Thursday, August 09, 2012

America Wins The Gold | Your Constitutional Rights Have Been Revoked | Real Journalism Dead

We heard nary a peep from the main stream media about the NDAA and their silence should be a major story in itself. They remain mute in the face of this historic and unprecedented abuse of the constitutional rights of all citizens.
There has been little news coverage of the lawsuit filed by the 'freedom 7 plaintiffs' challenging the unconstitutional provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act. (NDAA). This controversial and unconstitutional law in effect allows the US military, US intelligence operatives or other members of the massive US security apparatus to deny habeas corpus to citizens by arresting them and indefinitely detaining them without hearing or trial.
The law allows anyone deemed to be a suspect who has "substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces" subject to detention until, "the end of hostilities." in a newly defined and Orwellian sounding "Homeland Battlefield".
The question being who gets to decide who really is working with "associated forces', or the scope of what would constitutes "substantial support". Will it be some retired cop who now works for the Defense Department and needs to justify the need for his job? Or a TSA employee having a bad hair day?

The claim by constitutional law professor Obama upon signing the legislation into law that he would not use it inappropriately are empty and ludicrous.  In fact the new provisions have already been applied to activists and journalists, and frankly who knows who else has already been locked up.  A large part of the initial proceedings during the lawsuit dealt with the fact that the plaintiffs would first have to establish that the implementation of the NDAA actually effected their constitutional rights.

Judge Katherine Forrest found that in fact the plaintiffs did have standing to proceed with the lawsuit on the constitutional questions.

Then in May the Judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the provisions of the law that deal with the arrest and detention of US citizens after she ruled that the plaintiffs had standing. She indicated at that time, "there is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, 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."
"America is more free today than it was yesterday due to the courageous and righteous and very sound ruling by Judge Forrest,. I think this is a hugely significant development... I think it's also a testament to the courage of the plaintiffs here." Plaintiff's Attorney Carl Mayer
Judge Forrest went on to say, "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."

On August 7th additional arguments were made by the government and the plaintiffs before Judge Forrest. The plaintiffs are requesting that her injunction be made permanent. The government, of course is arguing that the lawsuit be thrown out. Whatever the ruling, both parties have indicated they will appeal the case.

For a complete background on where the lawsuit is today, including interviews and discussion from the plaintiffs and their lawyers we offer this conference call produced by RevolutionTruth.

Full disclosure: Alexa O'Brien, a plaintiff in the NDAA lawsuit is my daughter.

No comments:

Post a Comment