Chomsky, Hedges, Ellsberg file lawsuit against "anti-terrorism law" that curbs free speech and press [View all]

[Better Believe It]

Journalists, Activists Challenge NDAA Law
Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, among the plantiffs involved in the case
by Common Dreams staff
March 30, 2012

A group of prominent activists and journalists presented a legal challenge to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) yesterday, claiming to a New York City federal judge that the law inhibits their First Amendment Rights.

Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg are among the seven plaintiffs on the case. They argued the law, which includes controversial provisions authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world, without charge or trial. Critics say the the law is written in a way that it could put journalists who report on terror-related issues at risk for detention for supporting enemy forces.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/30-5


---------------------------------------------------------------------



US anti-terrorism law curbs free speech and activist work, court told
Controversy over NDAA centres on loose definition of key words, such as who are 'associated forces' of named terrorist groups
Paul Harris in New York
March 29, 2012

A group political activists and journalists has launched a legal challenge to stop an American law they say allows the US military to arrest civilians anywhere in the world and detain them without trial as accused supporters of terrorism.

The seven figures, who include ex-New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, professor Noam Chomsky and Icelandic politician and WikiLeaks campaigner Birgitta Jonsdottir, testified to a Manhattan judge that the law – dubbed the NDAA or Homeland Battlefield Bill – would cripple free speech around the world.

They said that various provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Bill, which was signed by President Barack Obama at the end of 2011, effectively broadened the definition of "supporter of terrorism" to include peaceful activists, authors, academics and even journalists interviewing members of radical groups.

Controversy centres on the loose definition of key words in the bill, in particular who might be "associated forces" of the law's named terrorist groups al-Qaida and the Taliban and what "substantial support" to those groups might get defined as. Whereas White House officials have denied the wording extends any sort of blanket coverage to civilians, rather than active enemy combatants, or actions involved in free speech, some civil rights experts have said the lack of precise definition leaves it open to massive potential abuse.

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/29/journalists-us-anti-terrorism-law-ndaa?newsfeed=true


--------------------------------------------------------------------



NDAA Lawsuit Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against ‘Unprecedented Threat To Civil Liberties’
By Ashley Portero:
March 29, 2012

Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg and Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir are among the seven witnesses expected to testify in a New York federal court on Thursday in support of a class action lawsuit against the United States government over controversial provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a military spending bill they claim threatens American's civil liberties and basic human rights.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest will hear arguments for a preliminary injunction against certain sections of the legislation, which was signed into law on Dec. 31. Buried in the otherwise mundane budget and expenditure bill is a provision under Section 1021 of the law that permits the indefinite military detention, without a formal charge or public trial, of anyone suspected of participating in or aiding a terrorist organization "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

Although the bill explicitly states the military detention provision does not apply to U.S. citizens, but only American al-Qaeda members overseas, some critics fear the language could eventually be interpreted to apply to all citizens, something Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said would be an "unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties."

"If there is no rolling back of the NDAA law, we cease to be a constitutional democracy. Totalitarian systems always begin by rewriting the law," Hedges said this week. "They make legal what was once illegal... Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security."

Read the full article at:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/321445/20120329/ndaa-lawsuit-obama-chris-hedges-daniel-ellsberg.htm