May 2014 - clik 1 - clik2 - clik 3 - clik 4 - clik 5 - clik 6
EUA, DEVASTADOR, HISTÓRICO: Suprema Corte endossa extinção do sagrado direito de defesa.
Consente prisão sem provas por tempo indeterminado.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal against the clause of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which, the plaintiffs argue, allows for indefinite detention of Americans by the military. The case has been ongoing for two years, but ultimately ended in defeat Monday as the highest court effectively killed off the lawsuit, despite previous district court declarations that the legislation is harmful to the First Amendment and that Americans worried about being militarily detained had a “reasonable fear”. In a statement, Tangerine Bolen, one of the plaintiffs said “We are no longer a nation ruled by laws.” “We are nation ruled by men who have so steeped themselves in a false narrative that at the same time they are exponentially increasing the ranks of terrorists, they are destroying the rule of law itself. It is madness upon madness—the classic tale of becoming the evil you purport to fight while believing you remain righteous.” Bolen added.
Pule para : trecho entre 2:10 min até 8:20 min .
The case was brought by a group of journalists led by Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Chris Hedges. Hedges, one of the few real respectable liberal voices, was also joined in his efforts by Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. The provision under Section 1021 of the NDAA effectively gives the executive branch of government full authority to have the military detain anyone suspected of providing “substantial and/or direct support” to terrorists. The detention period is vaguely authorised as “until the end of hostilities”. The provision claims that such action is justifiably lawful under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted three days after 9/11. Essentially, section 1021 could see American citizens kidnapped and held indefinitely without charge, a violation of Constitutional rights. Hedges and the other plaintiffs successfully argued that some provisions of the indefinite detention clause are so vague they would chill free speech and restrict the ability for reporters to associate with individuals or groups labeled enemies by the government. They argued that the law was unconstitutional because it could see journalists abducted and detained merely for speaking their minds. Critics have argued that the provisions also violate the Fifth Amendment, which specifically mentions due process of law, and the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment which states that all people be treated the same under the law. “This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history,” writes Brian J. Trautman. Under AUMF, “this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.”
