cynthia comment: Keeep in mind that we are only ‘citizen’ or ‘civilian’ by presumption… EVERYONE needs to make proper “claim” to “That is not me” and “Standing Under” Natural Law and the Positive Creator solely, “without” government (mind control in fact), politics (many votes in fact), or religion (soul\spirit bondage in fact)…
From: Behalf Of JD
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:55 PM
Subject: Fw: URGENT: Read the Judge’s Question that the Fed’s Couldn’t Answer!
Maybe something to be concerned about???
—– Original Message —–
From: Downsizer Dispatc
To: j dulaney
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:48 AM
Subject: URGENT: Read the Judge’s Question that the Fed’s Couldn’t Answer!
MOST DAYS you hear from DownsizeDC.org, Inc. Today’s message is from the Downsize DC Foundation.
Wait until you hear what a Judge asked in an NDAA case and what happened because the Federal lawyers COULDN’T ANSWER! Here’s the deal . . .
We face danger and opportunity. If we act immediately we can impact a huge court case involving the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA). A Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is challenging bad provisions of the NDAA in court, and he needs our immediate help. Our attorneys are prepared to act. Are you?
We’ve written about NDAA many times, explaining how it . . .
In fact, it makes the whole world, including your street, a battlefield. The President can even single you out to live under martial law.
We’ve also shown how Congress is lying about this bill. That’s why the Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org, Inc. have commissioned a legal memo to refute Congress’s lies.
We and our attorneys have also worked with Delegate Bob Marshall ofVirginiato pass a bill prohibitingVirginiaofficals from cooperating with these kidnapping provisions.
All of this has prepared our attorneys to file an Amicus brief in a very important case. But things have moved more quickly than anticipated. THE BRIEF IS DUE THIS FRIDAY.
Much of their research is already done, so this tight deadline is possible.
The lead plaintiff is Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Chris Hedges.
Hedges is a special plaintiff. He’s arguing that this law is uniquely designed to kidnap and silence reporters like him. After all, he’s embedded himself in hot zones around the world. He’s met with enemies of theFederalState. He’s interviewed people on the Most Wanted lists of various federal agencies. Under the law, one could suggest he has “coordinated” with these enemies of The State.
The bill’s incredibly vague description of “covered persons” convinces him (and us) that reporters COULD be arrested by the military, right here at home. They COULD be denied due process. They COULD be subject to a military tribunal, instead of an Article III court. It’s even possible that reporters could be “disappeared,” and never heard from again.
Because no actual harm has yet come to Hedges, he lacks “standing.” TheFederalState moved to dismiss the case. The dismissal should’ve been almost automatic. But the Judge asked a simple question . . .
After all, the liars in Congress have repeatedly told us Americans are exempt. But guess what? The U.S. Government did NOT directly respond to the Judge’s question. They basically ignored it.
The silence was deafening. Could they not, easily, refute Hedge’s claim? The Fed’s muteness appears to have persuaded the Judge that this case should be briefed, by both sides. She wants to entertain arguments from both sides on whether or not this law is eligible for a facial challenge.
This is a rare event. It means we have an opportunity.
1) The plaintiffs invited us to submit an amicus brief.
2) Our brief is likely to be the ONLY amicus brief filed at this early stage of the case.
Thanks to the almost complete legal memo you funded and the work done on behalf of Bob Marshall, our lawyers are well-prepared to quickly assemble the brief. In fact . . .
- I’ve seen the background material on the five arguments we want to make.
- One of our attorneys, Bill Olson, just told me we have something unique to offer — stuff that won’t be heard unless we submit it.
To get this brief completed, we’ll have partners. But we need to do our part.
Downsize DC Foundation
D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
March 15, 2012
Can Our Lawyers Refute NDAA Lies?
Posted by James Wilson
Do sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) really allow the President to kidnap American citizens?
I say yes, but many in Congress say no. And they support their claim by quoting some tricky wording from the law. This tactic is convincing people, and that has me worried. I think this is dangerous and needs to be countered.
Please consider my pitch for a plan to do that.
I’ll tell you . . .
- How the establishment is deceiving itself, as well as the public
- Tell you how two members of Congress and one famous “think thank” are mishandling this issue
- Confront the question “Is DownsizeDC.org wrong about this controversy?”
- Show how we can win this debate using the brainpower of the same legal team that delivered the influential brief in the Jones case
- How this might influence a lawsuit we’ve been asked to support, involving a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist
Ready? Here we go . . .
Is History Repeating? Or at Least Rhyming?
The prelude to theIraqinvasion is the last time I can remember our gangster-politicians lying with such organized intensity. Back then, as former Rep. John Hostettler has written, many in Congress were practically begging to be conned by the Bush administration. They desperately wanted to believe, and so they did — and the fact that they believed helped convince the American people too. The same thing is happening now.
Congress has convinced itself that they didn’t legalize Presidential kidnapping, and now they’re using this self-deception to scam the public. Here are two telling examples . . .
Rep. Allen West swore in a public speech that he could prove that the NDAA didn’t permit Presidential kidnapping (VIdeo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSMOYVhapTE). I could have used his own argument to prove him wrong, had I been there. But I wasn’t there, so the audience went away believing him.
Or take the case of Rep. Sandy Adams. She’s now reprinting ALL of Section 1021 in her replies to constituents. She’s doing this because there’s a line in that section that looks like it prohibits the President from kidnapping American citizens. But this tricky wording doesn’t really do what it appears to do! You have to carefully ponder the logic of both sections, 1021 and 1022, to understand what the “law” really does.
Do you think Ms. Adams, or anyone else in Congress has done that? I don’t. We know they don’t “read their bills.” And I think the authors of this law counted on that.
The reprinting or quoting of the bill is an aggravating tactic. It gives an air of credibility, even if the analysis that follows is entirely misguided or wrong. Sadly, even major think tanks are joining this chorus of error . . .
The Heritage Foundation retained lawyers to write a detailed analysis arguing that Americans have nothing to fear from this bill, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/facts-about-the-national-defense-authorization-act-and-military-detention-of-us-citizens during this or any future presidency. So . . .
Is Downsize DC Wrong?
People know politicians lie. Even so, when they hear claims from multiple establishment sources they still have to wonder if DownsizeDC.org has gotten its facts right. We’ve tried to make our case with articles like these . . .
- How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans
- Congressional Lies about NDAA Kidnapping Law, Part 2
But who is the public more likely to believe — the scrappy staff at DownsizeDC.org, or the lawyers from Heritage? I think it’s time to sing that old Warren Zevon song . . .
Send lawyers, guns, and money.
We want to pit our lawyers against Congress and Heritage, and then share the result with the media and the public. And we have the right guys over at William J. Olson, PC. They’re so good that they won’t even need Mr. Zevon’s guns. For instance . . .
The Olson team worked directly with Bob Marshall on hisVirginiabill to withdraw state employees and facilities from any coordination or complicity with military kidnappings withinVirginia. So the NDAA kidnapping provisions are already very much on the Olson team’s mind.
We have a great deal of confidence in them.
- Their other clients include the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (often called, GATA) and Gun Owners of America.
- They wrote the Antoine Jones brief to the Supreme Court that influenced a landmark decision earlier this year.
- They also helped us write the Read the Bills Act, the Write the Laws Act, and the now-sponsored One Subject at aTime Act.
Now I want to COMMISSION them to write a LEGAL analysis that refutes the Heritage Foundation, as well as the misled and misleading members of Congress. This analysis will have four uses. We will . . .
1) Share it with the public and with other organizations. We suspect this report will be popular with other groups who are also fighting this battle.
2) Educate and correct Congress.
3) Make it available to the media — they’re also confused about this issue.
4) Use it for potential legal briefs in NDAA cases that are certain to arise.
Can we fight NDAA in the courts?
We’ve been invited to participate in a lawsuit initiated by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Christopher Hedges. You can learn more about why he’s challenging Sections 1021 and 1022 in an article titled, “Why I’m Suing Barack Obama.”
His article describes yet another possible way that some creative bureaucrat, prosecutor, or politician can go beyond alleged Congressional intent. You’ll see how these offensive sections can be applied to various kinds of non-terrorists, including American citizens!
Regarding possible legal action, we’re weighing our options. But first we must . . .
Create a crystal clear case for our contention that Sections 1021 and 1022 really do legalize kidnapping by the President.
I think the document we intend to create will serve everyone who is fighting Sections 1021 and 1022. It will benefit lawsuits, nullification initiatives in the states, and repeal efforts at the federal level.
I’m asking DC Downsizers to make this possible.
Of course, we still have to pay our continuing monthly budget as well. This project is ON TOP of that. That’s why we need many donors, plus at least one contributor of $1,000 or more.
Our main purpose for this will be in legislative battles. We need the flexibility to use this report politically. That’s why we’re asking that contributions be made to DownsizeDC.org for this project.
DownsizeDC.org accepts . . .
- American Express
- And there’s even a form for mailing a check
However, if you’re in the unique position where you itemize your taxes and you need a charitable deduction, you can make your contribution to the Downsize DC Foundation.
The attorneys are on standby, ready to roll. I’m eager to get them started.
We’re counting on you.
& Downsize DC Foundation
The Downsize DC Agenda
“Government lawyers in New York court tell Judge they can’t directly rule out detaining Chris Hedges for reporting, Occupy London for protesting, or the author of a hypothetical book on politics for expressing an opinion, under NDAA sections 1021 and 1022.”
What follows are my verbatim notes from the hearing for the lawsuit by Chris Hedges and other plaintiffs against Barack Obama and other defendants, regarding the NDAA. The hearing took place all day in Judge Forrest’s courtroom in the Southern District of New York City, yesterday, Mar 29. The purpose of the hearing was to establish ‘standing’ – are the plaintiffs legally entitled to sue? Harm: have they experienced negative outcomes, or ‘chill’ of their speech, because of the NDAA? And ‘redressability’: is the plaintiff’s fear of detention reasonable? The plaintiffs include Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Chris Hedges, Occupy London co-founder Kai Wargalla, journalist Alexa O’Brien, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, an Icelandic parliamentarian who supported Wikileaks’ right to publish and Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen, a civil liberties advocate and independent journalist. Dr. Cornel West and I are also seeking to join the plaintiffs.
(While the notes are as accurate as I could make them, there are elisions due to the volume of the proceedings; these are noted by lines of asterisks. Fundraising to acquire and release the court transcript will commence shortly.)
The headlines? Lawyers for the US government, given several chances by Judge Forrest to do so, would not rule out detaining Chris Hedges under the NDAA for reporting,; they would not rule out defining a political book as providing ‘material support’ for terrorists. The Government, given multiple chances by Judge Forrest to do so, also would not or could not give any direct definition of who is included in the phrase ‘associated forces’, or what any example of what it means to ‘provide material support.” And the government did not dispute the validity of a DHS memo that tried to targetOccupy Wall Stas cyberterrorists.
Some key moments:
Journalist Alexa O’Brien had detailed how Stratfor, a private security firm with links to theUSgovernment, and a Federal agent had all sought to intimidate her. The government lawyer was making the case that she could not know that theUSgovernment had directed those actions. One security firm manager, she said, had surveilled her organization.
The government attorney asked her if she knew that the government had been behind those actions.
“None. Those things are done in secret.”
At another point she detailed more private security firm surveillance from a second firm.
Government lawyer: “Do you know the government directed him that action?”
O’Brien: “Yes. He went to the NYPD.”
Government attorney: “Strike response as unresponsive.”
O’Brien produced into evidence a DHS memo that sought to link US Day of Rage to their cyberterrorism initiative. The government lawyer was given a chance by Judge Forrest to dispute the memo as fraudulent and did not do so.
Kai Wargalla, co-founder of Occupy London, submitted into evidence a memo from the City of London Police Department that categorized Occupy London as a terrorist organization.
Obama lawyer: “What evidence do you have that the government has harmed you?”
Wargalla: “Other than putting my organization on a list of terrorist groups, none.”
Chris Hedges testified: “It is my belief that if Reagan officials had had the power of the NDAA to detain journalists covering conflicts inNicaraguaandEl Salvador, they would have used it. “ Government lawyers made the case that nothing has changed since the FISA law allowed electronic surveillance, and the NDAA. Hedges said that “Every investigative reporter will tell you that sources have critically dried up since six were charged under the Espionage Act.”
Hedges noted that the difference between FISA and the NDAA was “a quantum deterioration in free speech.” He also said: “NSA surveillance has far more effect on my sources than on me,” he said, but “the NDAA is about me.”
Hedges testified that he believed that his phone was being tapped because inEl Salvadorand now, it would hang up after one ring, which he had been told was the cue for the start of surveillance recording. Asked if he knew his phone had been tapped inEl Salvador, he said, “Yes. Because sometimes there would be an open line and I would hear: “Ministerio de Defenso.” Asked by his attorney if he knew what “associated forces’ meant, he said, “I don’t think we know what ‘associated forces’ are. That’s the reason I’m here.”
Obama’s lawyer asked Hedges if he had ever to his knowledge been identified as a terrorist by theUSgovernment. Hedges answered “No.”
In the redirect, Hedges’ lawyer reminded him that he had testified that aUSofficial had advised him, when he had been briefly detained inSaudi Arabia, that he was on a watch list. “What is your understanding of what a watch list is? What are they watching for?”
Judge Forrest referred to Obama’s signing statement, noting it referred to ‘trial’ for US citizens but not what kind: “I want to clarify that US citizens wouldn’t be detained without trail. It is unclear what kind of trial they get. Tell me [to government lawyers] what it means to give ‘substantial support.’ I just want one example.”Government lawyer: “I’m not in a position to give an example.”Judge Forrest: “Give me one.”
Obama lawyer: “I can only give you context.”
Judge Forrest was pushing to determine the boundaries of the NDAA law.
Obama’s lawyer said that it would take a case of someone being detained under the NDAA, to find the parameters of the law.
Judge Forrest: “Is it really adequate to say you have to go to a DC court, in detention, to figure this out? Are you going to have to wait for courts other than this one to decide who ‘associated forces’ are? Is this the only way we can figure this out?”
She asked the government lawyer for an example of a boundary around “associated forces.”
Judge Forrest: “I don’t want precision. I want a boundary.”
Obama lawyer: “I don’t have specifics.”
Judge Forrest: “Associated forces”? What are they?”
Judge Forrest: “If you can’t stand here and say, “1021 won’t touch Ms O’Brien …unless, if you did, we would be done — if you can’t do that, you leave us in a tough spot here.”
Bruce Afran, lawyer for the plaintiffs, presented the hypothetical of a book that did not say how to make a bomb but simply expressed support for the political goals of the Taliban, or that made the case that the Taliban’s view that the US government overreaches in occupying other countries, has merit. He and Judge Forrest discussed the hypothetical that such a book could be a bestseller and be on a book tour, generating comment throughout theMiddle East.
Judge Forrest simplified the example to a hypothetical of a book with only one sentence, and whose only sentence read: “I support the political goals of the Taliban’. She asked the government lawyers if such a book could be read as providing ‘material support’ for ‘associated forces” under the NDAA. They did not rule it out.
Judge Forrest pushed:
“You are unable to say that [such a book ] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?”
Obama lawyers: “We can’t say that.”
Judge Forrest: “Are you telling me that noUScitizen can be detained under 1021?”
Obama lawyer: “That’s not a reasonable fear.”
Judge Forrest: ‘Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?”
Obama lawyer: “We have not said anything about that…”
Judge Forrest: “What do you think it means? Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.”
Obama lawyers: “We have not come to a position on that.”
Judge Forrest: “So assume you are aUScitizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?”
Obama lawyer: “I couldn’t offer any specific language. I don’t have a specific example.”
Judge Forrest: “You have said “unwitting’ [i.e. that aUScitizen would be exempt from the NDAA if the ‘direct support’ or ‘material support’ was ‘unwitting’] which would offer some comfort if you are worried about running afoul of the law. But ‘unwitting’ is not in here. How do I get ‘unwitting’ here?
Obama’s attorney did not answer her question, but noted the fact that Congress had authorized the AUMF, which they argued the NDAA section 1021 and 1022 followed from.
Judge Forrest; “One of you [of the two US government attorneys] has to answer if a demonstration such as Kai Wargalla’s [in Occupy London] is ‘substantial support.”
Obama lawyer: “We have never taken a position re 1021 that independent advocacy [falls under it].”
Judge Forrest: “And you assert today that the Government does not intend to take that position?”
Obama lawyer: “Well…”
Judge Forrest: “You have to give me that or you have a problem here.”
Obama lawyer: “Well, I’m not aware that anyone is taking that position.”
Bruce Afran made the point that ‘support’ is a very vague term – you can offer ‘emotional support’ to a spouse or ‘financial support’ to an organization. A discussion followed about vagueness in the statute, and Judge Forrest pressed the government attorneys to say exactly what ‘material support’ or ‘substantially support’ meant. She was unable to get a definition from them.
“Judge Forrest:”You [government lawyers] have to explain why the statute is not vague if I cannot get a definition under direct questioning [what ‘substantially support’ means]. If you folks can’t say what ‘substantially support’ means, how does an ordinary citizen know? You guys say why, and you win.”
Judge Forrest: “Mr. Hedges — his speaking inBelgiumandFrance[activities his deposition said he had curtailed from fear of the NDAA]: could that subject him to investigation under the NDAA?”
Obama lawyer: “The government has never taken that position in ten years.”
Judge Forrest: “How can you give the plaintiffs comfort that the next person won’t take that position?”
Obama lawyer: “The President says we won’t.”
Judge Forrest noted again that Obama’s signing statement assured people that US citizens would get a “trial”, but that the signing statement does not specify whether it is a military trial or a civilian trial. Judge Forrest: “”They could get a military trial not a civilian trial.”
Obama lawyer: “I would have to look at the statute again.”
Judge Forrest: “It’s extremely carefully worded….President Obama said he was concerned about constitutionality. Ms. Jónsdóttir [the Icelandic Parliamentarian who is afraid of being detained if she comes to theUS]: Can she travel to theUnited Stateswithout worrying about being captured?”
Obama lawyer: “The US Embassy represented to her that she won’t be subject to detention and interrogation.” [Ms Jónsdóttir’s affidavit made the point that theUSembassy refused to put those assurances in writing, and that the Icelandic government advised her not to travel to theUSin that circumstance}.
Judge Forrest:”I’m asking you as a representative of theUnited Statesgovernment here today: Can MS Jónsdóttir travel without fear of capture?”
Obama lawyer made the point that they didn’t know what she’d been up to or whom she had met since her affidavit was given.
Judge Forrest: “Given what you know.”
Obama lawyer: “From what we know, the member would not be subject to 1021.”
Judge Forrest:”So you are saying that being associated with Wikileaks won’t [put one] at risk?”
Obama lawyer: “They are not ‘associated forces.”
Judge Forrest: “So being associated with Wikileaks would not subject anyone to detention? Sorry to put you on the spot, but that’s my job.”
Obama lawyer: ”Unless they are Al Qaeda or the Taliban under another name, that is correct.”
Judge Forrest distinguished between journalist and US Day of Rage founder Alexa O’Brien, who does not spend time around people identified by theUSgovernment as terrorists, and Chris Hedges, who, as a reporter on such groups, does do so.
Judge Forrest, to the Obama attorney: “Can you say he will not subject to … solitary detention?”
Obama attorney: “I cannot say that today.”
Judge Forrest: “Well, why is [Hedges’ fear] unreasonable: if you have an individual engaged on a regular basis with interviewing, travelling with, “associated forces” [in combat with theUS] – and you can’t tell us that his activities won’t subject him to 1021 – why is it [Hedges’ fear] unreasonable?”
Obama lawyer: “Given all the factors – looking at this case, looking at them as a whole, they sufficiently rebut reasonable fear at this stage.”
Judge Forrest: “So the nub of it is I must agree with your position that 1021 does nothing new?”
Obama lawyer: “Yes.”
Judge Forrest: “And I should do this in spite of case law that asserts that Congress writes laws for a reason?”
[Laughter in court.]
15 Responses to “NDAA hearing notes”
- Ryan says:
Well if this applies to people who provide support to al Qaeda, couldn’t that include Mr. Obama? Mrs. Clinton as well? TheU.S.military actions inLibyacertainly aided al Qaeda substantially, as we were air dropping weapons to rebel groups that included al Qaeda. Mr Obama authorized that, and Mrs Clinton helped to gain support for that action internationally. Obviously nothing would ever happen to those leaders, but I find the irony pretty… Well… Ironic.
[…] A must read: NDAA hearing notes – Naomi Wolf […]
- Graham Wells says:
“The court transcript will be available shortly.” When and where, please?
- Tray johnson says:
Why doesnt the judge refuse to accept the obama lawyer’s inability to definitively answer the question? Yhe judge asks the right questions and recieves non-answers. Why is that allowed? He should have to answer the questions or recess until he can
[…] NDAA hearing notes ~ Naomi Wolf March 30, 2012 […]
[…] Notes from Friday’s NDAA Hearing […]
[…] NDAA hearing notes | Naomi Wolf Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
- alt=avatar >Tom says:
I believe that Judge Scalia’s opinion that “it is the responsibility of the court to rule on the constitutionality of the issue, rather that to attempt to construct some mechanism to legalize that issue”. Not a verbatum quote, but you get the idea. NDAA is clearly unconstitutional, and this judge seems to be trying his level best to find some way to rule otherwise. 90+% of the American people believe this law is unjust and a crime against the American people. That very fact not only trumps the executive branch, but also the legislative AND judicial branches, because we the people, if we feel sufficiently betrayed, have the right to rewrite the Constitution, and hold the entire government criminally liable, try them, and execute sentance upon them. If this “judge” lets this travisty stand, the Republic as we know it, is indeed dead.
[…] Naomi Wolf posted notes of standing hearing: NDAA Hearing Notes. […]
[…] make lice,” and rather than an infected blanket, they found reason to come after her under NDAA – giving comfort to the enemy, presumably by daring to criticize theUSA. You see, they […]
Plaintiffs in Round One of this case:
Jennifer (Tangerine) Bolen
Transcripts will NOT be available shortly – our team needs to raise $2000 to pay for them, and will commence a fundraiser this week to do so.
- B says:
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sickening.
- Hedges v. Obama: Advantage Hedges so far based on verbatim court notes « Citizen Action Monitor says:
[…] NDAA Hearing Notes by Naomi Wolf, March 30, 2012 […]
- Aelfwine Nerevar says:
Who do I send money to for the publication of the transcripts?
To contact Naomi, email email@example.com
For bookings please contact the good folks at Royce-Carlton.
Poll of the Day Submissions
Visit our poll submission page.
- Lying lips……nice going, West. Your silver tongue is and probably has been serving those who are destroying this country. If the N D A A was such a great document and good for the American people, the language would be clear and concise, not deliberately obfuscating. When we start demanding that these lying filth present their bills in (1) plain, easy-to-understand non-legal language and (2) on few sheets of paper AND (3) compared to the Constitution this will stop.
RedTulie1 3 weeks ago 4
Don’t you get the feeling that they’ve developed yet another tax code that everybody hopes they’re interpreting correctly, and the government agent decides post hoc after you’ve been disappeared?
denpratt 2 months ago 4
http://www.RightFace.us Allen West Comments on NDAA Act Supports Bill. Rep West says the Bill is OK and Does Not authorize detaining American Citizens.