Chris Hedges: A Victory for All of Us

[marmar]

from truthdig:



A Victory for All of Us

Posted on May 18, 2012
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.

“At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under (Section) 1021,” Judge Forrest noted. “Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years.” ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_victory_for_all_of_us_20120518/

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. Kick

[WillyT]

2. HUGE K & R !!!

[annabanana]

3. k&r . . . .n/t

[The Doctor.]

4. And at 1600 P.A., a Constitutional Scholar is quietly and reservedly pleased.

But he will not say so... for at least 4.5 years.

[longship]

5. Hoisted with their own petard

Or, to use an allusion by the inimitable Snagglepuss*, self-inflicted Bar-B-Que, they cooked their own goose.

*It's a well known fact to all baby boomers that Looney Toons and Hannah-Barbera are the true source of all knowledge. Oh, and Mad Magazine, too.

[snot]

8. +1

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. "*It's a well known fact to all baby boomers....................."

but of course..

followed years later by Doonesbury, of course.

[longship]

13. Well, I didn't see any reason to state the obvious.

Rocky and Bullwinkle weren't at all bad, either, eh?

[snot]

6. This is very important; and it raises a good point:

I cannot be that you have to wait until you're swept into a black hole in order to have standing to sue, because then it would be too late.

[snot]

7. Read the whole article; Hedges is inspired!

Although I wish he'd explained why the Con law profs. thot they had no chance.

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. The details of NDAA which he spells out

are quit frightening.

“At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [Section] 1021,” Judge Forrest noted. “Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years"

Very very chilling.

[snot]

15. And if anything, that understates it.

[pmorlan1]

9. Resistance is Never Futile

I agree with Hedges, resistance is never futile.

[sabrina 1]

12. That was a HUGE victory. We should be so grateful to the few people in this country who

fight against all odds to protect our rights when our elected officials refuse to do so.

Shame Congress and on this President if he signs this bill especially now with this ruling.

And thank you Chris Hedges and the attorneys. They are the definition of 'Patriot'.

[Puregonzo1188]

14. But but the NDAA doesn't legalize indefinite detention! It was all just internet conspiracy theorist

!


Do I need the ?