NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution

What makes our NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution

Time after time, Obama's lawyers defending the NDAA's section 1021 affirm our worst fears about its threat to our liberty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-constitution


I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.

In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.

In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week's hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.

To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.

I have mixed feelings about suing my government, and in particular, my president, over the National Defense Authorization Act. I voted for Obama.

But the US public often ignores how, when it comes to the "war on terror", the US government as a whole has been deceitful, reckless, even murderous. We lost nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. Then we allowed the Bush administration to lie and force us into war with a country that had nothing to do with that terrible day. Presidents Bush and Obama, and the US Congress, appear more interested in enacting misguided "war on terror" policies that distract citizens from investigating the truth about what we've done, and what we've become, since 9/11.

I, like many in this fight, am now afraid of my government. We have good reason to be. Due to the NDAA, Chris Hedges, Kai Wargalla, the other plaintiffs and I are squarely in the crosshairs of a "war on terror" that has been an excuse to undermine liberties, trample the US constitution, destroy mechanisms of accountability and transparency, and cause irreparable harm to millions. Several of my co-plaintiffs know well the harassment and harm they have incurred from having dared openly to defy the US government: court testimony has included government subpoenas of private bank records of Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir; Wargalla's account of having been listed as a "terrorist group"; and Hedges' concern that he would be included as a "belligerent" in the NDAA's definition of the term – because he interviews members of outlawed groups as a reporter – a concern that the US attorneys refused on the record to allay.

Other advocates have had email accounts repeatedly hacked, and often find their electronic communications corrupted in transmission (some emails vanish altogether). This is an increasing form of pressure that supporters of state surveillance and intervention in the internet often fail to consider.

I've been surprised to find that most people, when I mention that I am suing my president, Leon Panetta, and six members of Congress (four Democrats and four Republicans), thank me – even before I explain what I'm suing them over! And when I do explain the fact that I and my seven co-plaintiffs are suing over a law that suspends due process, threatens first amendment rights and takes away the basic right of every citizen on this planet not to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial, their exuberance shifts, and a deeper gratitude shines through newly somber demeanors. But this fight has taken a personal toll on many of us, including myself.
My government, meanwhile, seems to have lost the ability to discern the truth about the US constitution any more; I and many others have not. We are fighting for due process and for the first amendment – for a country we still believe in and for a government still legally bound by its constitution.

If that makes us their "enemies", then so be it. As long as they cannot call us "belligerents", lock us up and throw away the key – a power that, incredibly, this past week US government lawyers still asserted is their right. Against such abuses, we will keep fighting.

• This article was commissioned by the Daily Cloudt and appears here by permission of the editors
• Editor's note: the article originally stated that the administration lawyers filed an appeal against the injunction on 9 August; this was amended to 6 August on 10 August, at 1pm ET

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” —George Washington, 1797

The founders made a mistake with the Constitution in creating a Federation of states. The Articles of Confederation were much better in that regard as the central government was gutted, neutered and rendered almost useless. The way it should be.

You know if I refused to confirm that I have been complying with a court order I would be held in comtempt. Not just might be but would be held. Why is this so different. This person has acted in contempt. He is an agent. He should be doing 72 hours in the jailhouse.

By this person I mean the US Govt lawyers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

You know if I refused to confirm that I have been complying with a court order I would be held in comtempt. Not just might be but would be held. Why is this so different. This person has acted in contempt. He is an agent. He should be doing 72 hours in the jailhouse.

By this person I mean the US Govt lawyers

---

Federal judge versus federal lawyers: NDAA seems to be a recipe for civil war. Which will take the high ground, the Constitution or Presidential Edict? Who will referee? In my opinion, the Supreme Court is compromised and cannot adjudicate on the matter. The people will be forced to fight and take back their Constitutional guarantee of protection from unlawful siezure and detention.

......that's your cue Palani...

there no laws for the people anymore . it what they want at any giving time . the founding fathers said there would come atime that the people would have to stand up to be heard

.gov passed a law that absolves them from following any others when applied to "the war on terror". Since this judge is threatening their ability to fight "the war on terror", I'm not surprised the court is being stonewalled.

This will get interesting.

this battle is already over......the epitaph on Americas tombstone was " Christians trusted unregenerate talmudic jews with their liberties" ...back to american idol folks.

I would suppose that a very very small fraction of the population of the united States even knows that there is any such thing as the NDAA, and perhaps even fewer care. It is because for many decades now the public schools gloss over teaching American kids about their constitution and the bill of rights and the difference between rights and privileges. People generally do not know that their government is very tightly constrained by these documents. They do not know our real history, and they are doomed to repeat it. As an antidote to that 'doom' I suggest that people read Michael Badnarik's book Good to Be King. It's about the constitution. Written by a guy who would feel right at home here on GSUS. It's not a long book--only 214 pages, and it is readable and entertaining. And it fills in all the holes in anybody's knowledge of the constitution. He suggests that we memorize the Bill of Rights--like we memorize the pledge of Allegiance.

I have seen nothing in any mainstream media utterance about this NDAA lawsuit. The MSM is acting like it is not happening. I agree with Glass that the government lawyers who are insisting that the government has the right to detain anyone without an indictment or without due process should be jailed for contempt. If they are government employees, they all swore an oath under Article VI of the constitution that they will uphold the constitution. Instead they ignore it, and dishonor their oaths. Obama is guilty of this as well. The judge apparently is still in honor about her oath. It is that oath that gives the constitution some enduring power, even when the population is completely ignorant that they are the beneficiaries of that document.

It's the constitution that ties me kangaroo down sport, eh Glass? I'd like to hear the arguments (if there are any) why the government has the right to abuse its own citizens. We are the masters. The government is our slave. It is an uppity slave. It deserves to be jailed and replaced with a more compliant and diligent slave.

Hatha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatha Sunahara

I would suppose that a very very small fraction of the population of the united States even knows that there is any such thing as the NDAA, and perhaps even fewer care. It is because for many decades now the public schools gloss over teaching American kids about their constitution and the bill of rights and the difference between rights and privileges. People generally do not know that their government is very tightly constrained by these documents. They do not know our real history, and they are doomed to repeat it. As an antidote to that 'doom' I suggest that people read Michael Badnarik's book Good to Be King. It's about the constitution. Written by a guy who would feel right at home here on GSUS. It's not a long book--only 214 pages, and it is readable and entertaining. And it fills in all the holes in anybody's knowledge of the constitution. He suggests that we memorize the Bill of Rights--like we memorize the pledge of Allegiance.

I have seen nothing in any mainstream media utterance about this NDAA lawsuit. The MSM is acting like it is not happening. I agree with Glass that the government lawyers who are insisting that the government has the right to detain anyone without an indictment or without due process should be jailed for contempt. If they are government employees, they all swore an oath under Article VI of the constitution that they will uphold the constitution. Instead they ignore it, and dishonor their oaths. Obama is guilty of this as well. The judge apparently is still in honor about her oath. It is that oath that gives the constitution some enduring power, even when the population is completely ignorant that they are the beneficiaries of that document.

It's the constitution that ties me kangaroo down sport, eh Glass? I'd like to hear the arguments (if there are any) why the government has the right to abuse its own citizens. We are the masters. The government is our slave. It is an uppity slave. It deserves to be jailed and replaced with a more compliant and diligent slave.

Hatha

---

Michael Badnarik's book is worth reading. His video series on the Constitution was pretty good too if I recall correctly.

I bought "Good To Be King" from him shortly after it was published, and he surprised me with a personal, autographed copy.

Nice guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mamboni

Federal judge versus federal lawyers: NDAA seems to be a recipe for civil war. Which will take the high ground, the Constitution or Presidential Edict? Who will referee? In my opinion, the Supreme Court is compromised and cannot adjudicate on the matter. The people will be forced to fight and take back their Constitutional guarantee of protection from unlawful siezure and detention.

......that's your cue Palani...

---

> NDAA seems to be a recipe for civil war.

for sure.

it equates criticism of the US gov. with "terror suspect".

at that rate, G-S.us would have its own cell-block in the Gulag.


it reminds me of the Bush-era no-fly list, where about 1 million Americans found themselves with major travel restrictions simply because they criticized Bush/Cheney.

and then Rahm Emanuel added the 'cherry on top' - went in front of the audience at some Dem. fundraiser & advocated taking away gun rights from everybody on the Bush era no-fly list.