What: Press conference with Rep. Omar, issue experts, supporters, and family advocating for the Presidential commutation of currently incarcerated Drone program whistleblower Daniel Hale

When: Thursday, December 15 at 11AM ET

Why: A little more than a year ago Air Force veteran Daniel Hale was sentenced to 45 months in Federal prison with extreme measures put in place to limit his communication with the outside world. Daniel was accused and convicted of leaking sensitive government information, when in truth the information he revealed didn’t put anyone in danger and uncovered the deep inaccuracies inherent in the drone program. Hale has spoken powerfully to his moral decision to blow the whistle, saying to the judge at sentencing:

“I am here because I stole something that was never mine to take — precious human life. I couldn’t keep living in a world in which people pretend that things weren’t happening that were. Please, your honor, forgive me for taking papers instead of human lives.”

Rep. Omar, issue experts, former whistleblowers, and family will speak to why Daniel Hale shouldn’t be retaliated against for his brave public service and why the Biden Administration should use its power to free him. 

Press Conference Registration

– 30 –

The Daniel Hale Support Network is a coalition of friends, supporters, allies, and organizations who are focused on supporting whistleblower Daniel Hale to get free. Some of the organizations include About Face: Veterans Against the War, Codepink, Courage Foundation,  Defending Rights and Dissent, Veterans for Peace, ExposeFacts, and more.

Dear @POTUS, thousands of Americans like me are praying you choose to #FreeChelsea https://t.co/yX3hVgJg9b

— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) January 11, 2017

See a selection of #HugsForChelsea photos here, see the landing page for the campaign here.

“Chelsea has so much love and support coming from people across the political spectrum,” said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, who posted the first #HugsForChelsea photo, “She has suffered enough. People are coming out of the woodwork to speak out. President Obama needs to do the right thing and free her now. After getting to know her as one of her supporters over the last year, I personally can’t wait to give her a hug.”

Send Chelsea Manning a hug with #hugsforchelsea https://t.co/jQjLmeZpGr pic.twitter.com/58gXK1lmsM

— Boing Boing (@BoingBoing) January 16, 2017

“As President Obama’s days in office wind down, people from all walks of life are standing in solidarity with Chelsea and urging the President to save her before it is too late,” said Chase Strangio, Chelsea’s ACLU attorney. “After years of suffering in prison under horrific conditions including long stretches of solitary confinement, the denial of health care for gender dysphoria and arbitrary punishments including for attempting suicide, Chelsea needs to be set free before this treatment results in her death.”

Background:

1. More than 100,000 people signed an official Whitehouse.gov petition, meeting the threshold to require a response from the President.
2. Hundreds of thousands have signed previous petitions organized by Fight for the Future and other groups decrying Chelsea’s treatment while in prison
3. The ACLU and more than a dozen prominent LGBT organizations sent a letter to President Obama calling for Chelsea’s commutation
4. Amnesty International sent a letter to President Obama, and supporters sent over 25,000 emails to the White House.
5. Human Rights Watch sent a letter to President Obama supporting clemency
6. Dozens of other human rights, free speech, government transparency, and civil liberties organizations have called for Chelsea’s release
7. A wide range of notable people have publicly supported Chelsea including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Morris C. Davis, journalist Glenn Greenwald, Sean Ono Lennon, REM lead singer Michael Stipe, comedian Margaret Cho, Thurston Moore, Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine,, and many others.
8. Learn more at FreeChelsea.com, and follow Chelsea on Twitter at @xychelsea

Jeremy Hammond’s attorneys have submitted a sentencing memorandum on his behalf asking for a sentence of time served, a call supported by 5,000 people in petitions hosted by Change.org and Demand Progress. Additionally, over 250 letters addressed to the Judge from friends, family, journalists, academics, the tech community, and prominent whistleblowers have been included with the memorandum. Among these is a letter cosigned by 17 editors and journalists representing international media outlets in fifteen countries with a combined audience of 500 million people.

VIEW EXCERPTS OF LETTERS OF SUPPORT HERE

Many of the supporters plan to be present at Mr. Hammond’s sentencing to voice their concern and to raise public awareness of the disproportionate sentences associated with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which grants greater protection to corporations than those it affords to individuals. Private companies like Stratfor account for 70 percent of the government intelligence budget and often operate without public scrutiny or government oversight.

The information released by Mr. Hammond for the first time gives the American people and others in the world a picture of the role that private intelligence corporations play in surveillance of legally and constitutionally protected activities and the activists involved. The Stratfor documents have given us the understanding that private intelligence companies may be a bigger problem for civil liberties than our own government and it is these companies that we ought to be suing as we pursue government accountability for surveillance,” said Michael Ratner, President Emeritus at The Center for Constitutional Rights.

In a letter of support for Mr. Hammond, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg wrote: “My decision to go public with the Pentagon Papers was a difficult one. At my own risk, I released them, just as Jeremy Hammond has done. I believe the actions taken by Jeremy Hammond need to be viewed in a context that considers the profound consequences of private surveillance of political activists in the United States.”

“[Jeremy Hammond] performed an act of civil disobedience out of a deeply held belief that the people have a right to know what the government and unregulated corporations are doing behind closed doors against them,” wrote Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower and former ethics adviser to the Department of Justice, in a letter of support for Jeremy. “He is a patriot who only sought to provide transparency and expose the surveillance crimes being perpetrated on the American people.”

A longtime social activist and proponent of ethical hacking, Jeremy has stated that he revealed the information about Stratfor because “people have a right to know what governments and corporations are doing behind closed doors.”

Originally facing a sentence totaling more than 35 years and additional indictments in 12 other federal jurisdictions, Jeremy pled to a single count of conspiracy under the draconian Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). He faces a maximum of ten years. Jeremy’s co-defendants from England and Ireland have received sentences ranging from probation to 30 months in prison and are not likely to be extradited to the US.

To speak to members of the defense committee or to some of the people who wrote letters to the Court on Mr. Hammond’s behalf, please contact Christina DiPasquale at 202.716.1953 or christina@fitzgibbonmedia.com.

The sentencing hearing for Jeremy Hammond is scheduled for November 15, 2013 at 10 AM at Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street,  in the Ceremonial Courtroom on the 9th floor. For interviews at the November 15 hearing, contact Andy Stepanian, 631.291.3010, andy@sparrowmedia.net.

The Jeremy Hammond Defense Committee is a coalition of family members, activists, lawyers, and other supporters who are working together to protect free speech and to support Jeremy Hammond. The committee’s goal is to provide information to the public and the press, to organize events related to Jeremy’s case, and to support Jeremy while he is in jail.  For more information, please visit http://freejeremy.net

A group of academics, journalists, and activists filed the successful suit last fall over § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA alleging that the provision suspended due process rights and threatened first amendment protections.  On September 15, 2012 the plaintiffs were awarded a permanent injunction by Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York.  Their victory is being appealed by the Obama administration.   Both sides, as well as lawyers for Senators McCain, Ayotte, and Graham, presented oral arguments to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals during the February 6th proceeding.

For the reader who is unfamiliar with legalese, or the trajectory of cases like this, there are two concrete points to take away from what has transpired thus far…

The first point is that Judge Forrest’s ruling was not only historic in that she stood up to the same administration that appointed her, but also because it underscored the fact that these plaintiffs each had standing in the case. This means that it was Judge Forrest’s interpretation that each plaintiff, could be at risk for indefinite detention under § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA, for their otherwise constitutionally protected work as journalists or activists.

The second point was revealed in the 24 hours after Judge Forrest issued her permanent injunction on September 15th, 2012, when the Obama Administration filed a request for an “emergency stay” of her ruling.  While, an appeal of the ruling was expected from the Obama Administration, no one could have expected the speed and ferocity in which they would file their request, especially with only a little over a month until election day.  This led many to suppose that this administration has either inherited detainees who were imprisoned indefinitely using powers similar to those outlined in § 1021(b)(2) or are regularly using these powers themselves, and thus would be in contempt of court if Judge Forrest’s ruling stood.

Chris Hedges highlighted this supposition in his remarks made during the press conference outside the 2/6 hearing in the Second Circuit,  “…the Obama Administration didn’t just appeal, they demanded an emergency stay,” said Hedges,  “which means they wanted the Judge to put this law back into effect, immediately, until the second circuit could hear the appeal.  Judge Forrest, to her credit, refused, and so the Obama Administration went to the Second Circuit,  and demanded an emergency stay, which the second circuit gave them.  Now the supposition can only be made …that they responded this aggressively because they are already using the law.  If they are holding American Citizens and denying them due process, as I suspect they are, probably with US-Pakastani Dual-Nationals in places like Bagram and that injunction was allowed to stand they would be in contempt of court.”

This supposition is the most frightening part of the narrative surrounding § 1021(b)(2) as it infers that, for quite some time, American authorities were using detention powers that they never had, and only now are attempting to create a retroactive mandate that would make legal their previously illegal detentions.  This revelation (if properly articulated) may be the integral component to finally forcing the mainstream media to cover this complicated and previously politically taboo issue.

On February 4th the White Papers detailing the United States’ targeted killing policies were leaked to Michael Isikoff at NBC News subsequently forcing many of the mainstream outlets to question the bloat of executive powers post 9/11.  This provided a unique opportunity to insert talking points into this discourse about similar misuse of executive and military powers under § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA.

While the controversy over expanded powers like those granted in § 1021(b)(2) should occupy international headlines, to date we have not seen this issue widely covered.  Some can speculate that proper coverage of the NDAA was hindered by the 2012 Presidential Election, while others attribute a lack of proper coverage to conspiratorial misrepresentations of the NDAA by pundits like Alex Jones, either way the deeply troubling elements of § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA did not generate the media coverage and public outcry it deserved, but this may be changing…

The “Flood the Court” event called for by activists on February 6th could not be ignored as it drew hundreds of people to the Second Circuit in protest of § 1021.  Similarly it saw a dozens of media outlets in attendance beyond that of the alternative outlets and citizen journalists who have tirelessly dedicated themselves to this story.  All of the press generated from the event was positive and in favor of the plaintiff’s arguments, including some major and mainstream hits in The New York Times, The Guardian, Reuters, and The New York Law Journal.  You can read a semi-complete roundup of the laundry list of related media coverage HERE.

In the battle against the NDAA there are three fights, one is the lawyers fight in the courtroom, the other is a battle of public perception to the issue, and the third is a battle in the streets to salvage what little of our democracy is left in hopes that one day we may be able to restore it. We here at Sparrow have been working around-the-clock to get these courageous plaintiffs the press coverage they deserve.  We hope that we can create a public outcry so deafening the Supreme Court will be forced to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and favorably on the issue of indefinite detention.

Seeking to create mainstream dialog about this landmark court battle the NDAA plaintiffs and supporters will present this once-in-a-lifetime panel discussion moderated by Matt Sledge of The Huffington Post and people’s champ Natasha Lennard of Salon.com.  Attendees will be offered an up-close look at this transformative year-long court battle and what is driving the Obama administration as they continue to appeal Judge Katherine Forrest’s historic September 15th, 2012 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

On Wednesday morning at 10am the plaintiffs are due back in Federal Appeals Court to present oral arguments against the suspension of constitutional protections under the indefinite detention provision. They will be challenged by President Barack Obama’s lawyers who will advocate for the provision, and in a bizarre twist, will also be challenged by Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Kelly Ayotte who collectively have been granted a 5-minute oral argument by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. This panel will serve in-part as a debrief to the media and public of what transpired in the 2nd Circuit earlier that morning.

Themes will include the profound erosion of liberties cemented by the 2012 NDAA, a pattern of abuse and intimidation on the part of the Obama DOJ toward publishers, whistleblowers and activists, and the creative efforts of the widely disparate groups that have joined the lawsuit team and its supporters from around the world.

WHAT: Panel discussion w/ Michael Moore, Chris Hedges, Tangerine Bolen, Daniel Ellsberg, Alexa O’Brien, Jesslyn Raddack, Thomas Drake, Matt Sledge, and Natasha Lennard.

WHEN: Wednesday, Feb. 6, 5-7 PM | Event will start at 5:00pm SHARP

WHERE: The Culture Project, 49 Bleecker Street, NY, NY | www.cultureproject.org

INFO: Press Invitation | Facebook RSVP

MEDIA RSVP: All media who wish to attend please send an RSVP to Andy Stepanian at andy@sparrowmedia.net as space will fill up fast. To arrange an interview with any of the panelists please email or text Andy Stepanian at andy@sparrowmedia.net or 631.291.3010.

The Culture Project will be opening its doors to journalists and panelists at 3pm for interviews*

SPONSORED BY: RevolutionTruth, Demand Progress, The Sparrow Project, New York Civil Liberties Union Young Professionals, Culture Project’s ‘Blueprint for Accountability’ Series

]]> https://sparrowmedia.net/2013/01/flood-the-court-against-the-ndaa-appeal/ Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:00:14 +0000 http://www.sparrowmedia.net/?p=4557 [New York, NY] A lawsuit over a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will be back in federal court at 10am on February 6, 2013, awaiting decision on an injunction prohibiting indefinite detention of civilians without charge or trial. A group of academics, journalists, and activists filed suit last year over § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA alleging that the provision suspended due process rights and threatened first amendment protections.

In a landmark ruling last September the plaintiffs —former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges, RevolutionTruth founder Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, linguist and author Noam Chomsky, Icelandic Parliamentarian Brigitta Jonsdottir, US Day of Rage founder Alexa O’Brien, and Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla— were awarded a permanent, worldwide injunction against the provision by Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of NY (2nd Circuit).  In her ruling Judge Forrest, an Obama appointee, challenged the Justice Department attorneys for refusing to provide assurances that journalists and activists would not be indefinitely detained under the provision for exercising first amendment rights:

“Not once in any of its submissions in this action or at either the March or August hearings has the Government said, ‘First Amendment activities are not covered and could never be encompassed by § 1021(b)(2). This Court rejects the Government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention, and have as their sole remedy a habeas petition…That scenario dispenses with a number of guaranteed rights.”

Despite including a signing statement expressing deep reservations over the “indefinite detention provision” and promising not to use such powers against American citizens, President Obama immediately appealed Judge Forrest’s ruling, and sought an emergency stay on the injunction, claiming “irreparable harm” would be incurred by the US if the government lacked the ability to indefinitely detain civilians under section 1021.

“This is the final battle between the restoration of due process along with our most cherished civil liberties and the imposition of a military state,” said Chris Hedges, “if we lose this battle, will be vulnerable to being seized on American soil by the military, stripped of due process and held in indefinate detention in military facilities, including our off-shore penal colonies. It is up to federal judges now to pull us back form the brink.  Our legal challenge to section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA is one of the defining moments of our era.”

The suit has been joined by over two dozen organizations and individuals who have filed Amicus Curiae briefs in support of the plaintiff’s claims that § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA is over-broad and facially unconstitutional.  One such supporting brief, filed by Karen and Ken Korematsu (Children of Fred Korematsu & each Amici in this case), draws a chilling comparison between indefinite detention under the auspices of the war on terror and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II:

“Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history. As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused.”

In opposition to the plaintiffs Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte have utilized the Amicus process to file a brief in support of the government’s use of § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA and have taken the unusual step of filing a motion requesting 10 minutes of oral argument time in the February 6th, 2012 proceedings, claiming the need for the Senate body to be represented in court when it comes to indefinite detention.  Plaintiff attorneys are awaiting word on whether the 2nd Circuit will grant this motion.

UPDATE: On Thursday, January 31st, 2012 attorneys for the plaintiffs received notice that McCain, Graham and Ayotte were awarded a 5 minute oral argument at the proceeding. To compensate for this the 2nd circuit also added 5 minutes onto the plaintiff argument (allowing for 20 minutes total).

A bipartisan coalition of groups backing this lawsuit, including Demand Progress, RevolutionTruth, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Tenth Amendment Center, are calling on members and supporters to join the plaintiffs in court. Activists promoting a call to “Flood the Courthouse” have already received over 300 RSVP’s from activists and supporters of the plaintiffs

Plaintiff and lawsuit coordinator Tangerine Bolen will lead a press conference upon adjournment of the court session. Speakers will include Tangerine Bolen, Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges, Bruce Afran, Alexa O’Brien, Cornel West, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack and a number of others working to prevent indefinite detention and restore civil liberties.

To obtain video of the press conference or to arrange an interview with any of the plaintiffs or counsel please contact Andy Stepanian at andy@sparrowmedia.net or 631.291.3010.

COURT ARGUMENTS & ACTIVIST SOLIDARITY ACTION

WHAT: Oral Arguments in NDAA Court Ruling & Activist Solidarity Action
WHERE: 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
(Room 1505, 15th floor), 40 Foley Square, NYC
WHEN: 10am Wednesday, February 6, 2013
INFO: Stop NDAA Lawsuit | Facebook RSVP

PRESS CONFERENCE

WHAT: Press Conference with Plaintiffs, Counsel, and Supporters
(Daniel Ellsberg, Chris Hedges, Bruce Afran, Tangerine Bolen, Alexa O’Brien, Cornel West)
WHERE: Foley Square, NYC (directly across from courthouse steps)
WHEN: After Court Adjourns (Approximately 11:30am Wednesday, February 6, 2013)
INFO: Stop NDAA Lawsuit | Facebook RSVP

• Suggested reading: Echoes of Korematsu by Noor Elashi

The law would have allowed the military to indefinitely detain civilians without charge or trial if they are accused of certain crimes, or even accused of associations with certain listed forces.  Judge Forrest in her ruling reaffirmed that to criminalize one’s associative conduct in this manner could chill the first amendment protections of journalists who may want to conduct interviews with individuals listed by the government as extremists.

The lead plaintiff in this lawsuit is former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges.  He is joined by six others, including Noam Chomsky and Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.

“This is a tremendous victory for the rule of law and the right of all U.S. citizens, regardless of their ideological persuasions, to be afforded due process.  It restores the two century ban on the use of the military by the state for domestic policing.  Judge Katherine Forrest, in an era when federal judges often seem to issue rulings about why they cannot implement the law, has with this injunction restored one of our most cherished Constitutional rights.  The Obama administration will no doubt appeal this decision.  We will continue to fight back.  It is not over yet.  But I, and I hope all Americans, can sleep a little more easily tonight,” said Chris Hedges this morning when asked about Judge Forrest’s ruling.

Attorney for the plaintiffs, Carl J. Mayer had a bold message to share with the President regarding any possible plans to appeal the administration may have, “President, and former Constitutional Law Professor Obama, knows that the so-called Homeland Battlefield Act or NDAA is unconstitutional and we are calling on him and his Attorney General to drop any appeal in this case and honor the opinion of the President’s own appointee: Judge Katherine Forrest.  September 12 was an important day in American history; it is rare for the Court’s to declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional.  But as the Judge noted, ‘the stakes could not be higher’ and fortunately the citizens, our democracy and the Constitution remain triumphant.”

Plaintiff and Iceland Parlamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir shared a unique perspective that, “With Judge Forrest ruling, the USA halted, even if only for a brief moment the alarming erosion of civil liberties since 911. I feel proud to be part of such a historical ruling in favor of the basic freedoms that used to be the legacy of the USA. This case is a perfect example some individuals make a difference in our world.”

“Forrest’s ruling understands that the most fundamental crisis of Government is a crisis of trust in the institutions of Government (checks & balances).  The Executive spins its fatal sophistry, while disloyal and incompetent interests usurped our nation’s civil and military power, spawning a host of real threats to liberty and to national security.  They passing laws, like the NDAA, which prey on the resources and spirits of citizens. Thanks to Forrest, we persevere…” exclaimed activist, journalist, and plaintiff Alexa O’Brien.

According to plaintiff and activist Tangerine Bolen, “The steady assault on the US Constitution was dramatically slowed yesterday, as Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in our favor and against a dangerous and unconstitutional provision of the NDAA. After eleven years of watching our civil liberties erode we have reason to celebrate this week.”

Plaintiffs fear that Obama will continue to defend the law, by choosing to appeal the ruling to a higher court.

Activist group Demand Progress — whose million-plus members have helped support the lawsuit — urged Americans to demand that Obama not appeal the ruling, and that senators oppose indefinite detention when it comes up for a vote this fall.

You can sign their petition and email your senators at: http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ndaa_lawsuit_win/

Demand Progress executive director David Segal said, “It’s wonderful to see judge Forrest — a recent Obama appointee — buck the administration and stand up for the Constitution.  Our members urge Obama to stop defending this obscene abuse of executive authority, and ask our senators to oppose indefinite detention when they vote on the NDAA later this fall.”

You can read Judge Forrest’s entire statement HERE

UPDATE: (2pm EST 9/13/2012) the staff of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara made an appearance at the Federal Courthouses at 500 Pearl Street in New York City to file a notice of appeal on behalf of the Obama Administration.  The notice should read as a clear indication of the administrations intentions to appeal Judge Forrest’s decision to a higher court.

The lawsuit, brought by journalist Chris Hedges, Professor Noam Chomsky, activist Daniel Ellsberg (leaker of the Pentagon Papers) and others argues that the government’s assertion of the right to detain civilians indefinitely and without charge or trial violates the Constitution. The provision in question was passed in late 2011 as part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Judge Forrest —a recent Obama appointee— has concurred with the plaintiffs and earlier this year issued a temporary restraining order against the government’s use of the indefinite detention powers. Today she will hear arguments for and against issuing a permanent order. The hearing is expected to last 3-4 hours. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, and lead plaintiff Chris Hedges will speak to the press afterwards.

For more information, and to sign on as a supporter of the lawsuit, Internet users may visit www.StopNDAA.org

Civil liberties organizations Demand Progress and Revolution Truth have provided grassroots and monetary support for the lawsuit. According to Demand Progress executive director David Segal, “We are hopeful that Judge Forrest will make clear that the government’s assertion of indefinite detention powers is an obscene violation of basic tenets of our Constitution; she deserves the acclaim of all Americans for protecting our rights to speech, association, and due process by placing a rare check on executive power run amok.”

The 68 page ruling handed down by the newly-appointed NYC Federal Judge Katherine Forrest issues a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of section 1021 (the section subjecting apprehended targets to indefinite military detention) and moreover facially challenges that the language in the section itself is unconstitutional.   Judge Forrest’s ruling is being championed by journalists and activists as a tremendous victory for civil liberties, due process and human rights.

The ruling came as part of a lawsuit filed by attorneys Bruce I. Afran and Carl J. Mayer on behalf of 7 high-profile plaintiffs including former New York Times war corespondent Chris Hedges, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, celebrated writer and linguist Noam Chomsky, Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen founder of the activist media group RevolutionTruth, Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla, and Alexa O’Brien founder  of the web campaign “US Day of Rage.”  Each of the plaintiffs in the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit share a common narrative that their constitutionally protected work, either in activism or in journalism would be chilled by the over-broad provisions set forth under the NDAA.

“Judge Forrest has splendidly defended the Constitution—which has been under almost continuous attack by the Bush and Obama administrations—by abrogating the NDAA, the latest assault on the First and Fifth Amendments.  It’s a great day for all who want to live in a free society!” says Daniel Ellsberg, plaintiff in the case.

“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” judge Forrest wrote. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” said plaintiff Chris Hedges “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.”

Hedges v. Obama quickly became a multi-plaintiff action with the help of Jennifer Bolen who sought out candidates whose otherwise constitutionally protected activities could be the subject of judicial overreach under the NDAA.  “I initiated this multi-plaintiff lawsuit because we have witnessed the government use the war on terror as an excuse to steadily destroy the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution,” said Bolen “Today was an amazing victory—perhaps the most encouraging ruling against the US government in years— already it has given a lot of people hope. This is only the beginning, but now we know we can win.”  Judge Forest, upon hearing the testimony of the plaintiffs Bolen selected, determined that some had already changed their associative conduct protected under the first amendment.  Seeing that the NDAA’s inability to identify actors already had an impact on the plaintiffs conduct further influenced Forest’s ruling.

“Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster,” Forrest wrote.

“This is a victory in a case that many have regarded as having no prospect of success. Let this victory be a message to everyone, not only in the US, but around the globe – to be encouraged to stand up and speak out in the fight for our freedoms and rights. To not give up. To not be silenced. We will win in the end. This is just the beginning,” said Occupy London organizer and plaintiff Kai Wargalla.

“Through the action of a few individuals we managed to turn the tables in the favor of a world we all choose to live [in], a world that honors in action and by law freedom of expression and speech. With the ruling of Judge Forrest the USA might have a [chance] to reclaim the important role of setting the global standards for freedom of information and speech, ” said Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir.

“No nation on earth ever found just or stable governance in vague laws with secret interpretations.  No executive can ever claim independence or strength when their office is owned by entrenched and corrupt factions, who use financial power to change laws to make themselves richer and silence dissent. Government’s independence derives from its dependence on the people alone.  Those are our principles.  I am very happy with the Judge’s ruling today.  It’s not over yet,” said plaintiff Alexa O’Brien of US Day of Rage.

The actions in the courtroom were complimented by a groundswell of grassroots support from activists mobilized largely through the internet. “More than 50,000 Revolution Truth and Demand Progress members have signed up as grassroots supporters of the lawsuit, and nearly 250,000 Demand Progress members have urged Congress to end indefinite detention.  We hope this injunction will serve as a wake up call to Congress, make it clear just how egregious was the inclusion of indefinite detention in last year’s NDAA, and get them to strike that language during today’s vote.” said David Segal, Executive director at Demand Progress a grassroots campaign that will bring nearly 300,000 signatures of supporters speaking out against indefinite detention to congress today.

This grassroots effort was largely made possible by volunteers like Lucas Vazquez, a Student Activist and Organizer with Occupy Wall Street.  When asked about yesterday’s ruling Lucas had this to say, “I volunteered to work on the NDAA lawsuit because I feel a responsibility as an activist and Occupier to challenge the government’s unconstitutional and expanded powers to target the activist community, among many other groups, through the broad and undefined language in section 1021.”  For other volunteers like Andy Stepanian, who coordinated media relations for the lawsuit and once served a federal prison sentence for his activism, the effort was personal. “Having served time in federal prison alongside other political detainees the legal challenge to the NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions is a deeply personal battle for me,” said Stepanian “I hope that judge Forrest’s ruling will open a door for examinations of the over-broad Material Support for Terrorists Statute, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and other intentionally vague designer statutes.”

A call-in press conference will take place at 10am EST on Friday May, 18th, 2012 to allow members of the press to speak with the plaintiffs and the legal team, to request a dial-in number & pin for the call please email Andy Stepanian at andy[at]sparrowmedia[dot]net.  Judge Forrest’s ruling is available in it’s entirety HERE.   You can read or print a copy of the plaintiffs lawsuit HERE and the text of the NDAA in its entirety is available HERE. For more information on the case and it’s plaintiffs please visit www.stopNDAA.org

The hearings will begin at 9am at the US District Court Building at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan (Room 15A) and will be immediately followed by a press conference outside the court at 2:30pm  beside the center statue at nearby Foley Square (Junction of Center Street & Federal Plaza map link).  Taking questions at the press conference will be Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and plaintiff Chris Hedges, film maker Michael Moore, author Naomi Wolf, lead counsel for the plaintiffs Carl Mayer, as well as other plaintiffs and their activist supporters.  At 3pm, following the press conference, activists with Occupy Wall Street are expected to stage at the square for an anti-NDAA protest action.

The plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama include: New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges,  Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, celebrated writer and linguist Noam Chomsky, Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, Tangerine Bolen founder of the activist media group RevolutionTruth, Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla, and Alexa O’Brien founder  of the web campaign “US Day of Rage.”  Each of the plaintiffs share common narrative that their constitutionally protected work, either in activism or in journalism will be chilled by the over-broad provisions set forth under the NDAA.  Naomi Wolf and Dr. Cornel West are in the process of becoming plaintiffs in this lawsuit; Wolf will read her statement in court today.

“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,” said Hedges “if there is no rolling back of the NDAA law we cease to be a constitutional democracy. Totalitarian systems always begin by rewriting the law. They make legal what was once illegal.” He continued, “Crimes become patriotic acts. The defense of freedom and truth becomes a crime. Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security. We obey the new laws as we obeyed the old laws, as if there was no difference. And we spend our energy and our lives appealing to a dead system.”

“The Homeland Battlefield Law is as Orwellian as its name implies.  America is not a “battlefield”; it is a democratic republic.  This law is unconstitutional because it violates the free speech and due process rights of American citizens” says Carl Mayer, lead attorney on the case.

You can read or print a copy of the plaintiffs lawsuit at THIS LINK  the text of the NDAA in it’s entirety is available at THIS LINK.  For more information on the case and it’s plaintiffs visit www.stopNDAA.org