with Chris Hedges
TheRealNews on Nov 10, 2016
The tools of state repression that will end up in the hands of a Trump administration were built by both Republicans and Democrats, says the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist.
by Vashti Kenway
May 26, 2016
The expansion of the Big Brother surveillance state in the U.S. has had greater scrutiny thanks to courageous whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and journalists like Glenn Greenwald. But the increase in state repression and violations of basic civil liberties–often carried out in the name of the “war on terror”–has gone global. In this article published at the Australian newspaper Red Flag, explains how “thought crime,” a concept once confined to science fiction, has become sufficient grounds to arrest and detain–and considers the ramifications of a strengthened state apparatus in Australia and beyond.
A President of the United States would never operate outside the law, ignore the U.S. Constitution and the courts, shut down the presses, imprison his domestic adversaries or turn his guns on his own people. Well, Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president did of all of that and, curiously, has been turned into a national hero for his troubles. Lincoln ignored his closest advisors and the temper of the times to engage in the bloodiest war in American history, a war that could easily have been avoided. Single handedly Lincoln terrorized the entire nation. So let us take notice. What happened once could happen again.
RTAmerica on Sep 4, 2013
This week the California State Senate unanimously shot down the federal government’s indefinite detention powers in a 37-0 vote. Lawmakers are refusing to provide material support for the National Defense Authorization Act, and if the measure becomes law it will be difficult for the government to enforce indefinite detention in the state. Tangerine Bolen, founder and director for RevolutionTruth, has more on the NDAA. Continue reading
Injustices do not become any less unjust the longer they are not addressed, and when it comes to the “war on terror” launched by President Bush following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, those injustices continue to fester, and to poison America’s soul.
One of those injustices is Guantánamo, where 166 men are still imprisoned, even though 86 of them were cleared for release by a task force established by the President four years ago, and another is Bagram in Afghanistan (renamed and rebranded the Parwan Detention Facility), Continue reading
RTAmerica·Dec 19, 2012
If you have been following the National Defense Authorization Act, it is no secret that the issue is anything but a roller coaster ride. Last month the Senate approved an amendment that would prevent the military from detaining American citizens suspected of terrorism without a trial, but on Tuesday lawmakers dropped that same ban. Tangerine Bolen, founder and director for RevolutionTruth, breaks down what the NDAA could mean for Americans.
RevolutionTruthOrg·Dec 14, 2012
On December 6, 2012, RevolutionTruth hosted a live panel discussion with David Remes and Andy Worthington to discuss the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, the U.S. Government’s current position on indefinite detention, and their work examining and dealing with the effects it has had on the detainees that reside there.
by Jean-Claude Paye
Translation by Pete Kimberley
Nov. 13, 2012
Far from having broken with his Republican predecessor, Democratic President Barack Obama has now reinforced the law of exception that he criticised when he was a senator. It is now possible to deprive United States citizens of their fundamental rights because they have taken part in armed action against their own country, but also when they take a political position favourable to those who use military action to resist the Empire. Worse – Barack Obama has added to the law John Yoo’s “Unitary Executive theory,” which puts an end to the principles of the separation of powers as defined by Montesquieu. The security policy of the United States President now escapes all control.
Jun 11, 2012 by RTAmerica
Then Senator Obama touted if he became president of the United States, he would make shutting down Guantanamo Bay a top priority. But for many, the failure of restoring the right to Habeas Corpus to those prisoners is unacceptable. On Monday, the Supreme Court gave a preview of the cases it would be willing to hear in its next term from detainees being held in the Cuban facility. Several people in Gitmo have been officially cleared for release, but still remain behind bars. Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files, joins us to explain why that is.
Statement Introducing Repeal of Sec. 1021 of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Mr. Speaker: I rise today to introduce a very simple piece of legislation to repeal the infamous Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, quietly signed into law by the president on New Year’s Day.
Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of presidential authority under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law. Continue reading
democracynow on Jan 17, 2012
http://www.democracynow.org – Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges has filed suit against President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes controversial provisions authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world, without charge or trial. Sections of the bill are written so broadly that critics say they could encompass journalists who report on terror-related issues, such as Hedges, for supporting enemy forces. “It is clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges says of the bill.
“It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.” We speak with Hedges, now a senior fellow at the Nation Institute, and former New York Times foreign correspondent who was part of a team of reporters that was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. We are also joined by Hedges’ attorney Carl Mayer, who filed the litigation on his behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
BasilOwens on Jan 14, 2012
On the tenth anniversary of the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp, Andy Worthington, along with several attorneys and a former navy prison guard – Speak outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on January 11, 2012.
Jan. 4, 2012
Far from being the exception, the undermining of constitutional rights is standard operating procedure under capitalism, regardless of which politicians are in charge.
THE U.S. military can indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without trial–that’s the latest of our supposedly “inalienable rights” sacrificed by the Democratic former constitutional law professor who currently inhabits in the White House.
After promising during his campaign to roll back the abuses of the Bush administration, Barack Obama has spent the last three years pushing through attacks on civil liberties that Republicans could only dream about. Continue reading
Before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there were only two ways of holding prisoners — either they were prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, or they were criminal suspects, to be charged and subjected to federal court trials.
That all changed when the Bush administration threw out the Geneva Conventions, equated the Taliban with al-Qaeda, and decided to hold both soldiers and terror suspects as “illegal enemy combatants,” who could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial, and with no rights whatsoever.
Ron Paul is the only antiwar candidate who has a (microscopic) chance of winning in 2012. He’s also the only candidate who will make an effort to restore the Bill of Rights and reverse Congress’s decision to allow the president to “indefinitely” imprison American citizens without due process. For these reasons alone, Paul should garner the support of leftists, liberals, and progressives. But he won’t, because liberals are convinced that Paul will try to dismantle the social programs upon which the elderly, the infirm, and the vulnerable depend.