Chris Hedges Challenges NDAA in Court

By on April 5, 2012 in News 9

Via Russia Today:

Last week the case against the National Defense Authorization Act was presented to a judge in New York. One of the plaintiffs in the case has decided to sue the Obama administration claiming that by simply doing his job he could be arrested and detained indefinitely due to the nature of his work, reporting. Chris Hedges, columnist for TruthDig, joins us to explain how his day in court went.

, , , , , ,

  • DeepCough

    See, I don’t get Republicans: they spend too much time detracting the Obama administration for the Affordable Care Act when they could be attacking him for signing the NDAA.

    (Oh, wait, I forgot, it was Republican Congressman John McCain who sponsored that bill.)

    • Drive_like_a_demon

      Vladimir Lennin, killer of 4 million people, is one of Chris Hedges’s heroes, so its only fitting that Hedges appear on RT.

      • Andrew

        Prove Lenin is one of his heroes.  You know, with evidence, and not some specious claim like ‘everyone who doesn’t think like Thomas Sowell is by His perfect definition a Bolshevik.’

        • Camronwiltshire

          Beat me to it.  Seems for every legit post describing the tightening screws of the machine there is a convenient hit and run apoligia…. 

          • Andrew

            And he claims he’s a libertarian!

      • DeepCough

        Only a Republican would defend the suspension of habeas corpus.

      • StillAtMyMoms

         Who’s your fucking source about that?

      • Mrtchops

        irrelevant who his heroes are or are not. irrelevant the forum he
        appears on. the logic of his position is what fundamentally matters.

        suspension of “due process” is a clear and present threat to dissidents
        and people seeking the truth that lies beyond official
        government/corporate propaganda.

        but if we are going to stoop to ad hominem attacks: drive_like_a_demon is obviously a dick.

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    I doubt this will get very far.

    Unless this current antagonism between the Executive and the Judiciary continues to heat up and the Judiciary goes looking for a fight, this case will be thrown out for issues of standing or ripeness or some such dodge that’s frequently employed in the name of justiciability.

    It’s a shame that someone’s ass actually has to be on the line before we can find out if a law is Constitutional or not. To me it’s always seemed patently unfair that people are continuously held accountable to standards that don’t legally exist until after the fact.

    This is, of course, one of the many reasons that I  generally have no problem with people using violent resistance against “authority”.