Two days ago Chris Hedges' informative article 'We Won—for Now' about Judge Katherine Forrest’s ruling against the NDAA's provisions was both combative about the abuses of the NDAA and cautious about how long it would be allowed to stand because of the court's history of allowing, since 9/11, things like: the denying habeas corpus rights to detainees, Espionage Act prosecutions against whistleblowers, drone attacks of targeted assassinations - including US citizens and the widespread warrentless surveillance by government agencies to stand.
Then yesterday two other must read articles about this issue were published. The first titled 'Obama Fights to Continue Indefinite Detentions, NDAA' by the Common Dreams Staff is short, sweet and is followed by a number of excellent comments by appalled readers who see clearly the effects the NDAA will have on. the US Bill of Rights. The second, 'Unlike Afghan Leaders, Obama Fights for Power of Indefinite Military Detention', by Glenn Greenwald, detailing the hypocrisy of Obama's lawyers' angry appeal against the court ruling that invalidated the NDAA's chilling 2011 detention law while on the same day the Afghanistan Supreme Court was striking down the exact same indefinite detention demands by the US and NATO there.
This isn't a new issue authoritarians have been using fear and claims of National Security to override individual human rights since the dawn of time. Americans should remember how FDR played the fear card to 'intern' the Japanese without charge or trail during WW!!. The Magna Carta itself, on which all of our common laws and individual rights are based, signed in 1215, said no-one can be imprisoned except by having been found guilty by a properly constituted court and a jury of his peers. It specifically restricted the authority of King John who was considered an evil ruler because he imprisoned his enemies without trial [sound familiar].
Of course, Hedges was correct, The Obama administration won an appeals court decision late last night to stay Judge Katherine Forrest’s ruling against the National Defense Authorization Act by saying her ruling was dangerous to 'National Security. The case will go on, more appeals from both sides will continue the roller-coaster ride right up the notoriously right-wing US Supreme Court who'll end up ruling 5-4 in favor of the fascist police state. The big question for Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Birgitta Jónsdóttir and the other complainants is, 'What constitutes real National Security?'
"People who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security end up with neither" -Benjamin Franklin
