Lawyers tested in court over anti-terrorism act

    70

    March 29, 2012
    By Grant McCool, Reuters
    Chicago Tribune News

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – Lawyers for the Obama administration were put to the test by a U.S. judge on Thursday to explain why civilian activists and journalists should not fear being detained under a new anti-terrorism law.

    Activists and journalists are suing the government to try to stop implementation of the law’s provisions of indefinite detention for those deemed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda and the Taliban and “associated forces.”

    Government lawyers argued in federal court in New York that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the National Defense Authorization Act’s “Homeland Battlefield” provisions signed into law by President Barack Obama in December.

    During day-long oral arguments, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest heard lawyers for former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and others argue that the law would have a “chilling effect” on their work.

    While the judge said she was skeptical that the plaintiffs would win a constitutional challenge to the act, she also said she wanted to “understand the meaning to the ordinary citizen.”

    “I can’t take the statute and strike it down for what it says, but can Hedges and others be detained for contacting al Qaeda or the Taliban as reporters?” she said.

    Hedges told the court that “I don’t think we know what ‘associated forces’ are. That’s why I’m here.”

    The lawsuit, filed in January, cited Obama’s statement of his “serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists” when he signed the act.

    Forrest asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Torrance if “associated forces” could be interpreted in different ways.

    Torrance said the plaintiffs were “taking phrases out of context” and that the law specifically applied to those found to have ties to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

    “What does substantially supported mean? How much is enough? When are someone’s activities substantial or insubstantial?” the judge asked.

    Torrance told her he did not have a specific example and said “it is not proper for plaintiffs to come in and say they are chilled and what not.” He emphasized that the activity would “have to take place in the context of armed conflict.”

    The judge did not immediately rule on the motion.

    Reporting By Grant McCool; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Eric Beech.

    Previous articleEd Asner on Electric Politics: ‘The Future Is Not What It Used To Be’
    Next articleFalse Flag Attack

    Since 2004, 911Truth.Org has educated the public about the suppressed realities of the September 11 attacks.

    We worked with the 9/11 Families to pressure the Bush administration to convene an investigation into the deadliest attacks on US soil since Pearl Harbor. We attended many of the commission hearings and questioned commissioners and bird-dogged elected officials to get answers to the Unanswered Questions that remain so to this day.

    We reported the contradictions, lies and omissions on the public record. 911Truth.Org staff have given hundreds of interviews on radio and mainstream network TV.

    We cover a wide range of 9/11-related issues in publishing academic papers, original research, and opinion pieces.

    We wish to thank our donors who have kept us on the web since 2004! We appreciate your continued support!

    We continue to update the website to make the nearly 3000 articles easier to find, read and share. Thanks for visiting us!