Compared to one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation signed into law (2012 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA), George W. Bush’s ‘Patriot Act’ and Obama’s secretive drone program have had some, not enough, but some share of publicity in the media.
The very civil liberties that guarantee our freedom’s and constitutional rights as Americans are being systematically killed off. Figuratively and literally. There are many examples to prove this. Whether it’s George W. Bush’s ‘Patriot Act’, which was extended by Obama after speaking out against them during his first Presidential campaign, or even worse, Obama’s self given right to kill American citizens and anybody around them if the President thinks it is necessary in order to keep America «safe»…
This is stripping of life not involving any judicial process what so ever. Yet, according to President Obama, warranting a drone missile being dropped on you or your son/daughter is the right choice if he and his National security advisors think you are stepping out of line. A line that a very select few know what it entails. Yet a line that with the very mention of the words «terrorists», «terror» or «freedom», might magically become clearer in the psyche of anyone who remembers the attacks of September 11 of 2001.
Compared to one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation signed into law (2012 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA), George W. Bush’s ‘Patriot Act’ and Obama’s secretive drone program have had some, not enough, but some share of publicity in the media. Whether it’s because President Bush was despised by the left, therefore the attention, or because drone killings around the world, including those of an American citizen and his teenage American son, can only be kept out of the publics view for so long. Now, in the name of fairness, there have been a few who have reported on Obama’s passion for unconstitutional prolonged detention of American citizens. The Young Turks and Rachel Maddow being two of those few.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year’s act also includes other provisions, some related to civil liberties. On New Year’s Eve of 2011, President Obama quietly signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law after threatening to veto it because of provisions that were snuck into the bill that gave the office of the President the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. After signing it, the President also released a statement «promising» not to use these new powers that he had threatened to veto because of the grave danger that they represented. As if this promise of his weighed more than the actual law itself, and completely ignoring the fact that even if he kept this «promise», there was no guarantee that other future President’s would do the same.
Shortly after, renown journalist Chris Hedges, along with other plaintiffs such as Dr. Cornell West and Linguist, writer and MIT professor Noam Chomsky, decided to sue President Obama in order to stop this unprecedented and unconstitutional law. Read Chris Hedges article on his deposition by the U.S. government here.
To the surprise of many, the federal judge assigned to the case, Katherine B. Forest, who ironically was appointed to the bench by President Obama himself, struck down part of this controversial law signed by the President, as judge Forest concluded that Section 1021 of the NDAA “…failed to ‘pass Constitutional muster’ because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.” In a statement clearly directed to lawmakers, she added, ”Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster.” That is, Congress failed—perhaps deliberately– to define “substantial support” of terrorist groups or describe those activities which might be construed as crossing the legal line. And no law may be enforced if those to whom it applies are unable to clearly understand what a violation of that law entails. Honorable Judge Forest’s complete opinion and order on Chris Hedge’s NDAA lawsuit, is read in it’s completion.
Chris Hedges’ reaction to Judge Forrest’s ruling during an interview with Democracy Now!
The Obama administration did not only appeal the ruling by federal Judge Forest. It also requested an ‘emergency’ stay. Which would of allowed the administration to keep these self given powers. Judge Forest refused. Only for this request to be granted later by a federal appeals court.
After all of this legal tight roping, actions of a few and a frankly embarrassing lack of media coverage, it seemed that the public outrage that had started to slowly brew was enough to catch the ears of some in Congress. For they might of actually felt that their jobs where in jeopardy do to their blatant attack on one of our most cherished rights as American citizens, Habeas Corpus. So Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)., and Mike Lee (R-UT), pushed through the Senate an amendment to the 2013 version of the NDAA. The amendment, although deeply flawed, at least made a symbolic attempt to restore the right to due process and trial by jury. A House-Senate conference committee led by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), however, removed the amendment from the bill.
This past Wednesday, February 6, the Obama administration’s arguments were heard at the federal appeals court in New York. On the steps of this very court, Chris Hedges spoke after the hearing and expressed his grave concern and suspicion that the Obama administration just might already be detaining American citizens without charge or trial. Even Michael Moore, who hasn’t been outspoken about this blatant attack on our right as American’s to do process, came out, after Wednesday’s hearing, and in an interview with The Guardian, urged the American public to stand up to Obama on this civil liberties issue. For he says that «At the moment a lot of people think the NDAA does not look scary. But this sort of thing never looks scary at the start. But the American people will rue the day if they do not stop this.»
Unfortunately, many of the organizations, politicians and American’s who criticized and fought against George W. Bush’s hawkish and unconstitutional laws that he passed in order to supposedly keep America safe, have gone quiet with President Obama, as if Obama having a (D) of the Democratic Party next to his name makes it acceptable to violate one our most basic of rights as Americans, and even taken it to a higher and more dangerous level than George W. Bush himself when it comes to our overall civil liberties which guarantee the very freedoms that our government is claiming to protect and that so many, throughout History, have sacrificed their very lives for.
Jorge Iniestra / «Entre Noticias» Editorial Team
