Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

Pack The Court: Stand Against NDAA

Posted 3 years ago on Feb. 5, 2013, 6:19 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Tags: nyc, ndaa

stop NDAA

Join us and pack the court on February 6 at 10:00 am, 40 Foley Square, Room 1005. This is a critical step in our case, Hedges v. Obama, and the stakes are high. We need your presence in court to show that Americans care about their civil rights.

Join us in solidarity and support of the named plaintiffs Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Brigitta Jónsdóttir, Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen, Kai Wargalla, and Alexa O’Brien who are challenging the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court is located on 40 Foley Square, NY, NY in room 1505 on the 15th floor. All are welcome.

Visit http://www.stopndaa.org/ for more info and all court filings.

Facebook Event: https://www.facebook.com/events/123804614457311/



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 3 years ago

I wish I could be there to protest this outrageous attack on our freedoms.


[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 3 years ago

End indefinite detention.

Hearing room much too small (by design?) Overflow room also small with inadequate audio.

Good liberal judges in NYC. Hopefully the decision (within weeks) will be to uphold the injunction and favor the civil rights of the 99%.

End indefinite detention!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 3 years ago

Thanks for the update on this. I am cautiously optimistic that the ruling will be favorable.


[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 3 years ago

It is up to us to force the government to stop. I am surprised and encouraged that the MSM is actually reporting on this. Mainly liberal news outlets though. Still don't see much anti drone coverage on the right.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 3 years ago

That is encouraging that some in the MSM are covering this, but i continue to view them with tons of skepticism as we all know who owns them


[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 3 years ago

You are smart to retain sketicism. The MSM conglomerates should be broken up as much as the banks.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 3 years ago

Not having an independent MSM is a huge problem, and it is one of our biggest obstacles.

They definitely should be broken up


[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 3 years ago

We do have the internet and independent civilian journalists that WILL push MSM to be more honest & fair. And we do have our protesting bodies to add to that pressure.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

Yes thank God for social media as that is just about the only way we can reach a wider audience

As was discussed on another thread, the conservative MSM is starting to lose ground, but we must not fall into the trap in thinking that the more liberal media will report our struggle accurately. They both have the same masters.


[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 2 years ago

All msm conglomerates must be broken up. Ideology notwithstanding. Trust no media liberal or otherwise. Check and double check all stories independently.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Bradley Manning Support Network www.bradleymanning.org/

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Thanks, signed the letter.

There was no contact info or forum though.

I would like to suggest a campaign demanding time served as his full sentence.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I believe what he did was just and right

if anything, crimes he exposed should be persecuted

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yep, but no matter what they do, I don't want to see Bradley spend another day unfree when this "trial" is over.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

it's been a long time

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 3 years ago

With the plaintiff line up I'm sure their case against ndaa is airtight. Here's hoping the judge in the case is not a corporate shill.

[-] 1 points by RepealAUMFNow (3) 2 years ago

AUMF Hunger Strike: Forget #Petitions. Take #DirectAction to #DemandAction to Pass #HR198, Repeal #AUMF 2001 and Undo #NDAA 2012. #AumfHungerStrike: Learn more: bit.ly/X95vvH

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago


Military Imprisonment ANYWHERE in the world. No phone calls. No Layers No charges, No Trials. Indefinite detention possibly based on suspicion alone.

The Appeal of the 2012 NDAA will be heard on February 6, 2013.

all those indefinitely detained are turning in their cells


[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 3 years ago

We stand with you against government violations against our civil rights. I hope they let us in.

[-] 0 points by magician (31) 3 years ago

To enhance the art of throwing tomatoes. Se the videos below. Add vegetables or substitutes thereof.



[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 3 years ago

Stop the NDAA

War is the enemy of the poor.

Not only does this bill authorize more war and more war spending to the benefit of war profiteers, it is also a theft of rights and is absolutely unconstitutional.

Signing statement shmining statement. Bradley Manning is real and is an American being held under indefinite detention laws. -how long has it been now? Torturous conditions. Forced nudity, stress positions, solitary confinement in the dark.

Expose murder and fraud, get detained indefinitely. Yet a bank like HSBC can fund terrorism and just get a fine.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 3 years ago

And everyone is wondering why 'law abiding civilians" are arming themselves - think about it maybe it will sink in - do you really trust this government?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

I'm not wondering. They are, for the most part, a bunch of knee jerk, racist dip shits, that spend far too much time listening to AM radio after dark.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 3 years ago

So what you are saying is that 45% of the people in this country are "racists dip shits"? Am I undersatnding your comment correctly.

45% of the population own firearms so I guess that's what you are saying.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Are you saying that 45% of the country are gun nutters?

Then yes, I would say that.

However, that snark being mentioned, I would apply my statement about racism to all those who rush out to buy more guns every time Obama burps.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 3 years ago

Are you suggesting you would use armed violence against the government? With your military explosives. Tell us more.

You might want to check the Constitution and associated case law on that.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 3 years ago

Never made any such comment - you did. All I said was that people are arming themselves because they don't trust the governemnt.

Think they trust Obama or Fiendstein?

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 3 years ago

If you don't trust the government then you should exercise your 1st Amendment rights and -

'petition the Government for a redress of grievances'.

That is what this post is about. Protesting and petitioning the government. You totally missed the point. Instead, choosing to cling to your precious military explosives, as if that were a legitimate response.

It's assinine to suggest that it's a legitimate response that citizens should 'arm' themselves due to mistrust of government. Protesting is the legitimate response.

[-] 0 points by Climber369 (0) from Elkhart Lake, WI 2 years ago

You are assuming these people you disagree with are not exercisizing their 1st (and 2nd) amendment rights or petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Enough in-fighting. We all distrust the government period.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 3 years ago

There you go again stating things that I didn't say. A lot of people on this site have that problem. All I said was "people are arming themselves because they don't trust the government".

I never said a word about my trust towards the government - did I?

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 2 years ago

ok fine - 'people', not 'you'.

Why do you think 'people' are arming themselves?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people in general don't arm themselves

unless the are in danger

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

If it fails, how will the people react?

That is the litmus test as to whether it passes or not.