uh oh Dems may get upset with Michael Moore..
Michael Moore asks citizens to stand up to Obama’s ‘dangerous’ erosion of civil liberties
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/07/michael-moore-asks-citizens-to-stand-up-to-obamas-dangerous-erosion-of-civil-liberties/
Moore supporting activists who have mounted a case against the Obama administration seeking change to ‘dangerous’ NDAA law
Michael Moore, the gadfly do entarian who has made a career out of fighting against conservative issues, has called for US citizens to stand up to President Barack Obama and back a court case he says is fighting a dangerous erosion of civil liberties.
The case has been brought against a little known piece of legislation called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which critics say has been changed to grant Obama the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge.
A group of activists, including Daniel Ellsberg – the official who leaked the Pentagon papers about the Vietnam war – and former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges have gone to court to get the language of the NDAA changed. On Wednesday an appeals court in New York heard arguments in the case and is set to render a judgement in the coming months.
Now Moore has come out swinging against the NDAA too, saying that the Obama White House is embarked on a plan to scrap vital civil rights that should concern every American citizen despite a relative lack of publicity about the case. “At the moment a lot of people think the NDAA does not look scary. But this sort of thing never looks scary at the start. But the American people will rue the day if they do not stop this,” he told The Guardian in an interview.
Moore was speaking after a court in New York heard an appeal in the case against the NDAA. Lawyers seeking to overturn the NDAA argued that it erodes American rights and free speech and grants huge and uncons utional powers to the government to suppress dissent and indefinitely detain people without going through proper legal channels. Lawyers for the Obama administration insists that the NDAA represents nothing new and has never been used in the ways that its critics suggest.
Moore said he would be seeking to explain the case to his fans. “If the American people understood this, I do believe they would be very, very concerned about it,” he said. The force behind such hard-hitting do entaries as Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine – which took on right-wing issues like President George W. Bush’s security policy and gun laws – said that liberals were giving Obama a free pass due to his popularity with Democrats. “(Obama) puts this face on it that makes it difficult. It was much easier when the face was Bush,” Moore said “We have to work and speak out against the Obama administration and everything they are doing to destroy civil liberties.”
Such strong language from a liberal icon is likely to shock many of Moore’s usual audience. But the case brought against the NDAA is rapidly becoming a rallying cry for many civil liberties advocates who see Obama as pursuing much of the same national security policy as his predecessor Bush. “The major assault by the Bush administration has been embraced by the Obama administration,” said Hedges.
The NDAA case hinges on language that critics say is too vague. It grants the power of detention and the right to use force against anyone deemed to have “substantially supported” Al Qaeda or the Taliban or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners”. Critics say those terms are so broad that it, for example, include journalists or academics who interview Islamic militants or clerics. Or that the definition of terrorism might extend to those involved in projects like Wikileaks or cyber-hacking groups like Anonymous or the Occupy protests.
Lawyer Bruce Afran, who is arguing the case in court, said that the NDAA laid a basis for massive future abuses, even if it currently was not being used in that way. “I know that the government is not setting up internment camps for journalists and activists,” he said. “But the very fact that this power exists is what diminishes free speech.”
Last September Judge Katherine Forrest surprised many observers by agreeing with the claimants and striking down the NDAA language as uncons utional to free speech rights. However, the Obama administration immediately made an emergency appeal of the ruling and said Forrest’s ruling did “irreparable harm to national security”. An appeals court then stayed the decision and ordered the new hearings to be held on Wednesday. Eventually the case could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Government lawyer Robert Loeb argued in the appeal that critics had fundamentally misread the NDAA and that journalists, activists and others had no reason to fear the law as it was not aimed at them. The Department of Justice also brought in testimony from three conservative Republican senators – Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham and John McCain – to bolster their position. However, the lining up of such famously hawkish political figures on the same side as the Obama administration is enough to make people like Moore even more implacable in their opposition. “By and large politicians are not tuned in. Perhaps Obama needs to just be educated about this issue,” he said.
Learn more about the NDAA: http://www.stopndaa.orgSierra Adamson interviews Chris Hedges at the hearing for the second court of appeals in the Hedges v Obama NDAA lawsuit. Hedges explains what has happened in the lawsuit to date, the next steps and what he sees in America's upcoming future.
Chris Hedges: NDAA Lawsuit Update
Daniel Ellsberg on the NDAA Lawsuit
While I'm as disappointed as any non-right-winger with Barry, the billionaires' corporatocracy push for destruction of key Cons utional protections for Human-Americans is inevitable (while perverting the Cons ution to create/protect/enrich Corporate-Americans), no matter which party is power.
If you wingnuts think Bishop Gekko/Ryan would have not pushed for/allowed NDAA, FISA etc, it's just more proof of your wingnuthoodiness.
On another front, we'll see if the corporatocracy shuts this down: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/6/395...rom-your-phone.
(btw, in that article, Christopher Soghoian is the son of a long-time friend.)
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-09-2013 at 09:23 AM.
I don't disagree at all that the right wing nuts would attempt the same, the problem is Barry is doing their job for them at 10x the speed. He is just as bad if not worse imo. The evil neocons at least tell us how ed they are in the heads and have no shame to their game, Obama lies that he is about peace and change but he's just the same and is able to get neocon agendas passed that neocons wouldn't be able to do that quickly. He has fast tracked some really horrible policies, murdering Americans, NDAA, etc that would have taken the right much longer to accomplish, because the brand of Barry and the msm have the population brainwashed into accepting all that the Barry brand spews in his fake Presidential theater speeches.
bull . Bishop Gecko's and Repug "brand" of LIES were/are that they are for freedom, democracy, liberty, etc. while the work feverishly, relentlessly at state and federal level to kill all of that.
Micheal More is a dumbass.
Moore. He was a fat got before and he doesn't become OK just because he's attacking your enemy.
SA210: about a minute ago you said libs and the MSM weren't denouncing it. you were wrong.
No, I wasn't. I was talking about a major dis-proportionality. You know very well if Bush was killing Americans this country would be very different right now. The MSM didn't even really report on the drones story until last week. Come on, this is something alternative news has been talking about for a VERY long time now and msm and majority of Dems were silent. I was in here criticizing the msm during Election Theater 2012, they never talked about Obama murdering Americans during the debates and campaigns. This totally should have been covered during that time.
Now a few are coming out because the story broke on msm, even though alternative news and activists ed about it for a long time. And even though msm has now talked about it, they are still doing a good job of trying to make it sound not so bad. They are having generals speak on MSNBC talking about how these things are necessary, they are having polls asking Americans if they support drone strikes on Americans if they are Al Qaeda members, and the stupid population votes in a majority for the drones (if the polls are even legit), because the way they form the question.
IMO, the reason for that is because they keep talking about Al Awalaki as an Al Qaeda member (hardly talking about how NO proof of this has been presented), but the entire time pretty much ignoring and focusing in on the 16 year old boy, his son, that was murdered for no reason.
That's key. Of course stupid Americans will vote in support of drones, when msm continues to tell them about "Al Qaeda", and then ignore the story of the 16 year old for the most part, and then lie and say civilian casualties are in the single digits, (only because Obama purposely changed the definition of civilian, naming all kids 16 years and up as "military combatants". Why won't they key in on those facts? Ppl are still being brainwashed.
Again, some ppl are barely coming out, where were they when this all started happening, why did they ignore it during the election? It's all theater. I'm glad its out now, thats why I am the one posting the stories, but they are way behind, and still not giving the full story.
I hope they start pressing the issue more on lack of evidence and the 16 year old boy. That, imo, would make a difference. And you also know msm does not cover NDAA.
that fat son of a , last week he was with obama wanting to light fire to the 2nd amendment and now since it hurt his popularity he's trying to save face. nuh uh, you chump.
Oh I agree, just pointing out that he came out against NDAA. Hope more people wake up from their fairytale of this man
.
Abby Martin sits down with journalist, author and lead plaintiff in the case against indefinite detention, Chris Hedges, about the historical precedent the NDAA lawsuit sets, and why every American should care.
Hedges v Obama | Interview with NDAA Plaintiff Chris Hedges
you're wrong about that too.And you also know msm does not cover NDAA.
does that also apply to non citizens? lmao
Moore is another fat ass hollywoood lib that is a ing dumbass.
No I'm right about both. For some reason you think a quick mention of said issues hidden in between an entire day of stories of non issues that take priority over it is considered reporting and doing the issue justice. Wrong.
NDAA is huge. Where is the msm tv outrage? And dont show me a simple mention somewhere
lol lowing the bar severely. good move.And dont show me a simple mention somewhere
Rachal Maddow?
already posted upstream in another thread you barely even looked at, asshat.
You are clearly the asshat lol. If I have posted anything from the msm tv media in here it has been mostly from Rachel Maddow and I've done it more than a few timesBefore you try insulting, know me before jumping to ignorant assumptions.
Rachel Maddow would be jailed in my country,.
you posted the original link. of course.If I have posted anything from the msm tv media in here it has been mostly from Rachel Maddow and I've done it more than a few times
appreciate personal confirmation of my casual recollection, SA210. you posted proof of MSM TV coverage yourself.
see what I mean about severely lowering the bar?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
