Reuters \/ Larry Downing<\/p>\n
The United States Supreme Court is being asked to hear a federal lawsuit challenging the military\u2019s legal ability to indefinitely detain persons under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, or NDAA.<\/p>\n
According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges \u2013 a Should the Supreme Court reject the plaintiffs\u2019 plea, Hedges said With the inking of his name to the annual Pentagon spending bill Journalists and human rights workers were among those to \u201cI have had dinner more times than I can count with people In an editorial<\/a> published by Hedges on Monday, he \u201cIn those days there was no law that could be used to seize Last year, US District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern The appellate court decided with that ruling that US citizens \u201cThe court, in essence, said that because it did not construe But according to Hedges and at least one member of his legal \u201cThe problem is by saying there\u2019s no standing<\/i>,\u201d attorney \u201cWe have the absurdity of the court of appeals, one of the Last year, Hedges suggested during a question-and-answer session \u201cIf the Obama administration simply appealed it, as we This week Hedges wrote, \u201cIf Section 1021 stands it will mean \u201cIt will mean citizens who are charged by the government with When Pres. Obama signed the NDAA on New Year\u2019s Eve, he added a \u201cFirst the terrorism-industrial complex assured Americans that Hedges has already been detained by the US, Hedges added, while Hedges is joined in the suit by a handful of plaintiffs, O\u2019Brien said she had interviewed former Guantanamo Bay detainees After Pres. Obama authorized the NDAA, O\u2019Brien said in court,
\nco-plaintiff in the case \u2013 attorneys will file paperwork in the
\ncoming days requesting that the country\u2019s high court weigh in on
\nHedges v. Obama<\/i> and determine the constitutionality of a
\ncontroversial provision that has continuously generated criticism
\ndirected towards the White House since signed into law by
\nPresident Barack Obama almost two years ago<\/a> and defended adamantly by his
\nadministration in federal court in the years since.<\/p>\n
\nit could signal the \u201cobliteration of our last remaining legal
\nprotections<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nnearly two years ago, President Obama awarded his military the
\npower to imprison persons suspected of ties to terrorist groups
\nuntil the vaguely-defined \u201cend of hostilities<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nimmediately oppose the Dec. 31, 2011 signing of the NDAA \u2013 and
\none provision in particular, Section 1021(e) \u2013 because they said
\nthe US government could manipulate the law in order to detain
\nanyone alleged to have \u201csubstantially supported<\/i>\u201d a group
\nthat\u2019s considered an enemy of America, without trial, until the
\nend of persistent and consistently expanding warfare.<\/p>\n
\nwhom this country brands as terrorists \u2026 but that does not make
\nme one,\u201d<\/i> Hedges, a long-time war correspondent for the New
\nYork Times, said when the suit was first filed<\/a> in federal court in early 2012.<\/p>\n
\nwrote that he has been detained numerous times during his decades
\nas a foreign correspondent, and in those instances was illegally
\nheld by the US government.<\/p>\n
\nand detain me<\/i>,\u201d he wrote. \u201cNow there is<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nDistrict of New York said Section 1021 was unconstitutional<\/a> and ordered an immediate stay on
\nthe provision. Without delay, however, the Obama administration
\nfiled an appeal<\/a> which was honored this past July when the US
\nCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit sided with the White House<\/a> and ruled 3-to-0 that the
\nAmerican co-plaintiffs could not challenge the NDAA because they
\nlacked standing.<\/p>\n
\ncouldn\u2019t fight Section 1021 in court because, \u201cwith respect to
\ncitizens, lawful resident aliens, or individuals captured or
\narrested in the United States, Section 1021 simply says nothing
\nat all<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nthe law as applying to US citizens and lawful residents we could
\nnot bring the case to court<\/i>,\u201d Hedges wrote this week in his
\nop-ed.<\/p>\n
\nteam, the court should be clearer and opine precisely in a manner
\nwhich ensures American citizens cannot be placed in indefinite
\nmilitary custody.<\/p>\n
\nBruce Afran told Hedges, \u201cthey deprive the district court of
\nentering an order, saying and declaring that the statue does not
\napply to US citizens or permanent residents, lawful residents in
\nthe US.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n
\nhighest courts in the country, saying this law cannot touch
\ncitizens and lawful residents, but depriving the trial court of
\nthe ability to enter an order blocking it from being used in that
\nway<\/i>,\u201d Afran told Hedges. \u201cThe lack of an order enables
\nfuture [military] detentions. A person may have to languish for
\nmonths, maybe years, before getting a court hearing. The
\n[appellate] court correctly stated what the law is, but it
\ndeprived the trial court of the ability to enter an order
\nstopping this [new] law from being used<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\non Reddit.com that the Obama administration may be defending
\nSection 1021 so adamantly in federal court because it is already being used<\/a>. If so, Hedges added this week,
\nnegating the power provided in that provision could lead the
\npresident to be found in contempt of court.<\/p>\n
\nexpected, it would have raised this red flag<\/i>,\u201d Hedges said in
\n2012. \u201cBut since they were so aggressive it means that once
\nJudge Forrest declared the law invalid, if they were using it, as
\nwe expect, they could be held in contempt of court. This was
\nquite disturbing, for it means, I suspect, that US citizens,
\nprobably dual nationals, are being held in military detention
\nfacilities almost certainly overseas and maybe at home<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nthat more than 150 years of case law in which the Supreme Court
\nrepeatedly held the military has no jurisdiction over civilians
\nwill be abolished<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u2018substantially supporting\u2019 al-Qaida, the Taliban or the nebulous
\ncategory of \u2018associated forces\u2019 will be lawfully subject to
\nextraordinary rendition. It will mean citizens seized by the
\nmilitary will languish in military jails indefinitely, or in the
\nlanguage of Section 1021 until \u2018the end of hostilities\u2019\u2013in an age
\nof permanent war, for the rest of their lives<\/i>,\u201d Hedges added.<\/p>\n
\nstatement in which he swore he wouldn\u2019t use the military
\ndetention provision against Americans. Given recent revelations
\nregarding his administration, however, another member of Hedges\u2019
\nlegal counsel told the journalist that he isn\u2019t so certain that
\nwill stand true.<\/p>\n
\nthey were only spying on foreigners, not US citizens<\/i>,\u201d Hedges
\nquoted from another attorney on the case, Carl Mayer. \u201cThen
\nthey assured us that they were only spying on phone calls, not
\nelectronic communications. Then they assured us that they were
\nnot spying on American journalists. And now both [major
\npolitical] parties and the Obama administration have assured us
\nthat they will not detain journalists, citizens and
\nactivists\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n
\nrecalling the case of Laura Poitras, an American filmmaker who
\nalso claims to have been repeatedly held and interrogated by
\nfederal officials during years of investigative work. Poitras has
\nmost recently collaborated with the Guardian\u2019s Glenn Greenwald on
\ndigesting the National Security Agency leaks<\/a> attributed to former
\nintelligence contractor Edward Snowden that have aided in
\ndisproving some of the promises already made by the Obama
\nadministration, as referenced by Carl Mayer.<\/p>\n
\nincluding Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, writer
\nNoam Chomsky and independent journalist Alexa O\u2019Brien. When the
\ncase was first brought before Judge Forrest last year, O\u2019Brien
\ntestified that federal contractors attempted to link a group she
\nco-founded, US Day of Rage, with Islamic organizations in an
\nattempt to discredit, and perhaps detain, her.<\/p>\n
\nas part of her work as a journalist and feared that those
\nconversations could be construed as giving \u201csubstantial
\nsupport<\/i>\u201d to terrorist groups of \u201cassociated forces<\/i>,\u201d
\nas described in the NDAA.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cI am now fearful of doing the type of reporting that I have
\ndone on individuals and organizations that are considered
\nterrorists by the United States government and my reporting has
\ntherefore been curtailed<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n