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:
Don’t think you could be indefinitely detained by Barack Obama?Think again.