Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

November 09 2012

surveyork
21:33
... and drone killings, indefinite detention, Guantanamo, massive surveillance and wiretapping of US citizens, TSA scanners & pat-downs, no regulation for the banking system, US citizens held as political prisoners in US prisons...
via someweed.jpeg (JPEG Image, 600 × 480 pixels)

October 27 2012

surveyork
15:56
The US Administration has the legislation (National Defense Authorization Act) in place to allow it to seek the extradition and indefinite detention of anyone in the world it perceives to be acting against US interests, or is reporting on or revealing information against US interests, or is regarded as an ‘enemy of the state’, or is a supporter of an ‘enemy of the state’. It could be applied, for example, against Wikileaks supporters/organisers, or citizen or mainstream journalists, or political dissidents generally. Or you. And if you are not a US citizen you could be subject to extradition proceedings and held on an offshore facility – e.g. Guantanamo.

August 26 2012

surveyork
12:18
In May, following a March hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers essentially asserted even more extreme powers - the power to entirely disregard the judge and the law. Indeed, on Monday, August 6, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction - a profoundly important development that as of this writing has been scarcely reported.

August 21 2012

surveyork
13:00

August 13 2012

surveyork
13:25

In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week's hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.

To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl