Dec 132012
NDAA Alexa O'BrienDon’t think you could be indefinitely detained by Barack Obama?Think again.

Naomi Wolf reports: “The transcript from the hearing has some jaw-dropping exchanges between Judge Forrest and the US government attorney representing Obama. Repeatedly Judge Forrest asked Obama’s lawyers to define “associated forces” and “material support” or “substantial support” and repeatedly they declined to do so or were unwilling to do so, as you see below. In my notes, Judge Forrest gave them six or seven chances to define the NDAA in a way that would not endanger peaceful US critics, activists, commentators or journalists, and they could not or would not take those opportunities she gave them to do so. Specifically, the government’s lawyers could not or would not rule out detaining reporter Chris Hedges under section 1021 or 1022 of the NDAA, and they did not rule out the example of a nonviolent book that simply showed support for the Taliban’s worldview that the US was excessively imperialistic, falling under its aegis. Most distressingly, the fact that the United States’ lawyers confirmed on the record that NDAA could be used for those purposes, makes the many letters I have seen, sent from Congresspeople and Senators to their constituents — in which these leaders directly asserted to their constituents the contrary of what the Government’s lawyers confirmed last Thursday — all the more distressing: either Congress’ disinformation, sent from their offices to US citizens at a critical moment, emerged out of our leaders’ serious ignorance about what this law does, or else the disinformation was disingenuous:

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.””


Read More of Naomi Wolf‘s #NDAA Hearing Notes:

Read Alexa O’Brien’s Letter about the NDAA and her lawsuit:

Sign & Share the STOP NDAA Petition: www.STOPNDAA.Org


Learn More & Share Like You Care

1 Billion AGAINST Indefinite Detention without trial law

— with Keshonda Russ.