Free Speech Under Attack
2012
I often find interesting articles in newspapers overseas on
news that somehow doesn't get reported here. Sometimes these
articles are more than just interesting, but very important to
us here in the United States. Recently I was reading an article by Tangerine Bolen in the Guardian (which
is based in the United Kingdom). In it she says;
I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against
the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president
the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants,
without charge or trial.
When Obama signed the bill into law, he announced that although
he signed it he wouldn't use it (and what exactly would it be
needed for then?). You can read his statement here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
Judge Katherine Forrest issued a temporary injunction in May
to stop the worst parts of the law (Section 1021) from going
into effect in May, but US government lawyers then argued that
the administration can ignore the judge's ruling. On August 6
Obama's lawyers appealed the injunction formally. Why do they
feel the need to fight a law that will not be used? No answer.
What does the law provide for? According to Bolen, in her
Guardian article;
...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.
The bottom line is that so far, when asked to do so, the government's
lawyers have refused to offer any clear definition of what an
"associated force" is, which leaves them free to to
define it as they wish. In other words, the law gives the government
virtually unlimited power to lock up anyone who criticizes what
they do.
At the hearing in early August Obama's attorneys again refused
to define what the law allowed. Worse, when they were specifically
asked if NDAA's section 1021, the part which allows reporters
to be detained without trial (and for an unspecified period of
time), had been used by the US government after the injunction
was issued, they would not say. They essentially asserted the
right to ignore the law and the courts. Judge Forest replied
that if it section 1021 has been applied the government would
now be in contempt of court.
The lawsuit is an attack on a bad law, not an attack on Obama.
Bolen admits in her article that she voted for the president,
and isn't particularly thrilled about suing his administration.
But I for one am happy she decided to do it.
The right to free speech is the most important freedom we
have. Any other freedoms we lose might be regained as long as
we can speak out and change people's minds. But when reporters
and others are censored by threat of imprisonment, it becomes
more and more difficult to stop further attacks on freedom.
Copyright Webhiker LLC - Terms
/ Privacy / Contact |
