NDAA Lawsuit Q&A

On August 2, 2012, RevolutionTruth hosted a live panel discussion with Carl Mayer, Bruce Afran, Daniel Ellsberg, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Tangerine Bolen (Host), David Segal, Kevin Gosztola, Michael Kelley, Laura Poitras, and Jacob Applebaum to discuss the current state of the ongoing Hedges v. Obama lawsuit against the US. Government regarding Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA and answered audience questions.

Seven plaintiffs, backed by multiple civil liberties and human rights groups, filed suit against President Obama, Leon Panetta, and 6 members of Congress over the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) last March. The lawsuit, spearheaded by plaintiffs Chris Hedges and Tangerine Bolen, is one of the only things standing in between innocent citizens everywhere and the threat of indefinite detention by the US military under Section 1021 of the NDAA. Journalists, lawyers and activists around the world have expressed profound concern and criticism over a provision that effectively suspends due process of the law and threatens to destroy First Amendment rights.

We WON round one of our lawsuit in May, after Obama-appointed Judge Katherine Forrest ruled entirely in our favor and granted a temporary restraining order against this provision. She did so after the US government refused to provide assurances (when asked 5 times) that plaintiffs and others would not be subjected to indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.

For more information about the NDAA and our lawsuit, visit StopNDAA.org

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[vonkruel]

Right now I am deeply skeptical about the possibility of changing course within existing political structures. The way our governments and economies are organized is simply not appropriate for the modern world. Existing order will be discontinued relatively soon - the only question is how many will die or suffer terribly in the process. Right now we are on track for an extremely painful transition away from our obsolete institutions.

[Randy Dixon]

@NDAA2012 was here. ~ You have been Tweeted. ;)

[VJnumber1]

just giving you a little taste of your own medicine. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

[prayfortruejustice]

Empirical historic events show that the only ways to beat corrupted systems are to ignore them, abandon them, or work outside the system against them. This lawsuit is great as a stall tactic -- the problem will continue to returns until TPTB get what they want, like SOPA/CISPA, Military Commissions, Patriot Act, Bush Doctrine, Spying on Americans (FISA), warrant-less stop and search, etc. As for your last comment: Go fuck yourself.

[VJnumber1]

I did not say the systems were functioning well, but the fault is with those who abuse them and not so much with the design of the social structures. I agree with this lawsuit and support it. It's a good example of using the tools of the system.But if you think praying and voodoo dolls are better, be my guest.

[prayfortruejustice]

Yeah the Jews in Germany probably said the same thing as they were moved into ghettos and later on to trains. Thousands of Japanese Americans in the US probably said the same thing when they were loaded on to trains and and transported to government internment camps. Your right, the institutions are alive and well - Continuity of Government and TPTB is Job 1.

[igspal]

Judge Katherine Forrest, Bruce Afran, Esq., and Carl Mayer, Esq. (all of Manhattan) GIVE ME HOPE (AT LAST) FOR OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM...GOD BLESS THESE INCREDIBLE HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!

[Otto Lund]

Thanks

abeldanger net

[VJnumber1]

I don't think our institutions are obsolete, they are sidestepped, barricaded, spit on and misrepresented. Our institutions were designed to be flexible and evolve to better protect and expand their protections and recognition of human rights. Those mechanisms are there, but people motivated by greed and not the common good are misusing and abusing these mechanisms.

[M Zero]

I agree thoroughly. The only thing this case has proven so far is that the law was written for corporate interests abroad and that the law can be re-written at the moment that it is necessary to pull focus of the definition to that effect. You are not going to get anywhere with sloppy policies and sloppy, hastily written laws for corporations to get what they came for as fast as they can before the rest of the world wakes up or before the US military vacates leaving the corporation's to hire Xe.