“The Government tried to paint us as irrational, delusional, reactionary people who had no standing or merit to our argument. Not only did Judge Forrest rip holes in all of their arguments, but she agreed with everything we said. Now what they’re doing, after bringing their full weight down on us, they’re doing the same to her.” – Tangerine Bolen, Executive Director of Revolution Truth
Tenther Radio Episode #65: Court Battle over NDAA Detentions Continues – Tangerine Bolen is the executive director of Revolution Truth. It’s a citizen driven first amendment campaign that was inspired by Wiki Leaks. She’s one of the lead plaintiffs of the Federal law-suit against the Indefinite Detention Powers of the 2012 NDAA that was signed on New Year’s Eve last year (which means that anyone can be kidnapped at any time by the Government, and detained by the military without due process).
“Last Wednesday we won a permanent injunction – it was probably one of the biggest wins for civil liberties since 9-11…the very next day, within 24 hours, the Obama administration appealed. But they didn’t stop there. Two days later they filed for a stay of execution, essentially requesting that the judge stay that injunction so that they could still apply NDAA’s Section 1021 anywhere to anyone.” Tangerine Bolen explains. “Then, when Judge Forrest did not grant that stay request, they turned around and appealed the stay to a higher court. Another Judge in the second circuit granted the stay. So right now, the government once again has the right to use 1021.”
So why is the Obama administration so aggressively fighting this?
“Possibly for the past 11 years, the AUMF, which is the law that was passed in 2001 which was the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and granted the President the power to go after people who were involved in 9-11, or were involved with al-qaeda or the taliban, I think that this law has been dramatically, over broadly applied potentially for 11 years by both the Bush and the Obama Administration. And what has happened is our case, when we were granted standing – and then a temporary and then a permanent injunction – what we may be doing is shedding light on this overt, broad interpretation of the AUMF. So suddenly we’re a huge thorn in their side by posing the possibility of sharply limiting President Obama’s power in the midst of all of this. And they’ve come to expect to be able to use those powers.”
“People are supposed to be able to know what kind of activities will put them in harms way under the law. They want to be able to avoid that. The Government attorneys refused again and again to not only define those terms and help us know what that would be, but also claimed the right to never define them.” – Tangerine Bolen
Bolen also discusses the “Orwellian” terminology bandied about by those in the Government who oppose the injunction. “They accuse us of potentially allowing for irreparable harm to occur to the United States if 1021 is not allowed to be applied…it doesn’t make any sense what-so-ever. The reverse might actually be true. If suddenly they have fewer powers, and not only that but we expose the over-use of those powers for the last 11 years, people could bring cases of irreparable harm against the United States Government. People who have been illegally detained, wrongfully detained – or for example, innocent men who have committed suicide in Guantanamo.”
Why has there not been so little media coverage against what amounts to a huge attack against the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
“I think the media has been increasingly compromised for quite some time now…over time what has happened is we have had this incredible war on terror since 9-11, and there are so many abuses in that war. But our major media outlets are buying the dominant narrative of our Government, and they’re failing to dig deeper…I think the media is harried, they’re over-burdened, and they’re not taking the time they need too – and they’re sanitized and corporatized. And we’re all literally losing our liberties because of that.”
What’s next for the lawsuit?
Sept 28, the three-judge court will review the “Stay” request, and they’ll either grant a longer-term “Stay” – or rule that the injunction will apply again. After that, the case will move to the appeals court. Bolen says, “I think I can safely say that this is going to the Supreme Court, because we’re not giving up.”
“During the recent hearings when that injunction came in, before it was overturned by the appeals court, the Government Lawyers were asked if the U.S. Government was still detaining people indefinitely in defiance of that order, and they refused to say one way or the other…” - Michael Boldin, TAC Radio Host
Show co-host Nick Hankoff added that, “It is the Empire we’re up against, but I would love to still see some people focusing on the local actions of non-compliance and nullification of NDAA actions. Because while Tangerine Bolen talks about going to the Supreme Court – I will guarantee you one thing: There’s no Judge on that court, and there never will be a Judge on that Court like Judge Forrest, who was the one who provided that injunction – first temporary, and then permanent – only to be overturned by an Obama crony. More than ever, we should be focusing locally. But what an extraordinary and courageous person to take on such a task.”
So all we need to do to preserve our liberties is vote for Romney this November…right? Right? Forget it. He supports the NDAA too. See his video response here. State Sovereignty, or Tyranny? You Decide.
For additional reading