revelarts
05-22-2012, 09:47 AM
the plaintiffs in the case and their legal friends include those on the left and right.
including but not limited to:
Chris Hedges,
Norm Chomsky,
Cornel West,
Alexa O’Brien
Daniel Ellsberg,
Iceland parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir
Kai Wargalla, co-founder of Occupy London
NAOMI WOLF
the ACLU
VIRGINIA STATE DELEGATE BOB MARSHALL,
VIRGINIA STATE SENATOR DICK BLACK,
DOWNSIZE DC FOUNDATION,
DOWNSIZEDC.ORG, INC.,
U.S. JUSTICE FOUNDATION,
INSTITUTE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION,
GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA,INC.,
THE LINCOLN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION,
THE WESTERN CENTER FOR JOURNALISM,
CONSERVATIVE LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND,
U.S. BORDER CONTROL,
RESTORING LIBERTY ACTIONCOMMITTEE,
TENTH AMENDMENT CENTER,
CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY,
BILL OF RIGHTS DEFENSE COMMITTEE,
PASTOR CHUCK BALDWIN,
PROFESSOR JEROME AUMENTE,
THE CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11430-ndaa-no-detaining-americans-allowed-says-federal-judge
....The court offered the government multiple opportunities to demonstrate that the plaintiffs did not have standing, but the government refused to do so despite having been informed in advance of the nature of the plaintiffs’ testimony. Asked repeatedly if the plaintiffs’ fears of being detained under the NDAA were well founded, the government’s attorney refused to answer, saying he was “not authorized to make specific recommendations regarding specific people.” Noted Forrest: It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the Government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that Section 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not. That could have eliminated the standing of these plaintiffs and their claims of irreparable harm. Failure to be able to make such a representation given the prior notice of the activities at issue requires this Court to assume that, in fact, the Government takes the position that a wide swath of expressive and associational conduct is in fact encompassed by Section 1021.
As a result, Forrest found that “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.”
She also found that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the law on the basis that it violates their Fifth Amendment right to due process was likely to succeed. Due process, she observed, “requires that individuals be able to understand what conduct might cause him or her to run afoul of” the law. “Unfortunately,” she continued, “there are a number of terms [in Section 1021] that are sufficiently vague that no ordinary citizen can reliably define such conduct.” For instance, who is a “covered person” under the statute? What does the term “associated forces” mean? And what does the law mean when it threatens those who “substantially” or “directly” “support” these “associated forces” or al-Qaeda or the Taliban?
Again the court gave the government every opportunity to advance specific arguments to counter the plaintiffs’ claims, and again the government failed to do so. “The Government was unable to define precisely what ‘direct’ or ‘substantial’ ‘support’ means,” observed Forrest. “Thus,” she concluded, “an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.”
The law’s vagueness also led Forrest to reject the Obama administration’s argument that it was a mere restatement of the detention powers already granted under the AUMF. The 2001 law, she pointed out, was quite specific as to what individuals and activities it covered and what its terms mean, while the NDAA is much broader in scope and so vague in its definitions that even the government can’t explain exactly which persons or activities it covers. Wrote Forrest: “Since this Court is not convinced that Section 1021 is simply a ‘reaffirmation’ of the AUMF, and since the Government has authorized detention for violations of Section 1021, plaintiffs here can reasonably assume that Government officials will actually undertake the detention authorized by the statute,” adding weight to their claims of standing to sue.
Moreover, she remarked, “if the Government’s argument is to be credited in terms of its belief as to the impact of the legislation — which is nil — then the issuance of an injunction should have absolutely no impact on any Governmental activities at all.” That the administration fought the lawsuit, therefore, ought to be proof positive that the NDAA goes far beyond the AUMF.
Further proof may be found in Obama’s NDAA signing statement, in which he stated that his “Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” which makes it clear that such detention is permitted by the law and may be authorized by future administrations. The administration argued that the statement rendered the plaintiffs’ case moot, but Forrest averred in a footnote: “The Signing Statement does not eliminate the reasonable fear of future government harm that is likely to occur — i.e., the irreparable injury at issue here.”
Glen Greenwald at salon.com give another review
Federal court enjoins NDAA - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/)
there were some that denied that the NDAA could evah evah be read this way but Obama, Romney, the ACLU, many other law scholars and this Court see that there is CLEARLY A HUGE PROBLEM with this law. It gives a president the right to toss people in jail without due process indefinitely.
Heck even the Daily Show and Corbertt Report got it. the presidency has become a dictatorship, the congress has handed nearly all it's power to the executive.
Panetta recently told congress that the executive branch would "inform congress" when the president decided to go to war.
The President says he has the right to kill Americans without trial , if he and his secret panel decide it's for the good of the country and has done it. The NDAA just codified the power to toss in jail without a trial, indefinitely. These are the powers of a dictator, as shocking and as crazy as it may seem, we are there. This Judge is the 1st in a long time to put up a "check and balance" to the drunken executive. Lil denials and "..but it's not really like that..." don't cut it anymore. It IS like that. We are there. Thank God the for the lawsuit and Judges ruling throwing a sandbag against the flood. May their tribe increase.
Romney NDAA "if I were president i would not abuse this power".
Mitt Romney, Rand Paul & NDAA The National Defence Authorization ACT (Enabling Act) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1XwKjnOaqE)
Daily show on NDAA
Jon Stewart on NDAA and Signing Statement • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control (http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-on-NDAA-and-Signing-Statement)
Colbert on NDAA
The Word - Catch 2012 - The Colbert Report - 2012-05-01 - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405274/january-05-2012/the-word---catch-2012)
On Monday, prominent legal scholar Jonathan Turley denounced NDAA 2012, which was signed into law by Barack Obama on Dec. 31, 2011, as "one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country."[1] -- In his piece, which the London Guardian asked to reprint, Turley called Obama's claim that he signed the bill to keep funding for U.S. troops "insulting. You do not 'support our troops' by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president." -- As for the president's reassurance that he will not use the powers the law accords to him, Turley said that "the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems." --
COMMENTARY: Jonathan Turley denounces NDAA as 'historic assault on liberty' (http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/10804-commentary-jonathan-turley-denounces-ndaa-as-historic-assault-on-liberty.html)
including but not limited to:
Chris Hedges,
Norm Chomsky,
Cornel West,
Alexa O’Brien
Daniel Ellsberg,
Iceland parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir
Kai Wargalla, co-founder of Occupy London
NAOMI WOLF
the ACLU
VIRGINIA STATE DELEGATE BOB MARSHALL,
VIRGINIA STATE SENATOR DICK BLACK,
DOWNSIZE DC FOUNDATION,
DOWNSIZEDC.ORG, INC.,
U.S. JUSTICE FOUNDATION,
INSTITUTE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION,
GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA,INC.,
THE LINCOLN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION,
THE WESTERN CENTER FOR JOURNALISM,
CONSERVATIVE LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND,
U.S. BORDER CONTROL,
RESTORING LIBERTY ACTIONCOMMITTEE,
TENTH AMENDMENT CENTER,
CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY,
BILL OF RIGHTS DEFENSE COMMITTEE,
PASTOR CHUCK BALDWIN,
PROFESSOR JEROME AUMENTE,
THE CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11430-ndaa-no-detaining-americans-allowed-says-federal-judge
....The court offered the government multiple opportunities to demonstrate that the plaintiffs did not have standing, but the government refused to do so despite having been informed in advance of the nature of the plaintiffs’ testimony. Asked repeatedly if the plaintiffs’ fears of being detained under the NDAA were well founded, the government’s attorney refused to answer, saying he was “not authorized to make specific recommendations regarding specific people.” Noted Forrest: It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the Government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that Section 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not. That could have eliminated the standing of these plaintiffs and their claims of irreparable harm. Failure to be able to make such a representation given the prior notice of the activities at issue requires this Court to assume that, in fact, the Government takes the position that a wide swath of expressive and associational conduct is in fact encompassed by Section 1021.
As a result, Forrest found that “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.”
She also found that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the law on the basis that it violates their Fifth Amendment right to due process was likely to succeed. Due process, she observed, “requires that individuals be able to understand what conduct might cause him or her to run afoul of” the law. “Unfortunately,” she continued, “there are a number of terms [in Section 1021] that are sufficiently vague that no ordinary citizen can reliably define such conduct.” For instance, who is a “covered person” under the statute? What does the term “associated forces” mean? And what does the law mean when it threatens those who “substantially” or “directly” “support” these “associated forces” or al-Qaeda or the Taliban?
Again the court gave the government every opportunity to advance specific arguments to counter the plaintiffs’ claims, and again the government failed to do so. “The Government was unable to define precisely what ‘direct’ or ‘substantial’ ‘support’ means,” observed Forrest. “Thus,” she concluded, “an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.”
The law’s vagueness also led Forrest to reject the Obama administration’s argument that it was a mere restatement of the detention powers already granted under the AUMF. The 2001 law, she pointed out, was quite specific as to what individuals and activities it covered and what its terms mean, while the NDAA is much broader in scope and so vague in its definitions that even the government can’t explain exactly which persons or activities it covers. Wrote Forrest: “Since this Court is not convinced that Section 1021 is simply a ‘reaffirmation’ of the AUMF, and since the Government has authorized detention for violations of Section 1021, plaintiffs here can reasonably assume that Government officials will actually undertake the detention authorized by the statute,” adding weight to their claims of standing to sue.
Moreover, she remarked, “if the Government’s argument is to be credited in terms of its belief as to the impact of the legislation — which is nil — then the issuance of an injunction should have absolutely no impact on any Governmental activities at all.” That the administration fought the lawsuit, therefore, ought to be proof positive that the NDAA goes far beyond the AUMF.
Further proof may be found in Obama’s NDAA signing statement, in which he stated that his “Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” which makes it clear that such detention is permitted by the law and may be authorized by future administrations. The administration argued that the statement rendered the plaintiffs’ case moot, but Forrest averred in a footnote: “The Signing Statement does not eliminate the reasonable fear of future government harm that is likely to occur — i.e., the irreparable injury at issue here.”
Glen Greenwald at salon.com give another review
Federal court enjoins NDAA - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/)
there were some that denied that the NDAA could evah evah be read this way but Obama, Romney, the ACLU, many other law scholars and this Court see that there is CLEARLY A HUGE PROBLEM with this law. It gives a president the right to toss people in jail without due process indefinitely.
Heck even the Daily Show and Corbertt Report got it. the presidency has become a dictatorship, the congress has handed nearly all it's power to the executive.
Panetta recently told congress that the executive branch would "inform congress" when the president decided to go to war.
The President says he has the right to kill Americans without trial , if he and his secret panel decide it's for the good of the country and has done it. The NDAA just codified the power to toss in jail without a trial, indefinitely. These are the powers of a dictator, as shocking and as crazy as it may seem, we are there. This Judge is the 1st in a long time to put up a "check and balance" to the drunken executive. Lil denials and "..but it's not really like that..." don't cut it anymore. It IS like that. We are there. Thank God the for the lawsuit and Judges ruling throwing a sandbag against the flood. May their tribe increase.
Romney NDAA "if I were president i would not abuse this power".
Mitt Romney, Rand Paul & NDAA The National Defence Authorization ACT (Enabling Act) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1XwKjnOaqE)
Daily show on NDAA
Jon Stewart on NDAA and Signing Statement • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control (http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-on-NDAA-and-Signing-Statement)
Colbert on NDAA
The Word - Catch 2012 - The Colbert Report - 2012-05-01 - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405274/january-05-2012/the-word---catch-2012)
On Monday, prominent legal scholar Jonathan Turley denounced NDAA 2012, which was signed into law by Barack Obama on Dec. 31, 2011, as "one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country."[1] -- In his piece, which the London Guardian asked to reprint, Turley called Obama's claim that he signed the bill to keep funding for U.S. troops "insulting. You do not 'support our troops' by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president." -- As for the president's reassurance that he will not use the powers the law accords to him, Turley said that "the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems." --
COMMENTARY: Jonathan Turley denounces NDAA as 'historic assault on liberty' (http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/10804-commentary-jonathan-turley-denounces-ndaa-as-historic-assault-on-liberty.html)