Start A Petition

How Does a Common Citizen Know If He/She Is a Target of NDAA?

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, constitution, freedoms, government, obama, usa )

- 2242 days ago -
At the start of the first hearing on a lawsuit challenging the Homeland Battlefield Act, a federal judge appeared to be 'extremely skeptical' that those pursuing the challenge had grounds to sue the US government.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Fiona O (565)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 11:15 am
However, by the end of the hearing, the judge acknowledged plaintiffs had made some strong arguments on why there was reason to be concerned about the Act, which passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on New Year's Eve last year. Adam Klasfeld of Courthouse News eported that Judge Katherine B. Forrest cited the lack of definition of terms such as 'substantial support' or 'associated forces,' which appear in the law. Without clearly knowing what 'substantial support' for terrorism or 'associated forces' of terrorist groups could be, Forrest asked, 'How does the common citizen know?

William K (308)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 11:33 am
Answer to the question in the headline: by being a common citizen.

Bianca D (87)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 12:16 pm
Tx Bee. It's important to know this.
Sad that the US practically appears to have declared war on its own citizens and has people so contracted in fear.

Victoria P (113)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 12:17 pm
Thanks Betsy

Fiona O (565)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 12:17 pm
I absolutely agree with you, William, the seven plaintiffs who are testing this law are non common citizens.

They are: There are seven plaintiffs trying to sue right now. Dubbed the “Freedom Seven” by their attorneys, the plaintiffs include: Chris Hedges, a journalist; Daniel Ellsberg, who is known for releasing the Pentagon Papers; Noam Chomsky, a well-known writer; Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir; Tangerine Bolen, founder of; Kai Wargalla, deputy director of Revolution Truth and founder of Occupy London; and Alexa O’Brien, journalist and founder of US Day of Rage.

And this heroic group are going to destroy this abhorrent law before it is ever used against any US citizen.

Conspiracy theories and the people who spread them (in order to garner attention to themselves), are a symptom of our chaotic times. Some conspiracy theories are saying that the new provisions of NDAA 2012 is a threat to the common citizen going about his/her daily life. This is far from true and the law will be destroyed by this group before there is ever an attempt to use it against any one.

This judge's demand for a definition of terms will probably scare off any federal prosecutor. We will continue to deal with the reasonable problems that do confront us daily and the government will continue to be afraid of its people, as it should be.

Fiona O (565)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 12:20 pm
Yes, I agree, Bianca. I believe it is our responsibility to see through the fear and not be paralyzed by it.

Many Feathers (139)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 1:12 pm
thanks for bringing this to attention...

. (2)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 1:19 pm
Bee, your statement is certainly one of the most profound I have ever read. How true!

Yes, I agree, Bianca. I believe it is our responsibility to see through the fear and not be paralyzed by it.



Jason S (50)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 2:54 pm
Good Posting, Thanks

Agnes N (703)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 4:13 pm
Thanks Bee

Jim P (3257)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 4:21 pm

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) should NOT have been passed in the first place.

Ty, Bee.

Nancy Black (308)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 7:48 pm
Never worried about the laws of our country until the Patriot Act, but I thought that was just "W" and the crazy Republicans. Now with Obama, we are having even more crazy. The judge is right if he can't understand how can a common citizen. I guess we have to stop being so scared, and when I say that I mean those who make the laws as well as those of us who live under the laws.

Fiona O (565)
Saturday March 31, 2012, 8:17 pm
Thank you, Jim and Nancy. Behind all of these apparently draconian laws is a global plutocracy, a very short sighted group because their motivation is greed. Here is a radical statement that history has proven repeatedly, they need US. If we do not buy their stuff from where will their profits come? They can constrict finances for a while, yep. We can creatively practice low consumerism for as long as we want to and learn how to do it better and better. They will hate that. Superficially, it appears that we are in peril. The major problems of the day come from their short sighted greed. Their position is in peril and that is the reason behind their reactive, repressive deeds lately. They were really doing well behind the scenes until they realized they were losing their grip. It makes no difference what they do, the tide of power is flowing towards us.

Heroic people like these seven will undue their efforts and we ourselves will grow into the bold citizens we were meant to be. Right balance will be restored and governments will be afraid of their people, as it should be.

Because, if for no other reasons, the only constant is change.

Angelika R (143)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 3:04 am
Thank you Bee for highlighting this very important issue . This was necessary to get insight on this much debated law and we can't thank enough brave Chris H. (who I believe was the first to sue) and those who joined him.
Kudos also to judge K.B. Forrest who wisely picked out the key issues of that irritating NDAA / Homeland Battlefield bill.
This step was right on time before any other rule could have taken place.

Angelika R (143)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 4:55 am
I forgot to mention how pleased I am to read here one of my favorite sayings and word of wisdom for first time in the ENGLISH version: " The only constant is change" - "Nichts ist beständiger als der Wandel" ^^ Thx Bee!

Past Member (0)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 6:22 am
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
-Justice William O. Douglas
with the thought of no power comes the thought of no responsibility. we have great power and great responsibility.. life has value beyond measure
Peace and Love

Freya H (357)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 7:01 am
This law is scarier than anything Stephen King could have written! Anybody who thinks the United States could never become a fascist nation is either ignorant or way too optimistic. Germany was a free nation when the Nazis took over. Michael, that quote from William Douglas is all too true.

A friend of mine once knew an elderly Jew who had survived the Holocaust. He always ended his lectures on his horrendous experiences with: "Never think that it can't happen here."

R. G (12)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 8:29 am
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
Patrick Henry

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest asked probing questions of both the government and the challengers, although she admitted that she was "extremely skeptical" that the plaintiffs would be able to prove they have the right to sue.

JL A (281)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 8:30 am
I am so thankful for these seven concerned citizens acting to protect us all.

Fiona O (565)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 9:11 am
@ Raymond your quote from Judge Forrest is from the very beginning of the trial, not the outcome. I am not refuting you, I just want other readers of this posting to know that the trial was resolved in favor of the plaintiffs and therefore the people.

@ J LA, I am so to these seven patriots.

Fiona O (565)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 1:34 pm
Raymond just sent me an email. Things look good. However, a final decision is unlikely before the end of this month.

Lois Jordan (63)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 1:51 pm
Thanks for posting this, Bee. I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that "when push comes to shove" there are brave and determined citizens who will speak truth to power with a legal challenge. Way back in the '70s I learned that one had to get permission from the gov't to sue the gov't. As a young adult, this boggled my brain--still does. Most of us don't have the resources to do this; and I'm very grateful for these 7. Looking forward to updates and the final outcome and hoping that justice will be the great equalizer.

Claudia O (73)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 3:37 pm
You are targeted if you make a stand, if you protest the establishment in any way, if you declare a boycott of any kind and if you demand your right to speak out.

Fiona O (565)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 3:42 pm
True, Claudia, some actions can make you a person of interest. But there is a very good possibility that this law will never be used against anyone. Seven brave people have created this possibility.

Craig Zimmerman (86)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 4:25 pm
I wonder sometimes if there is a file on me somewhere, but I doubt if I am important enough to merit that.

Gary L (138)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 9:26 pm
I have been aware for some time that the government speaks with multiple tongues I was 17 in 1964 and in boot camp great lakes naval station when the tonkin gulf resolution passed the first thought that came to my mind was I was screwed little did I know

Edith B (146)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 9:54 pm
Thanks for posting this, Bee. I am glad to know someone dared to file suit against this unconstitutional law. I was so disappointed in Obama when he signed it,

Parvez Zuberi (7)
Sunday April 1, 2012, 11:16 pm
Thanks for the article GOD HELP YOU POOR AMERICANS its NAZI regime law

Lauren Berrizbeitia (68)
Monday April 2, 2012, 4:27 am
Very unnerving.

Alexander Werner (53)
Monday April 2, 2012, 1:24 pm
"Bolen and Ellsberg did not testify on Thursday, but Hedges, O’Brien and Wargalla each appeared in person to testify. Harris reported that Hedges said he ”feared he might be subject to arrest under the terms of NDAA if interviewing or meeting Islamic radicals could constitute giving them ‘substantial support’ under the terms of the law.” O’Brien described in detail how a private intelligence firm was trying to link US Day of Rage to “Islamic fundamentalists.” And, Wargalla testified on how the City of London had listed Occupy London alongside al Qaeda and extremist groups from Belarus and Colombia."

Honestly, I don't like Al-Queda, anything related to Occupy - especially Occupy Toronto, and don't see a problem in containing various extremists.

Fiona O (565)
Monday April 2, 2012, 1:54 pm
Thank you, BMutiny, excellent advice. We do see this Troll abuse more over the weekends.

Thank you, Bob, for your excellent update. Yes, "extremists" are involved. They always are. But now when their actions protect my rights, I need to show my gratitude to them.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.