Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/93968588/35/Absolutely-%E2%80%9D-She-testified-specifically-to-two-articles-that
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 14:40:52
Document Index: 678247973

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1022', '§ 1022', '§ 2339', '§ 1021', '§ 1021', '§ 1021', '§ 1021', '§ 1022', '§ 1021', '§ 1021', '§ 1021']

Absolutely.”). She testified specifically to two articles that for Hedges, et al. v Obama, et al - (SDNY) NDAA Opinion and Order - Document 36
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡DownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add noteSave to My LibrarySync to mobileLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks3Activity×There was a problem sending you an sms. Check your phone number or try again later.To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.Text meWe'll never share your phone number.iTunes App Store | Google Play Store×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of ContentsNDAA is simply an “affirmation” or “reaffirmation” of theMem. of Law in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. (“Gov’tSection 1021 lacks what are standard definitional aspects ofI. THE STATUTESA. The AUMFAUMF to send U.S. armed forces into Afghanistan “with a mission toMemorandum simply states the Government’s litigation position inB. The NDAASection 1021 of the NDAA--entitled “Affirmation of AuthorityPresident Obama simultaneously issued a “signing statement.” AStatement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act forNDAA includes § 1022 which separately authorizes “Military Custody1298 § 1022. That statute authorizes “Custody Pending DispositionUnder Law of War.” Id. Section 1022(a)(2) defines whoSection 1022 further provides, in pertinent part:Defense Authorization Act” regarding the procedures forProcedures Implementing Section 1022 of the National DefenseAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,” 2012 DAILY COMP. PRES. DOCStates or its coalition partners.” Id. at 1-2. The directivesection 1021 of the NDAAThe penalties set forth in § 2339B are imposed only upon a showingId. (citations omitted)II. THE PARTIESA. PlaintiffsPulitzer Prize for journalistic reporting. Tr. 157. Over theCertain of Hedges’ writings appear on Islamic or jihadist160. Hedges testified that he is also familiar with the2010) at 1 (Certification of Christopher Lynn Hedges Ex. A (DktSalafist Group for Call and Combat. (Id. at 1-2.) See also Tr42. U.S. Day of Rage has never been involved in armed conflictCentral has not been involved in armed conflict with the United47. One of the messages indicated that U.S. Day of Rage had beenHomeland Security (“DHS”) addressed to law enforcement across theDay of Rage and (b) linking U.S. Day of rage to a loosely knitAbsolutely.”). She testified specifically to two articles thatTr. 70. The second article relates to discussions with a defenseO’Brien. Exhibit 3 consisted of a compilation of articles that onO’Brien testified that she has read § 1021. Tr. 74. SheTr. 74. She testified that she understood that Sami Al-Hajj hadU.S. Day of Rage or against her personally under the AUMF orTruthOut.org had obtained a memorandum from the Department ofHomeland Security and which states “National Cybersecurity andCommunications Integration Center Bulletin. Details on124. In light of § 1021, Revolution Truth is considering notRights. Tr. 148. As part of her work in connection withU.S. politicians have classified WikiLeaks as a terroristEllsberg. Plaintiffs are not relying on those individuals toB. DefendantsC. Amici Curae MovantsIII. THE GOVERNMENT’S REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING § 1021Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. (“Gov’t Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 24) at 7-10.)The Government relies upon Supreme Court precedent which hasCourt: That’s fine. Tell me what that means?With respect to Jonsdottir the Court asked:I. ARTICLE III AND PLAINTIFFS’ STANDINGIntelligence Surveillance Act of 1978--a recent amendment to theF.3d at 135. The Court noted that in cases in which plaintiffsSecond Circuit also stated that “the fact that the Government hasGovernment was unwilling to state at the hearing that O’BrienSupreme Court noted that “[t]he Government has not argued to thisSection 1021 of the NDAA is not classically a “criminal75. An individual detained under § 1021 could be subject toCourt’s finding in Holder as well as the Second Circuit’s inII. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONThis Court’s first task is to try to avoid having to pass onId. Facial challenges run the risk of declaring the451. “We must keep in mind that ‘a ruling of unconstitutionalityFirst Amendment protections of parties not before the Court forThe “exceptional circumstances” in which the First Amendment does129. As stated above, this Court preliminarily finds thatSupp. 2d at 75 (“[A] detention authority that sweeps so broadly1298 § 1022. The Government was unable to define precisely whatThere is no such construction available here. This Court couldCongress. Doing so would strip Congress of its power toCongress had to “affirm” the AUMF could have been to restate itThey did not. The Court finds that importing its interpretationF.3d at 80. In the context of the First Amendment, the SupremeIs that harm immediate? Since the Government will not say thatAUMF--and since plaintiffs have not to date been subject toAUMF are those who were directly involved in the 9/11 attacks1021. It did not. This Court therefore must credit the chilling0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Hedges, et al. v Obama, et al - (SDNY) NDAA Opinion and Order - Document 36Hedges, et al. v Obama, et al - (SDNY) NDAA Opinion and Order - Document 36Ratings: 0|Views: 3,177|Likes: 3Published by Jack RyanCONCLUSIONFor the aforementioned reasons, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED; enforcement of § 1021 of the NDAA is preliminarily enjoined pending further order of this Court or amendments to the statute rendering this Opinion & Order moot.CONCLUSIONFor the aforementioned reasons, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED; enforcement of § 1021 of the NDAA is preliminarily enjoined pending further order of this Court or amendments to the statute rendering this Opinion & Order moot.More info:Published by: Jack Ryan on May 18, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/93968588/Hedges-et-al-v-Obama-et-al-SDNY-NDAA-Opinion-and-Order-Document-3605/18/2012pdftextoriginal 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK----------------------------------------CHRISTOPHER HEDGES, DANIEL ELLSBERG,JENNIFER BOLEN, NOAM CHOMSKY, ALEXAO’BRIEN, US DAY OF RAGE, KAI WARGALLA, HON. BRIGITTA JONSDOTTIR M.P.,Plaintiffs,-v-BARACK OBAMA, individually and asrepresentative of the UNITED STATES OFAMERICA; LEON PANETTA, individuallyand in his capacity as the executive andrepresentative of the DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE, JOHN MCCAIN, JOHN BOEHNER,HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, MITCHMCCONNELL, ERIC CANTOR asrepresentatives of the UNITED STATESOF AMERICA,Defendants.----------------------------------------X::::::::::::::::::::::X12 Civ. 331 (KBF)OPINION AND ORDERKATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed into law theNational Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L.112-81, 125 Stat. 1298 (Dec. 31, 2011) (the “NDAA”). Plaintiffs,a group of writers and activists, brought a lawsuit on January 13,2012, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief withrespect to one section (indeed, one page) of that voluminouslegislation: § 1021. Plaintiffs assert that Section 1021 isconstitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech andassociational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd noteLikeEmbedShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads|about 1 year agosilverbull8 liked this|about 1 year agoJack Ryan liked this|about 1 year agoLoad more
AZ - LLF - 2012-05-23 LLF Exhibits to Response to Motion ...
TN - 2012-05-25 - LLF - DNC Notice of Declaration
2012-05-17 MS (SDMS) - Motion to Strike - EXHIBIT 3 - Doc...
CA - 2012-05-21 - BARNETT - PETITIONER BARNETT OPPOSITION...
AZ - 2012-05-29 - LLF v NDPUSA - ORDER
CA - 2012-05-21 - DUMMETT - Declaration of Gary Kreep in ...
CA - 2012-05-21 - DUMMETT - Petitioners' Ex Parte Motion ...
RecommendedAZ - LLF - 2012-05-23 LLF Exhibits to...Jack RyanTN - 2012-05-25 - LLF - DNC Notice of...Jack RyanCA 2012-05-25 - NOONAN - Tentative Ru...Jack Ryan2012-05-17 MS (SDMS) - Motion to Stri...Jack RyanCA - 2012-05-21 - BARNETT - PETITIONE...Jack RyanPETITIONER BARNETT
DEMU...Archibald v USDOJ et al. (USDC DC) - ...Jack RyanAZ - 2012-05-29 - LLF v NDPUSA - ORDERJack RyanTN - 2012-05-25 - LLF - DNC Motion fo...Jack RyanCA - 2012-05-21 - DUMMETT - Declarati...Jack RyanDECLARATION OF GARY G. KREEP IN
VACATE ORDERCA - 2012-05-21 - DUMMETT - Petitione...Jack RyanPETITIONERS' EX PARTE MOTION TO