Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.

By Alexander Higgins (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Corporate Media Silent On Lawuit Over NDAA Being Used To Silence Journalists

Friday, March 30, 2012 20:17

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

RT picks up on the story of the NDAA being used to silence journalists pointing out how the corporate media has entirely ignored the story.

As I reported yesterday, a coalition of journalists have filed a lawsuit challenging the NDAA because they are being silenced by the NDAA.

Feds Using NDAA To Silence Journalists Critical Of Government

The NDAA is being challenged in a lawsuit by journalists accused of supporting terrorism for reporting facts that challenge the official US government narrative.

A coalition of prominent journalist known for being critical of the United States in the War on Terror have joined forces to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama and Leon Panetta to challenge the National Defense Authorization act.

The NDAA, also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill, has legalized a wide variety of totalitarian measures against US citizens by declaring the entire world, including the United States, a battleground in the war against terrorism and is a clear and present danger to the US Constitution.

[...]

The government has quickly used vague language in the bill to broaden definition of terrorism and what constitutes supporting terrorism.

In two cases KNOWN cases against US citizens we have seen the enemy combatant label being charged for simply uploading videos to YouTube.

Another US citizen has been charged as an enemy combatant for providing a link to classified information.

That classified information was publicly available on the whistle blowing website WikiLeaks.

Speaking of WikiLeaks, they are now also accused of supporting Al Qaeda because they leaked evidence of US war crimes overseas.

Even Bradley Manning, who the US alleges gave WikiLeaks the classified files, now also qualifies under the broadened definition of supporting Al Qaeda.

Some law enforcement officials in the US and in the UK are operating under the opinion that the Occupy Wall Street movement is a terrorist organization.

Remember, in each of these cases all that is needed to invoke the NDAA to infinitely detain, torture, or even assassinate any of these US citizens is an assassination.

There is no judge and no jury it’s just straight to execution.

Now journalists critical of US government policies are being accused of providing support for terrorism.

Prominent journalist Chris Hedges learned about being placed on the US terror watch list after he was interrogated by Federal government officials apparently because his reporting of facts that oppose the official scripted narrative that is echoed by the corporate media reports is somehow being interpreted as supporting terrorism.

Can you see where this is heading?

Those who question, dissent or expose the government are being treated as providing support for terrorism even when they have no connections to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organizations.

Furthermore, journalists are being silenced in fear that by reaching by even reporting on certain stories or contacting certain organizations they will become a target of the NDAA.

Chris Hedges how now filed a lawsuit against the government challenging the NDAA.

He is also being joined by a coalition of prominent journalists who have signed on to the lawsuits and issued affidavits in support of his claims.

Included on the lawsuit are Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky among others.

Naomi Wolf has also signed an affidavit in support of the lawsuit detailing how the NDAA is being used to prevent her from reporting on stories critical of the government because such stories can easily be considered as supporting terrorism.

[...]

Read more…

Specifically any articles written that are critical of the government or report on viewpoints of those critical of the government can fall under the broad definition of supporting terrorism.

Today, RT picks up on the story pointing out how the corporate media has decided to blackout the story and not even report on it.

What the mainstream media should be talking about is the National Defense Authorization Act, the military spending bill that also includes Section 1021, a provision that permits the indefinite military detention, without a formal charge or public trial, of anyone suspected of participating in or aiding a terrorist organization “engaged in hostilities against the United States” that includes US citizens. Under this law even being associated with terrorist groups could land people in jail. The hearings kicked off today where plaintiffs argued some of these provisions in the NDAA could impact them directly because of their work wither in activism or journalism.

RT reports:

NDAA in court over indefinite detention of Americans

RT – After much debate on a new law signed by President Barack Obama, House Republicans are throwing around the idea of reviewing the National Defense Authorization Act after the law was challenged in court.

Seven witnesses appeared in front of US District Judge Katherine Forrest in New York on Thursday. Among the seven individuals,a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Chris Hedges was responsible for filing the lawsuit believes the “indefinite detention” portion of the law could result in his imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay for merely doing his job.

Hedges a repeated guest on RT is an author, columnist for TruthDig.Com and a Middle-East expert, expressed in Federal court that the NDAA would have an effect on journalists and activists worldwide.

“I think its [NDAA] clearly unconstitutional, certainly the lawyers Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer who are bringing the case believe it is unconstitutional,” Hedges said to RT.

Hedges who comes in contact with several individuals from the Middle-East fears the US government will attempt to link him to a terrorist network when in fact he is merely reporting.

“It’s quite a frightening piece of legislation,” he added.

The defense bill passed by Congress and signed by Obama into law on New Year’s Eve, permits the detention of Americans and denies suspected “terrorists” the right to a trial and subjects the individual to be held indefinitely.

During the signing of the NDAA Obama claimed he had serious reservations about the provisions on detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in a statement regarding this law.

“Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation,” he added.

Obama originally opposed the act but signed it anyway.

The NDAA has caused a lot of commotion among civil rights groups and many feel the resentment towards the bill has pushed lawmakers to take action.

“I intend to help put as much political pressure on this issue as possible,” said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) in a Huffington Post report.

“I intend to spend a lot of time – and I already have been doing so – making the public aware of this issue so we can get the change we need to address it,” he added.

The only change Obama has brought regarding the issue came in February.

The Obama administration defined new rules on the law saying when it is appropriate for the FBI to arrest suspected terrorists rather than the US military.

According to the Huffington Post, “the new procedures spelled out seven circumstances in which the president could place a suspect in FBI, rather than military, custody, including a wavier when it could impede counterterrorism cooperation with another government or when it could interfere with efforts to secure an individual’s cooperation or confession.”

Still the changes by the Obama administration are insufficient critics say.

“It is a decimation of the most basic civil liberty that Americans have taken for granted it overturns two-hundred years of domestic law which has prohibited the military from functioning as a police force…and it removes due process,” Hedges said.

The GOP majority in the House Armed Services Committee who are considering numerous plans to revise the provision on indefinite detention haven’t gone public with their potential changes, but added they could be completed as early as this summer.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) have presented legislation that would abolish the provision on indefinite detention and have the mandatory military custody for extraneous terrorist suspects not Americans.

“I will continue to push that bill,” Smith said in an interview.

“I know the majority is also putting together some ideas. They’re very process-focused. … I have not seen specifics of that proposal yet and we’ll talk to them about it, but obviously I have a much stronger position on that and think that we don’t need to have indefinite detention or military custody for the people in the US,” Smith added.

“There clearly has been some blowback and that’s what the Republicans are trying to address,” Smith said.

Source: Corporate Media Silent On Lawuit Over NDAA Being Used To Silence Journalists ©
Copying or redistribution of this material requires that this license must remain intact with attribution to the content source.