The
defense bill that lets the government indefinitely detain any US
citizen without charge or trial wasn't mentioned once during the
three presidential debates, but that didn’t stop activists from
sounding off: #StopNDAA went worldwide Monday night.
RT,
23
October, 2012
A
campaign aimed at drawing awareness to the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and a draconian provision that
provides the government the power to lock-up any person on mere
suspicion of terrorist ties succeeded during Monday’s third and
final presidential debate.
“#StopNDAA”
was among the most popular hashtags included in messages sent over
Twitter Monday night, at one point entering the list of top worldwide
trends.
The
action was coordinated thanks in part to a grassroots campaign
orchestrated by Revolution Truth and Demand Progress, among others,
advertised through StopNDAA.org and endorsed by thousands of
activists across the globe.
“Both
parties are colluding in denying you your First and Fifth amendment
rights under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, and both
candidates refuse to discuss this bipartisan assault on civil
liberties,” a message posted on the Stop NDAA website reads.
Elsewhere
on the site, examples of sample tweets were included alongside
information about the annual Pentagon spending blueprint that was
drafted last year to include a provision, Section 1021, that affirms
that the president can use military force to imprison any person
considered to have “substantially supported” a terrorist group
engaged in hostilities against the US or its allies. Under the law,
though, the commander-in-chief can also lock-up any individual until
a vaguely defined “end of hostilities” without ever being
required to try them in a court of law.
“When
Congress passes a law that is so vague, [it] always has a chilling
effect on everyone’s speech and that is not permitted under our
Constitution,” attorney Carl Mayer told RT earlier this year. “You
can’t chill a journalist’s speech; you can’t chill your speech
or your colleague’s speech or your producer’s speech or other
journalists who you work with by holding a Sword of Damocles over
your head by threatening you of being detained by the military. That
is something that you have a fundamental right to be protected by.”
US
President Barack Obama inked the NDAA on December 31, 2011, including
with his signature a signing statement that acknowledged he had
“reservations” about the indefinite detention provision, but
would put the bill into law regardless. Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist Chris Hedges filed a federal lawsuit against the White
House in response, to which he is now joined by co-plaintiffs Alexa
O’Brien, Tangerine Bolen and others under the legal guidance of Mr.
Mayer.
Judge
Katherine Forrest for US District Court in Manhattan sided with the
plaintiffs’ claim that Sec. 1021 was in violation of the US
Constitution and granted a permanent injunction finding that part of
the NDAA illegal, but the White House asked an appellate court to
place a stay on her ruling, effectively allowing the Obama
administration to enforce the indefinite detention provision despite
the federal judge’s order.
“If
the Obama administration simply appealed it, as we expected, it would
have raised this red flag,” Hedges told an online audience during a
question-and-answer session hosted on Reddit.com last month. “But
since they were so aggressive it means that once Judge Forrest
declared the law invalid, if they were using it, as we expect, they
could be held in contempt of court. This was quite disturbing, for it
means, I suspect, that US citizens, probably dual nationals, are
being held in military detention facilities almost certainly overseas
and maybe at home.”
During
Monday’s debate, social media accounts associated with the
Anonymous hacktivist movement and several noted journalists including
Bolen and O’Brien were among the many that attempted to make a
splash Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.