30 votes

A Victory for All of Us: Obama's NDAA struck down in court of law

Posted on May 18, 2012
AP/Mary Altaffer

By Chris Hedges

In January, attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran asked me to be the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that challenged the harsh provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We filed the lawsuit, worked for hours on the affidavits, carried out the tedious depositions, prepared the case and went to trial because we did not want to be passive in the face of another egregious assault on basic civil liberties, because resistance is a moral imperative, and because, at the very least, we hoped we could draw attention to the injustice of the law. None of us thought we would win. But every once in a while the gods smile on the damned.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, in a 68-page opinion, ruled Wednesday that Section 1021 of the NDAA was unconstitutional. It was a stunning and monumental victory. With her ruling she returned us to a country where—as it was before Obama signed this act into law Dec. 31—the government cannot strip a U.S. citizen of due process or use the military to arrest him or her and then hold him or her in military prison indefinitely. She categorically rejected the government’s claims that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring the case to trial because none of us had been indefinitely detained, that lack of imminent enforcement against us meant there was no need for an injunction and that the NDAA simply codified what had previously been set down in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act. The ruling was a huge victory for the protection of free speech. Judge Forrest struck down language in the law that she said gave the government the ability to incarcerate people based on what they said or wrote. Maybe the ruling won’t last. Maybe it will be overturned. But we and other Americans are freer today than we were a week ago. And there is something in this.

The government lawyers, despite being asked five times by the judge to guarantee that we plaintiffs would not be charged under the law for our activities, refused to give any assurances. They did not provide assurances because under the law there were none. We could, even they tacitly admitted, be subject to these coercive measures. We too could be swept away into a black hole. And this, I think, decided the case.

read more http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_victory_for_all_of_us_...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Doesn't matter. Congress approved NDAA anyway:

"Reauthorizing the indefinite detention of US citizens without charge might be the scariest provision in next year’s defense spending bill, but it certainly isn’t the only one worth worrying about.
An amendment tagged on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 would allow for the United States government to create and distribute pro-American propaganda within the country’s own borders under the alleged purpose of putting al-Qaeda’s attempts at persuading the world against Western ideals on ice. Former US representatives went out of there way to ensure their citizens that they’d be excluded from government-created media blasts, but two lawmakers currently serving the country are looking to change all that."

continue reading here:
http://rt.com/usa/news/propaganda-us-smith-amendment-903/

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Matters of importance.

This court judgment does matter. Good news. Relief.

Your comments are also matters of importance. We must be ever vigilant.

Thank you.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

I think I'm just confused at this point

But yes, Vigilance is key and we sure have it!

Cheers

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

You cited evidence & raised valid points.

You are far beyond confused. You revealed the quixotic nature of the beast.

These matters oft make little sense in the "land of the free."

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Au·da·cious ~ extremely bold or daring; ... brave; fearless

Defendant statement after judge's ruling in their favor: "The government lawyers, despite being asked five times by the judge to guarantee that we plaintiffs would not be charged under the law for our activities, refused to give any assurances. They did not provide assurances because under the law there were none. We could, even they tacitly admitted, be subject to these coercive measures. We too could be swept away into a black hole. And this, I think, decided the case."
-------
au·da·cious   [aw-dey-shuhs] - adjective

  1. extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; fearless: an audacious explorer.
  2. extremely original; without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive: an audacious vision of the city's bright future.
  3. recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; brazen.
  4. lively; unrestrained; uninhibited: an audacious interpretation of her role.

Synonyms: courageous, intrepid, dauntless, venturesome. 3. unabashed, shameless; impertinent, forward.

Antonyms: cowardly.

Related Words for : audacious ~ brave, dauntless, fearless, intrepid, unfearing

Word Origin & History: audacious - 1540s, "confident, intrepid," from L. audacia "daring, boldness, courage," from audax "bold, daring," from audere "to dare." Bad sense of "shameless" is attested from 1590s. L. audax also had a good and a bad sense and could mean "audacious, rash, foolhardy."

Quote: "I have come, Sire, to complain of one of your subjects [a rabble rouser] who has been so audacious as to kick me in the belly." - Marie Antoinette voicing her concern to her husband, King Louis XVI, France. Circa 1793, shortly before their demise.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

This piece of legislation is

This piece of legislation is as much Obama's as it is the House and the Senate's. Everyone needs to be replaced in government, lobbies shut down, and super pacs out the window. Maybe then we can return to something that resembles a democracy.

Resembles a Republic

Not a Democracy. People please get it straight and know the difference. The establishment is trying hard to make it a democracy but it is not.

Do your best have no expectations

Totally awesome!!!

Go patriots!!!

I commend you for your efforts and persistance, however

these totalitarian despots have chosen to remove one of the most sacrosanct pieces of our Constitution, the right of Habeous Corpus. What makes you believe they will abide by this sole Judge's decision and who will stand in their way if they, and they most likely will, ignore the Judges order?

If not us than who?

Thank you

.