Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 8 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 5 (13 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   42 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Why I'm Suing Barack Obama

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 8   Well Said 8   Supported 7  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 1/16/12

Become a Fan
  (385 fans)
- Advertisement -
This article is cross-posted from Truthdig

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism," for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until "the end of hostilities." It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties. 

I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have "disappeared" into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.

Section 1031 of the bill defines a "covered person" -- one subject to detention -- as "a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

The bill, however, does not define the terms "substantially supported," "directly supported" or "associated forces."

I met regularly with leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. I used to visit Palestine Liberation Organization leaders, including Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad, in Tunis when they were branded international terrorists. I have spent time with the Revolutionary Guard in Iran and was in northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey with fighters from the Kurdistan Workers' Party. All these entities were or are labeled as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. What would this bill have meant if it had been in place when I and other Americans traveled in the 1980s with armed units of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua or the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front guerrillas in El Salvador? What would it have meant for those of us who were with the southern insurgents during the civil war in Yemen or the rebels in the southern Sudan? I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists. But that does not make me one. 

Once a group is deemed to be a terrorist organization, whether it is a Palestinian charity or an element of the Uighur independence movement, the military can under this bill pick up a U.S. citizen who supported charities associated with the group or unwittingly sent money or medical supplies to front groups. We have already seen the persecution and closure of Islamic charity organizations in the United States that supported the Palestinians. Now the members of these organizations can be treated like card-carrying "terrorists" and sent to Guantanamo.

- Advertisement -

But I suspect the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state. The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up. Consider the arcane criteria that can make you a suspect in our new military-corporate state. The Department of Justice considers you worth investigating if you are missing a few fingers, if you have weatherproof ammunition, if you own guns or if you have hoarded more than seven days of food in your house. Adding a few of the obstructionist tactics of the Occupy movement to this list would be a seamless process. On the whim of the military, a suspected "terrorist" who also happens to be a U.S. citizen can suffer extraordinary rendition -- being kidnapped and then left to rot in one of our black sites "until the end of hostilities." Since this is an endless war that will be a very long stay.

This demented "war on terror" is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word "democracy" to describe our political system.

The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won't. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous. The threat and reach of al-Qaida -- which I spent a year covering for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East -- are marginal, despite the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist group poses no existential threat to the nation. It has been so disrupted and broken that it can barely function. Osama bin Laden was gunned down by commandos and his body dumped into the sea. Even the Pentagon says the organization is crippled. So why, a decade after the start of the so-called war on terror, do these draconian measures need to be implemented? Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did in the killing of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen? Why is this bill necessary when the government routinely ignores our Fifth Amendment rights -- "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law" -- as well as our First Amendment right of free speech? How much more power do they need to fight "terrorism"?

Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren't afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

The oddest part of this legislation is that the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the Pentagon and the attorney general didn't support it. FBI Director Robert Mueller said he feared the bill would actually impede the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be harder to win cooperation from suspects held by the military. "The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress.

- Advertisement -

But it passed anyway. And I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.

Note:

To read Chris Hedges' legal filing aimed at overturning a new law that would allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens deemed terrorism suspects, click here. To read the law itself, click here.

 

Chris Hedges spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.

Hedges was part of the team of (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System

This Is What Resistance Looks Like

Hope, from now on, will look like this. Chris Hedges Speech Before Joining Anti War Vets in DC Civil Disobedience Action

The Radical Christian Right and the War on Government

A Decade After 9/11: We Are What We Loathe

Rise Up or Die

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
21 people are discussing this page, with 42 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

"Eco-terrorists" are already being prosecuted by t... by Bruce Morgan on Monday, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:53:33 PM
Why no organization does? ACLU, NAACP,  Natio... by Mark Sashine on Monday, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:40:54 PM
You have to show you have been damaged, don't you?... by Peter Duveen on Monday, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:41:10 PM
And if he DOES suffer under the law he will have n... by William Cormier on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:14:23 AM
if it considers that new law specifically targets... by Mark Sashine on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:58:37 AM
If you pay taxes to the US Government, and if the ... by Steven G. Erickson on Monday, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:37:13 PM
Chris Hedges video upload of appearance on Democra... by Steven G. Erickson on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:35:50 PM
This lawsuit by Chris Hedges is doing exactly what... by Mark Halfmoon on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:28:59 AM
Interesting take on this--thank you.  Not man... by JoAnn Macdonald on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:46:32 AM
and logic in the wilderness.  ... by Doc McCoy on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:22:48 AM
Oh, that is so brilliant. Clearly, we are indee... by Ned Lud on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:08:37 AM
Folks, those who here make comments about Obama b... by Mark Sashine on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:41:45 AM
And I am with you, Mark. No one knows the evil way... by Ned Lud on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:55:56 AM
Oh, yes, during the Stalin's purges some unfortuna... by Mark Sashine on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:07:04 AM
Yeah, we have to go through it again. Ain't it... by Ned Lud on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:35:15 AM
This land belonged to Indians and they worshipped ... by Mark Sashine on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:42:13 AM
I agree with Ned and Mark S--- I don't agree with ... by Elizabeth Hanson on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:28:54 AM
It amazes me how people are capable of justifying ... by Mark Sashine on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:46:24 AM
How would you have reacted in 2008 if any Republi... by Elizabeth Hanson on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:12:47 AM
click here... by Elizabeth Hanson on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:14:36 AM
This issue needs to be discussed in the context of... by Kevin Tully on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:45:24 AM
While his ignorant supporters are playing checkers... by Not Chomsky on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:56:33 PM
Predictably, while many citizens have legitimate f... by Mark Halfmoon on Saturday, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:13:59 PM
if any Democrat or Republican ran promising the fo... by Mark Halfmoon on Saturday, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:17:06 PM
What you've just proven is Chomsky's decades-long ... by Not Chomsky on Monday, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:58:17 PM
Bush Jr had been charged, tried, and found guilty ... by Lance Ciepiela on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:56:43 AM
what does this have to do with this article?... by Kevin Tully on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:20:20 AM
Yes, we have slipped into tyranny whenever a singl... by Lance Ciepiela on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:44:29 PM
Many people who watch this video change their vote... by Juan Viche on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:51:46 PM
Chris and his Constitutional lawyers are right to ... by Alan MacDonald on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:41:51 PM
An admin at oped news does not, rejecting a submit... by Diane V. McLoughlin on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:29:56 AM
of hearing these Ron Paul religionists maintain th... by John Sanchez Jr. on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:03:23 AM
...of pie-eyed idiots with their heads shoved up t... by Diane V. McLoughlin on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:41:28 PM
Do you think that he should have been given a... by John Sanchez Jr. on Thursday, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:09:19 AM
Be careful, Chris. This President believes he has ... by Perry Logan on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:14:19 AM
Chris Hedges may be one of the most authentic int... by Jack Heart on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:27:06 AM
An unAmerican, fascist disconnect with the ba... by John Sanchez Jr. on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:00:08 AM
 and I support the lawsuit for the reasons I ... by Mark Halfmoon on Saturday, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:32:37 PM
since Jack Gerard, president of the American Petro... by John Sanchez Jr. on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:20:27 AM
By the definition you cite, Mr. Sanchez, the list ... by David Ruhlen on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:15:19 AM
With the provisions in this bill for allowing our ... by Philip Pease on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:16:42 PM
It does not, contrary to what many media outlets h... by Mark Halfmoon on Saturday, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:50:56 PM