you mean major American site, right? Because the Guardian is a major newspaper in Britain. The piece is in the comment section, but imho the strong language is justified:
In other words, this back-and-forth confirmed what people such as Glenn Greenwald, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the ACLU and others have been shouting about since January: the section was knowingly written *in order* to give the president these powers; and his lawyers were sent into that courtroom precisely to defeat the effort to challenge them. Forrest concluded: "At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [section] 1021. Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years." Naomi Wolf is a journalist I have heard before on Democracy Now. But let's play that tape again, That's the *judge* talking: the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [section] 1021. The plaintiffs are journalists mostly with a few activists thrown in. An organizer from Occupy London. An Icelandic legislator. The government is not willing to state that these people would not be subject to indefinite detention. Hello? On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Sandra Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Cant find any information on this on any major news site. > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/17/ndaa-section- > 1021-coup-detat-foiled > > > > US district judge Katherine Forrest, in New York > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/new-york> City's eastern district, found > that section 1021 <http://bit.ly/At2bVR> the key section of the > National > Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which had been rushed into law amid > secrecy and in haste on New Year's Eve 2011, bestowing on any president the > power to detain US citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial, > < > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/homeland-battlefield-act-unconstit > utional_n_1522587.html> "facially unconstitutional". Forrest concluded > that > the law does indeed have, as the journalists and peaceful activists who > brought the lawsuit against the president and Leon Panetta have argued, a > "chilling impact on first amendment rights". Her ruling enjoins that > section > of the NDAA from becoming law > <http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/singleton/> . > > > > .. > > > > And now, Thursday, Representatives Adam Smith (Democrat, Washington) and > Justin Amash (Republican, Michigan) have presented an amendment to Congress > an amendment that does just that <http://bit.ly/JtSJn1> . Those who vote > against it therefore will be voting clearly, and without any ambiguity, for > stripping Americans of their constitutional rights and reducing them to the > same potential status as "enemy combatants" and Guantánamo prisoners. The > House thus votes for or against the power handed to the executive by the > NDAA to hold any of us, anywhere, forever, for no reason. There can be no > hiding from this; the lawyers defending the administration's position made > that perfectly clear. > > > > The Smash Amash Amendment was voted down yesterday in the House 238 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350914 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
