kind of sounds like a police state could exist, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.