Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act

Published: 17 January, 2012, 02:28

U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington January 13, 2012 (Reuters / Kevin Lamarque)

In the past, journalist Chris Hedges has worked for NPR, The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor. In his latest endeavor, however, he is teaming up with an unlikely pair: a couple of attorneys that will help him take on the president.

US President Barack Obama is the target of a suit filed by Pulitzer Prize-winner Hedges, and the reasoning seems more than obvious to him. The decision to take the commander-in-chief to court comes as a response to President Obama’s December 31 signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, a legislation that allows the US military to detain American citizens indefinitely at off-site torture prisons like Guantanamo Bay.

Obama amended the NDAA with a signing statement on New Year’s Eve, insisting that while the Act does indeed give him the power to detain his own citizens indefinitely without charge, that doesn’t mean he will do so. Specifically, Obama wrote that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Under another piece of legislation, however, the government is being granted the right to suspend citizenship of any American if the Enemy Expatriation Act joins the ranks of the NDAA as an atrocious act approved by the president.

“Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial,” journalist Stephen Foster Jr. wrote earlier this month of the Act.

In a blog post published on Monday to TruthDig.com, Hedges announces his effort to take Obama to court, and says his team of attorneys will challenge the president over the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a provision promised under the NDAA.

In his explanation, Hedges says the signing signals “a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.”

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” writes Hedges. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”

Like other NDAA opponents, Hedges addresses in his explanation the issue that vague verbiage throughout the legislation creates an almost open-ended scenario for the government to grab anyone in America and put them behind bars. Instead, rather, the legislation leaves American authorities to go after anyone it can use the Act to attack.

As an international correspondent and world-renowned journalist, Hedges has traveled the globe and says he has been put in some hairy situations. Under the NDAA, he says, he might as well be considered a war criminal in the eyes of America.

Under NDAA, the military can enforce indefinite detention on anyone “who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” As Hedges and others point out, groups such as “associated forces” are never defined, nor are determinations like “substantially supported.”

“I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists,” writes Hedges. “But that does not make me one.” Regardless, any affiliation with a group branded as such could lead authorities to leap to such conclusions.

Everyone from presidential candidate Ron Paul to the American Civil Liberties Union have questioned Obama’s intentions in signing the NDAA, but Hedge’s lawsuit is the first legal filing lobbed at the president. Regardless of what the president intends by putting the NDAA into law, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero wrote, “Obama’s action … is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

Hedges thinks he knows what those intentions are, however.

“I suspect the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state,” says Hedges. “The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up.” When that piece of legislation is coupled with NDAA, the end result could be catastrophic.

“I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them,” concludes Hedges. “They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.”

via Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act — RT.

Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation Act

Published: 13 January, 2012, 21:35

A US Army MP holds down the head of a detainee so he is not identified 14 Febuary 2002 as the detainee is taken inside one of four Joint Interrogation Facilities at Campa X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (AFP Photo / Peter Muhly)

When Barack Obama inked the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, the president insisted that he wouldn’t use the terrifying legislation against American citizens. Another new law, however, could easily change all of that.

If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States. The law itself is rather brief, but in just a few words it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat.

What’s more, the government can decide to do so without bringing the suspected troublemaker before a court of law.

Under the legislation, “hostilities” are defined as “any conflict subject to the laws of war” and does not explicitly state that charges against suspects go to court.

When Obama signed NDAA on December 31, the president said that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Added the president, “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.” But by breaking off ties between citizens — American-born or otherwise — the harsh realities of NDAA can be forced on anyone in the US if Washington decides that it is in the country’s best interest.

The National Defense Authorization Act drew widespread opposition despite a lack of media cover due to the capabilities in bestows in the administration. Under NDAA, the government can indefinitely imprison anyone deemed dangerous by Washington and hold them without trial. After criticism led to massive online campaigns and protests, President Obama addressed the issue and said specifically that his administration would not understand the law as such. Instead, said Obama, “My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

Some are now saying that Obama’s attempt at discrediting the NDAA by insisting that he would not use it against American citizens came only as a precursor to the latest Act. By adding his signing statement to the NDAA, the president insured that legislation such as the Enemy Expatriation Act would surface to strike any limitations that would have kept Americans free from military detainment. “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans,” Stephen . Foster, Jr. writes on the AddictionInfo.org website. “Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

The bill, currently being passed through Congress, is sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA).

via Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation Act — RT.

The Enemy Expatriation Act (S.1698/H.R.3166) – A Statement From Anonymous

by ironboltbruce

January 10, 2012 in Open Mic

THE ENEMY EXPATRIATION ACT – A STATEMENT FROM ANONYMOUS

H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act (#EEA)

The Enemy Expatriation Act is yet another treasonous bill similar to the National Defense Authorization Act that was signed into law by President Obama on New Years’ Eve. The NDAA, which authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens on U.S. soil, was met with outrage from the American public. The media largely refused to cover the NDAA until it was too late, and the bill had been signed into law. We are now faced with a similar situation. The Enemy Expatriation Act has been introduced in the House, and again, the media refuses to cover it. The American public have the right to know about a bill that could revoke their United States citizenship, and the continuing media blackout poses a serious threat to the freedoms this country pledges to provide its citizens.

The Enemy Expatriation Act is a short, yet dangerous bill. The purpose of the bill is “to add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality” [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3166]. Put simply, this bill gives the U.S. government the power to revoke your citizenship, thereby nullifying your RIGHTS as an American citizen, if they believe you are even merely SUPPORTING acts against the United States. The Obama administration has pledged not to use the NDAA against American citizens [THIS IS NOT CORRECT: SEE P.S. BELOW]. However, if this bill passes, you could be stripped of your citizenship, and subjected to the full, treacherous acts of the NDAA. You will no longer have your rights as a citizen to protect you.

Who introduced this abomination to the House of Representatives? Charles Dent, a Republican from Pennsylvania’s 15th District [http://bit.ly/wcICxr], and the sponsor of the Enemy Expatriation Act, posted the following YouTube video about his proposed legislation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzpr7bL1Iw4. One thing you should notice immediately is the dislike bar. This video has 9 LIKES, and over 1,000 DISLIKES at the time of this statement. In addition, an ongoing poll from popvox.com shows that 92% OPPOSE this legislation [http://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3166]. Charles Dent is no Representative of the American public by ANY meaning of the word. This bill is yet another act by the government designed to give them the ultimate authority over us. The last time I checked, the Constitution reads WE THE PEOPLE. Clearly, the government has no intention of serving its citizens if our lawmakers take no consideration of our opinions or our rights before attempting to pass legislation such as the NDAA and the Enemy Expatriation Act.

In order to stop the Enemy Expatriation Act and all future acts of the U.S. government which revoke our freedoms and attempt to shred the last remnants of our Constitution, it begins with you – with all of us. The media refuses to provide us with the information we need to play a part in our own futures. The government refuses to allow any consideration of the direction we, the people, wish for this country to go. We must be the ones to inform the people. We must play an active role in our future. We are trained to be divided by the media, by the government, told that it’s all about petty issues when it’s not. Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, this is not a partisan issue. The issue at hand is our future, and the reality of the present is that the government is slowly revoking our freedoms and our voice. Inform everyone you know about these acts of Congress, and the government as a whole. Make sure they are getting the information they NEED, and not just what they want us to know. Knowledge is power, and the freedom of information is the key to uniting all of us around the issues that really matter. Spread this message to everyone you know. Speak out against these acts, contact your representatives, senators, congressmen and make sure that they know that these injustices will not be tolerated. United, we will restore the power back to the People.

#Anonymous

http://pastebin.com/1UcAYycK

###

S.1698:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1698

H.R.3166:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3166

Related Image:

FREEDOM > PNAC > 9/11 > AUMF > PATRIOT ACT > CITIZENS UNITED > NDAA > SOPA > EEA > FASCISM:

NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )

P.S. Americans must NOT take comfort in Obama saying “my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens” in his signing statement for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). What about NON-military detention (CIA/DHS/FBI/etc.)? Besides, presidential signing statements are NOT laws!

###

CYBERACTIVIST ALERT: Emails like this one are being blocked by Network Solutions and other ISPs using Cloudmark Authority and other Internet censorship systems euphemistically referred to as “spam filters”. Sadly, those who most need to see this warning never will…

via The Enemy Expatriation Act (S.1698/H.R.3166) – A Statement From Anonymous – Occupy Oakland.

« Older entries

%d bloggers like this: