Federal Judge Blocks Part of National Defense Authorization Act

by Robert Wilkinson

In an act of heroism (and sanity), a Federal Judge has blocked parts of the onerous and totalitarian NDAA. Didn't read or hear about that? It's because the cowardly, craven media buried the story, or blacked it out completely.

This is a tremendous victory for 1st Amendment Rights! The NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of anyone, anytime, for any reason the national security apparatus deems necessary. I reported on this last December before it became law, still hoping that Obama would do the right thing and uphold the Constitution. But he didn't, and it became law.

This legislation is a threat to all our First and Fifth Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and due process under law, and so some journalists took it to the courts. According to a WaPo article that was buried so fast I never even saw it, Federal judge strikes down anti-terror law that threatened writers, activists with detention, last Wednesday U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest said in a written ruling that a clause in Section 1021 of the law has a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights.” From the story:

She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects to indefinite detention anyone who “substantially” or “directly” provides “support” to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to change it.

“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 judge said.

She said the law also gave the government authority to move against individuals who engage in political speech with views that “may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an average individual.

“That, however, is precisely what the First Amendment protects,” Forrest wrote.

She called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable, citing testimony at a March hearing by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges, who has interviewed al-Qaida members, conversed with members of the Taliban during speaking engagements overseas and reported on 17 groups named on a list prepared by the State Department of known terrorist organizations. He testified that the law has led him to consider altering speeches where members of al-Qaida or the Taliban might be present.

This helps restore some measure of free speech and due process. Now Congress will have to re-write the law to make it less general and more specific, unless the government appeals and the Supremes decide to over-ride our Constitution and declare this draconian law legal (in which case NO ONE is safe!)

As I noted in my earlier article when this was still being debated, the reason this law is so onerous is that its language could be interpreted to mean that anyone who disagrees with the government's policies could be considered a "hostile," or doing "belligerent acts," "substantially supporting" those the US considers "enemies." In the final analysis, these terms could be used against human rights workers, non-violent protestors, and just about anyone the state deems to be a problem.

So hooray for a bit of light in the darkness, thanks to some journalists who could not investigate the Taliban or Al-Qaeda without running afoul of the language of this horrible law, or even seek to expose the wrong doing of our allies without threat of indefinite imprisonment. The ruling held that "the government cannot subject people to indefinite imprisonment for engaging in speech, journalism or advocacy, regardless of how unpopular those ideas might be to some people,” and that we citizens are entitled to due process and trial by jury without threat of indefinite military detention and military tribunals.

I'll close this by reiterating something I asked earlier: why wasn't this more widely reported in the media? It was buried by the NY Times and the Washington Post, and I couldn't find it anywhere on MSNBC. Other than Democracy Now and a few blogs, nothing was reported to any degree by any of the big media. You can do a search for the topic and won't find anything from the MSM. So much for the so-called "liberal media."

So all great blessings on Judge Katherine Forrest of Manhattan. Someone's got to put a stop to the erosion of our liberties, and she just made a very important ruling on behalf of the citizens of the US, as well as anyone else who could be renditioned for speaking with, or emailing, someone the US government decides is a problem.

If you want to know more, please check out the extensive story on Alexander Higgins' blog, Federal Judge Temporarily Strikes Down NDAA As Unconstitutional where he goes into far more detail about the case and arguments than anywhere else I found.

© Copyright 2012 Robert Wilkinson

Comments

[Kim]

THANK YOU for drawing attention to this, RW! It's a dangerous thing, but even more dangerous is the most probable answer to your question regarding why "the media" has not covered this at all. While I won't spew rhetoric about the state of contemporary journalism, I do have a question of my own -
would you interpret this particular issue as possibly being related to the following that you wrote in your previous blog entry about the May Eclipse:

"This is a powerful Eclipse due to its duration and magnitude that will trigger effects from other recent Eclipses due to several factors. This Eclipse North Node is the same degree as Mercury in the December 2011 Lunar Eclipse...."

Mercury being the planet ruling communication, publishing, etc., and North Node being a karmic thing?

Just wondering.

[Nicolas]

Thanks for the post. Good news too.
Governments have to learn that they are there to serve the people and not to control them. We need more awareness and for the people to act. Well done by the journalist and the judge that has challenged this attempt to control all and for any excuse.
About the main stream media not reporting this.... Well it is not news is it? I mean the way the so call main stream media behaves. As awareness grows the power of this media will diminish, as it already has started.
Best!

[Iris]

Hi Robert:
Thanks for reporting on this. Imagine if this law is overturned on appeal, and combine it with the new Amendment to the Defense bill of 2013 just passed by the House. This amendment will lift all bans on domestic government propaganda. So the two, if combined, could mean detention just for pointing out government lies. Link: here:http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban

[Iris]

*Should read: Imagine if this decision is overturned...

[Elah]

Yes! This is news that brings hope for a more sane and balanced government. Judge Katherine is a true heroine. Her standing up to the PTW (powers that were) is an act of supreme integrity and courage.

Thank you for posting this Robert.

[parahballieh]

thanks for posting. svetlight gone?no?

[Robert]

Hi all - Here's the latest from Christ Hedges at Truthout, a great account by the lead plaintiff titled A Victory for All of Us.

Enjoy!!

[caliban]

Applause!!!!!!

[Robert]

Hi all - Well, it turns out the WaPo killed the link to the story. I went to their site and tried to search for the original article in the archives using "NDAA" and "Judge Katherine Forrest" as search terms. Apparently the story vanished.....