Image by Justin Norman via Flickr
Act of Faith? Congressmen admit to not reading NDAA before voting
RT on Dec 6, 2014
US House members admitted they had not read the entire $585 billion, 1,648-page National Defense Authorization Act, which predominantly specifies budgeting for the Defense Department, before it was voted on Thursday in Congress.
Image by Shrieking Tree via Flickr
ASecond0pinion·Jan 27, 2013
Join the movement: http://www.pandaunite.org
The PANDA (People Against the NDAA Mission Statement:
Our Mission is to nonviolently nullify, strike down, repeal, stop, void and fight the indefinite detention provisions, Sections 1021 and 1022, Continue reading
Propaganda Alert!
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 03, 2013
Statement by the President on H.R. 4310
Image by SS&SS via Flickr
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I have signed into law H.R. 4310, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.” I have approved this annual defense authorization legislation, as I have in previous years, because it authorizes essential support for service members and their families, renews vital national security programs, and helps ensure that the United States will continue to have the strongest military in the world.
by Chris Hedges
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Truthdig
December 24, 2012
Image by Shrieking Tree via Flickr
Over the past year I and other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg have pressed a lawsuit in the federal courts to nullify Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This egregious section, which permits the government to use the military to detain U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military detention centers, could have been easily fixed by Congress. The Senate and House had the opportunity this month to include in the 2013 version of the NDAA an unequivocal statement that all U.S. citizens would be exempt from 1021(b)(2), leaving the section to apply only to foreigners. Continue reading
Image by occupyreno_media via Flickr
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.
by Dennis J. Kucinich
Washington D.C.
December 13, 2012
Image by Lauriel-Arwen via Flickr
Billions to Continue War, Provoke Iran, Shred the Constitution — All Leading to Perpetual War
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement on the NDAA:
“Today, this House will send the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to conference. Contrary to its title, the bill does not provide for the protection of the American people. It expands war. It further indebts our nation. It encroaches on basic rights with regards to indefinite detention. It eliminates the basic tenet that due process rights apply to everyone in this country – not just American citizens.
Image by Lauriel-Arwen via Flickr
Dec 5, 2012 by RTAmerica
On Tuesday, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 came one step closer to becoming law. The US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the controversial act that could land American citizens behind bars. The NDAA has been challenged in court due to its explosive nature, in it if the president determines anyone an enemy combatant or found affiliated with enemy forces, including American citizens, they could find themselves imprisoned indefinitely by the US military. Carl Mayer, attorney with the Mayer Law groups, breaks down what the NDAA could mean for Americans.
Continue reading
Image by Lauriel-Arwen via Flickr
Oct 3, 2012 by RTAmerica
On Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled that the US government can indefinitely detain anyone under the National Defense Authorization Act. This comes as a blow to the ruling that was given earlier this year, when US District Court Judge Catherine Forrest ruled that the NDAA was unconstitutional. So what does this mean for journalists and why was it overturned? Carl Mayer, attorney for The Mayer Law Group, joins us with the latest.
Image by World Can’t Wait via Flickr
with Chris Hedges
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
September 29, 2012
Sep 28, 2012 by TheRealNews
Chris Hedges: We filed our lawsuit because this legislation threatens basic democratic rights allowing for indefinite military detention to repress domestic protest.
with Chris Hedges
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
September 28, 2012
Image by World Can’t Wait via Flickr
Sep 25, 2012 by heckofjob
Interview with Tangerine Bolen of Revolution Truth and Chris Hedges American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist regarding the lawsuit against Obama over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 1021.
Image by Shrieking Tree via Flickr
Sep 18, 2012 by democracynow
DemocracyNow.org – The Obama administration has filed an emergency appeal of a federal judge’s decision to block a controversial statute that gave the government the power to carry out indefinite detention. Judge Katherine Forrest ruled against a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, authorizing the imprisonment of anyone deemed a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial. A group of journalists, scholars and political activists had brought the case, arguing the provision was so broad it could easily infringe on freedom of speech. Continue reading
by Chris Hedges
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Truthdig
September 17, 2012
Image by World Can’t Wait via Flickr
In January I sued President Barack Obama over Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, strip them of due process and hold them in military facilities, including offshore penal colonies. Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.
with Chris Hedges
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
September 14, 2012
Image by Shrieking Tree via Flickr
Sep 14, 2012 by TheBigPictureRT
Chris Hedges, Truthdig “The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress” joins Thom Hartmann. Civil liberties advocates led by journalists and writers Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and Noam Chomsky secured a big victory yesterday. Federal Judge Katherine Forrest struck down the controversial indefinite detention provision passed and signed by President Obama on New Year’s Eve last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Continue reading
Sep 13, 2012 by RTAmerica
On Thursday, a Federal judge made permanent an injunction barring the indefinite detention of Americans without charge under the National Defense Authorization Act. The group of plaintiffs in this case comprised of seven journalists claiming this piece of legislation jeopardizes their livelihood. Their argument was that under the NDAA they could be detained indefinitely for just reporting on the violence in the Middle-East and interacting with terrorists. Kevin Gosztola, a blogger with FireDogLake.com, joins us with more.
Updated Sept 13, 2012
http://act.demandprogress.org
Sept. 12, 2012
We Won! Tell Obama: Don’t Appeal NDAA Court Ruling
We did it! But now we need your help putting pressure on Obama.
A federal court in New York just ruled indefinite detention UNCONSTITUTIONAL and issued a permanent injunction against use of that law. The provision would have allowed the military to detain civilians — even Americans — indefinitely and without trial if they’re accused of certain crimes or even just associated with certain criminals.
Dandelion Salad 