Forum Post: Chris Hedges files suit against Barack Obama
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 16, 2012, 12:22 p.m. EST by LetsGetReal
(1420)
from Grants, NM
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The complaint challenges the constitutionality of Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act and seeks a permanent injunction against its enforcement.
"This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.
The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_suing_barack_obama_20120116/
I wish Chris Hedges luck.
I will NOT vote for Obama or any congressman currently in office. Between this an SOPA we are now under a totalitarian gov't.
[Removed]
U2 - Mothers Of The Disappeared (Karaoke with Lyrics)
[Removed]
the vote to go war on Iraq was near anonymous
Uranium capital of the world...even now? Or just an old motto in need of a replacement? Batter up.
Obama, post-Constitutional authoritarian leading America's single-minded Congressional duopoly into the 21st century.
[Removed]
well that's nice. Blame the President.
Here is what is so lame-brained about about blaming the President:
The United States Constitution
Article II, section 8
The Congress shall have the power;
. . .
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
The Congress has the Constitutional authority to make rules concerning captures on land and water.
That is what they did. They made rules. They attached those rules to a spending bill - on the heels of deadline for passage of said spending bill.
Blame the President if you like - that is your right. But it is counter productive in this instance.
Blame Congress.
Blame the authors of this bill.
Blame John McCain and Carl Levin.
I blame everyone who voted for it, and I suspect Hedges does too. The complaint names the president and the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, because by virtue of their positions, they are the people who would be ordering detentions under this law. Implementation of the law is not a power of congress.
Obama has responsibility here too. He failed to veto the bill.
Pay Attention
The house and senate then held up ultimate passage of the bill until the very last moment - when a veto would have resulted in many functions of government going unfunded until such time as the Congress rewrote the legislation.
Obama did indeed object to some provisions in the original bill and threatened a veto if these were not remedied. Unfortunately, his objections were not based on civil liberties or due process grounds. He objected because he wanted even more power. After congress gave him the powers he wanted, he was happy to sign it. Glenn Greenwald explains it well:
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/page/4/
Yea, Greenwald's still OK.
interesting
this suggests the president didn't have the power during that time
the president would have foreseen this instance
a find the excuse suspect
So you admit the President negotiated with terrorists and got cock-blocked for NO REASON!!!
Try reading the text of the complaint first. They are seeking:
1) that the Section 1031 of NDAA 2012 be declared unconstitutional.
and
2) An injunction against executive enforcement of the bill for the duration of the suit.
The whole point is that, if NDAA 2012 stands with Section 1031, Hedges and other journalists will not be able to do their jobs, and thus their free speech is curtailed, and their ability to earn a living (legal actions have to be tied to actionable damages).
Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense also named.
Leon Panetta on NDAA Section 1032 of the original Senate Version:
Section 1032. We recognize your efforts to address some of our objections to section 1032. However, it continues to be the case that any advantages to the Department of Defense in particular and our national security in general in section 1032 of requiring that certain individuals be held by the military are, at best, unclear. This provision restrains the Executive Branch's options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available.
Moreover, the failure of the revised text to clarify that section 1032 applies to individuals captured abroad, as we have urged, may needlessly complicate efforts by frontline law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the United States.
Next, the revised language adds a new qualifier to
associated force''--that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda.'' In our view, this new language unnecessarily complicates our ability to interpret and implement this section.Further, the new version of section 1032 makes it more apparent that there is an intent to extend the certification requirements of section 1033 to those covered by section 1032 that we may want to transfer to a third country. In other words, the certification requirement that currently applies only to Guantanamo detainees would permanently extend to a whole new category of future captures. This imposes a whole new restraint on the flexibility we need to continue to pursue our counterterrorism efforts. From letter by Penetta sent to Carl Levin
Presidential Signing states
On December 31, 2011 President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law. When he signed the law, he also issued a signing statement on how he would interpret the law. In that signing statement, President Obama clarifies that the law does indeed allow for the arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens.
The President then asserts that he will not use the law for these purposes and that the inclusion of the language is counter to the Constitution and US traditions. This declaration is counter to Senator Levin's statements that the Obama administration requested that language which would have prevented the law from applying to US citizens be removed.
I wish you fuckers would pay attention.
Differences of opinion, even heated debate, do not justify a lack of civility such as calling those who disagree with you vulgar names.
Get with the program, mate. It's this or Lithium for many of us!!! [sic] lol!
section 1032. is a terrorism tool
people fear that they can be disappeared by the government
I haven't been disappeared yet
when I grow up,
terrorism was associated with government
that ruled it's people through fear
south american dictatorships would "disappear" dissenter
Yes, it has happened in countries where we helped destabilize elected governments and supported dictatorships.
Yes, the provisions in NDAA are not good news - and both the President and members of his administration have made clear they oppose portions of the final bill.
Let me repeat that - because I see this is a point that many don't quite understand:
Blame those responsible - Carl Levin and John McCain for writing it, Congress as a whole for passing it.
[Removed]
ZenDog, they may as well be against gravity!!!
When you ask me to understand and accept the absurd notion that crib notes mean ANYTHING then you are asking me to be JUST AS CORRUPT as the system I hate watching come to fruition!!!
No matter how many CORRUPTED lawyers you get on your side of this issue, I will still revolt against a system of laws AND CHICKEN SCRATCHES!
For god's sake what the hell are you doing here!?!
Obviously on this particular issue I'm pissing in the wind.
I hope, but props all the same :)
Did you happen to catch Bill Maher last Fri? That Debbie Wiesman, who I normally would give the time-of-day to, was genuinely surprised when she was not allowed to make the exact same claim you made here. Maher and Riner (Rob) shot her down before she could finish saying "signing statement".
There is real lib anger over this, not just whack-a-doodle Libertarians.
Keep typing! :) Peace
Yeah - I get it. I also get that there is a bit of spin over it as a result - and because it pertains to terrorists I haven't examined it as closely as the issue itself merits.
I keep pointing out that I haven't been arrested yet - I take that as a positive sign.
I think if you really want to create change on this issue, you have to accept that the provisions in the final version of NDAA section 1021 simply reaffirms authority the President already has, going back to 2001, and extends that authority to the U.S.
Ultimately the problem is in treating terrorism as an act of war. That is the root from which all of this grows.
Terrorists aren't warriors and I greatly resent the notion that they are. They are common criminals. No more. No less.
Life in America has been reduced to a Peanut's strip. All hail Chuck!
how's that?
I get that the comics often reflect on and mock various aspects of American culture -
take Boopsie and her alien breeding farms - forgotten which strip that's from, Dunesbury maybe.
I do not accept Obama's duck
I wish you fuckers would pay attention. Said King George!