MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2012
The Risks Of Clearly Defining The Law.
The current admin not willing to define what rises to the level of "substantially support" or "directly support" a "terrorist" org says all you need to know. Here journalist, video bloggers, facebook posts, dissenters in general can fall un der the ambiguity of said terms. Will republicans make this a election issue? absolutely not.
And why not? well the toolbox is shared by either party. The leadership in both parties ends are shared but their means only differ in degree. Here the majority of the electorate is lost in arguments as to the means. Generally ambiguity is useful and can serve particular ends, whatever they maybe and the permanent injunction that was issued in favor or Hedges v. Obama (2012) has put a thorn in the side of said ends, that being according to NDAA sec. 1021(b)(2) as follows:
COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
Here The Court is asking the Obama administration to define what rises to level of "substantial" or "direct" support. The administration is not providing a definition and does so with the conscious intent that doing so will only tie the hands of the administration in its efforts to detain anyone who in the ambiguity of statute is suspected is "substantially" or "directly" support a terror org. According to Hedges, The Court raised the following issues:
[The Government was unable to offer definitions for the phrases ‘substantially support’ or ‘directly support,’ ” the judge wrote. “In particular, when the Court asked for one example of what ‘substantially support’ means, the Government stated, ‘I’m not in a position to give one specific example.’ When asked about the phrase ‘directly support,’ the Government stated, ‘I have not thought through exactly and we have not come to a position on ‘direct support’ and what that means.’ In its pre-trial memoranda, the Government also did not provide any definitional examples for those terms.”
The judge’s ruling asked whether a news article deemed by authorities as favorable to the Taliban could be interpreted as having “substantially supported” the Taliban.
“How about a YouTube video?” she went on. “Where is the line between what the government would consider ‘journalistic reporting’ and ‘propaganda?’ Who will make such determinations? Will there be an office established to read articles, watch videos, and evaluate speeches in order to make judgments along a spectrum of where the support is ‘modest’ or ‘substantial?]
All reasonable and non controversial inquiries by The Court. As Hedges states "We Have Won" however, power cedes nothing, so naturally the Obama administration continues to fight and the ruling will end up going to the highest court and be at the mercy of the divided court in its varying philosophical constitutional interpretations. The worst variant will only reassert the ever expanding power of the Executive Branch. The best variant will be a small but significant victory for a re-balancing of the separation powers.
References
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/we_won_--_for_now_20120917/ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)