\n individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the
\n NDAA<\/a>, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying
\n signing statement<\/a> that he will not abuse
\n these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned
\n indefinitely. These assurances, however, were not enough to keep
\n a group of journalists and human rights activists from filing a
\n federal lawsuit<\/a> last year, which contested the
\n constitutionality of Section 1021, the particular provision that
\n provides for such broad power.\n<\/p>\n
\n A federal judge sided<\/a> with the plaintiffs originally by granting an \n Now with this week\u2019s appellate decision, plaintiffs intend on \n The so-called \u201cindefinite detention\u201d provision of last year\u2019s \n \n The plaintiffs in case had previously been successful in \n Tangerine Bolen, a co-plaintiff in the case alongside Hedges, \n In a statement published to TruthDig, Hedges called the ruling \n Section 1021 of the NDAA reads in part that the president of the \n Only two weeks after the 2012 NDAA was signed into law, Hedges \n \u201cI have had dinner more times than I can count with people \n Naomi Wolf, an American author, told the Guardian last year that \n \n Hedges first filed suit on Jan 13, 2012, and was eventually Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, previously told RT<\/a> that he expected the White House \n But with the court\u2019s 3-0 ruling this week, a federal panel \n After years of debate, the appeals court said once and for all \n \u201cSection 1021(e) provides that Section 1021 just does not \n \u201cWe thus conclude, consistent with the text and buttressed in \n \u201cBut with respect to citizens, lawful resident aliens, or \n The AUMF, however, is still open to interpretation. An earlier \n \u201cIn any event, the March 2009 Memo took the view that \u2018the \n \u201cThe government contends that Section 1021 simply reaffirms \n Definitions aside, however, the appeals court wrote that Hedges \n \u201cWe recognize that Section 1021 perhaps could have been \n At the same time, though, the appeals court acknowledged that \n J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir, 46, has been a member of the Iceland parliament since \n \u201cThe claims of J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir and Wargalla stand differently. \n Elsewhere, the judges wrote that the government insists that \n \u201cOne perhaps might fear that J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir\u2019s and Wargalla\u2019s \n Because \u201cplaintiffs have provided no basis for believing that \n \u201cIn sum, Hedges and O\u2019Brien do not have Article III standing \n Meanwhile, the court\u2019s decision did little to resolve what
\n injunction against Section 1021, prompting the Obama
\n administration to request an appeal<\/a> last year. On Wednesday this week, an
\n appeals court in New York ruled in favor of the government and
\n once again allowed the White House to legally indefinitely detain
\n persons that fit in the category of enemy combatants or merely
\n provide them with support.\n<\/p>\n
\n taking their case to the Supreme Court. Should the high court
\n agree to hear their argument, the top justices in the US may
\n finally weigh in on the controversial counterterrorism law.\n<\/p>\n
\n National Defense Authorization Act has been at the center of
\n debate since before President Barack Obama autographed the bill
\n in December 2011, but a federal lawsuit filed by Pulitzer
\n Prize-winning war correspondent Chris Hedges and others only two
\n weeks after it went into effect remains as relevant as ever in
\n light of a decision delivered Wednesday by the US Court of
\n Appeals for the Second Circuit.\n<\/p>\n![\"Chris](\"http:\/\/rt.com\/files\/news\/1f\/cb\/50\/00\/2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n convincing a federal district judge to keep Section 1021 from
\n being put on the books, but the latest ruling negates an earlier
\n injunction and once again reestablished the government\u2019s right to
\n indefinitely detain people under the NDAA.\n<\/p>\n
\n told RT, \u201cLosing one battle is not losing the war. This war is
\n an assault on truth itself. It flaunts reason, sanity and basic
\n decency. We will not stand down in the face of these egregious
\n assaults on our rights and liberties<\/i>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n \u201cdistressing<\/i>\u201d and said, \u201cIt means there is no recourse
\n now either within the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches
\n of government to halt the steady assault on our civil liberties
\n and most basic Constitutional rights<\/i>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n US can indefinitely imprison any person who was part of or
\n substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated
\n forces engaged in hostilities against the US or its coalition
\n partners, as well as anyone who commits a “belligerent
\n act<\/i>” against the US under the law of war, “without trial,
\n until the end of the hostilities<\/i>.\u201d The power to do as much
\n was allegedly granted to the commander-in-chief after the
\n Authorization to Use Military Force was signed into law shortly
\n after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but a team of
\n plaintiffs have argued that Section 1021 provides the White House
\n with broad, sweeping powers that put the First
\n Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech and assembly at risk
\n while also opening the door for the unlawful prosecution of
\n anyone who can be linked to an enemy of the state.\n<\/p>\n
\n filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration challenging the
\n constitutional validity of Section 1021.\n<\/p>\n
\n whom this country brands as terrorists \u2026 but that does not make
\n me one<\/i>,\u201d he said at the time.\n<\/p>\n
\n she has skipped meetings with individuals and dropped stories
\n that she believed are newsworthy \u201cfor no other reason than to
\n avoid potential repercussions under the bill<\/i>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n![\"Author](\"http:\/\/rt.com\/files\/news\/1f\/cb\/50\/00\/1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n joined by a number of activists, reporters and human rights
\n workers from both the US and abroad, including Pentagon Papers
\n leaker Daniel Ellsberg, journalist Alexa O\u2019Brien, Revolution
\n Truth founder Bolen and Icelandic PM Birgitta J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir.
\n District Court Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiffs a
\n preliminary injunction against Section 1021 that May, only to
\n make that decision permanent four months later. The Obama
\n administration filed a stay against that injunction just days
\n after, though, and the appeals court ruled this week that Judge
\n Forrest\u2019s decision must be vacated.\n <\/p>\n
\n to lose the appeal. \u201cThe Obama administration has now lost
\n three times. They lost the temporary injunction, they lost the
\n motion for reconsideration and they lost the hearing for
\n permanent injunction. I say three strikes and you\u2019re out<\/i>,\u201d he
\n said.
\n <\/p>\n
\n concluded that the plaintiffs involved in the suit do not have
\n standing to challenge Section 1021. In doing so, however, they
\n offered what is the most official interpretation yet of a law
\n that has continuously attracted criticism for nearly two years
\n now.\n<\/p>\n
\n that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, and rehashed
\n the Obama administration\u2019s insistence that it simply reaffirmed
\n rights afforded to the government through the AUMF.\n<\/p>\n
\n speak \u2013 one way or the other \u2013 to the government\u2019s authority to
\n detain citizens, lawful resident aliens or any other persons
\n captured or arrested in the United States<\/i>,\u201d the court ruled.\n<\/p>\n
\n part by the legislative history, that Section 1021 means this:
\n With respect to individuals who are not citizens, are not lawful
\n resident aliens and are not captured or arrested within the
\n United States, the President\u2019s AUMF authority includes the
\n authority to detain those responsible for 9\/11 as well as those
\n who were a part of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the
\n Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities
\n against the United States or its coalition partners \u2013 a detention
\n authority that Section 1021 concludes was granted by the original
\n AUMF<\/i>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n individuals captured or arrested in the United States, Section
\n 1021 simply says nothing at all<\/i>,\u201d it concluded.\n<\/p>\n
\n legal ruling concluded that the AUMF \u201cclearly and
\n unmistakable<\/i>\u201d authorized detaining those who were \u201cpart of
\n or supporting forces hostile to the US<\/i>.\u201d Then a memo issued
\n in March 2009 just weeks\u2019 into Pres. Obama\u2019s first term even
\n added that the government has the authority \u201cto detain persons
\n who were part of or substantially supported<\/i>\u201d anyone engaged
\n in hostilities against US or its partners.\n<\/p>\n
\n AUMF is not limited to persons captured on the battlefields of
\n Afghanistan\u2019 nor to those \u2018directly participating in
\n hostilities<\/i>,\u2019\u201d the appeals court noted. When the DC Circuit
\n weighed in further down the road, it determined that the AUMF
\n authorized detention for those who \u201cpurposefully and
\n materially support<\/i>\u201d those hostile forces, although this
\n week\u2019s ruling makes note that the Circuit Court has failed to
\n ever figure out what \u201csupport<\/i>\u201d exactly means.\n<\/p>\n
\n authority that the government already had under the AUMF,
\n suggesting at times that the statute does next to nothing at all.
\n Plaintiffs take a different view<\/i>,\u201d wrote the court this week.\n<\/p>\n
\n and his American co-plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the
\n indefinite detention provisions since a subsection of that rule,
\n 1021(e), frees US citizens from detention under the NDAA.\n<\/p>\n
\n drafted in a way that would have made this clearer and that the
\n absence of any reference to American citizens in Section 1021(b)
\n led the district court astray in this case. Perhaps the
\n last-minute inclusion of Section 1021(e) as an amendment
\n introduced on the floor of the Senate explains the somewhat
\n awkward construction<\/i>,\u201d wrote the court. \u201cBut that is
\n neither here nor there. It is only our construction, just
\n described, that properly gives effect to the text of all of the
\n parts of Section 1021 and thus reflects congressional
\n intent<\/i>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n Iceland\u2019s J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir, co-plaintiff Kai Wargalla of Germany and
\n other foreign persons could be detained indefinitely under the
\n NDAA. Although J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir has argued that her well-documented
\n affiliation with the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks \u2013 particularly
\n with regards to classified material its published much to the
\n chagrin of the US government \u2013 is enough to land her in hot
\n water, the court said indefinite imprisonment in a military jail
\n cell is an unrealistic fear and she therefore lacks standing.\n<\/p>\n
\n 2009, the same year that US Army Private first class Bradley
\n Manning began supplying materials to WikiLeaks. J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir and
\n WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange worked directly with raw video
\n footage supplied by Manning showing a US helicopter fatally
\n wounding innocent civilians and journalists, which the website
\n later released under the name \u201cCollateral Murder.\u201d And although
\n Pfc. Manning is currently on trial<\/a> for \u201caiding the enemy\u201d by
\n supplying WikiLeaks \u2013 and indirectly al-Qaeda \u2013 with that
\n intelligence, the court said J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir herself has nothing to
\n fear.
\n <\/p>\n
\n Whereas Section 1021 says nothing about the government\u2019s
\n authority to detain citizens, it does have real meaning regarding
\n the authority to detain individuals who are not citizens or
\n lawful resident aliens and are apprehended abroad<\/i>,\u201d the court
\n ruled.\n<\/p>\n
\n WikiLeaks and Manning provided \u201csome support<\/i>\u201d to hostile
\n forces by publishing classified intelligence, and that the
\n 25-year-old Army private is indeed facing prosecution for such
\n that could put him away for life.\n<\/p>\n
\n efforts on behalf of WikiLeaks could be construed as making them
\n indirect supporters of al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well<\/i>,\u201d
\n wrote the court. \u201cThe government rejoins that the term
\n \u2018substantial support\u2019 cannot be construed so in this particular
\n context. Rather, it contends that the term must be understood \u2013
\n and limited \u2013 by reference to who would be detainable in
\n analogous circumstances under the laws of war<\/i>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n the government will place J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir and Wargalla in military
\n detention for their supposed substantial support<\/i>,\u201d the court
\n has rejected their lawsuit.\n<\/p>\n
\n to challenge the statute because Section 1021 simply says nothing
\n about the government\u2019s authority to detain citizens<\/i>,\u201d
\n concluded the court. \u201cWhile Section 1021 does have meaningful
\n effect regarding the authority to detain individuals who are not
\n citizens or lawful resident aliens and are apprehended abroad,
\n J\u00c3\u00b3nsd\u00c3\u00b3ttir and Wargalla have not established standing on this
\n record. We vacate the permanent injunction and remand for further
\n proceedings consistent with this opinion<\/i>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n actually is allowed under the AUMF. In fact, the court said
\n Section 1021 \u201cdoes not foreclose the possibility that previous
\n ‘existing law’ may permit the detention of American
\n citizens<\/i>,\u201d making note of American Yaser Esam Hamdi and a
\n three-year ordeal that left him without the right to habeas
\n corpus or an attorney after he was picked up in post-9\/11
\n Afghanistan on suspicion of terroristic ties. Instead, it
\n confirmed that foreign citizens engaged with substantially
\n supporting hostile forces\u2013 neither of which term is still
\n properly defined \u2013 can be locked up in military jails.\n<\/p>\n