From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S. | Police State and Prisons
Terror State Emerging... And Being Challenged
by David R. Kimball
Thursday Dec 13th, 2012 2:25 PM
Governmental policies and laws that threaten to deprive persons of life, liberty, or property are illegal under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Can governmental officials be held accountable for enacting such illegal legislation as the NDAA for 2012, and putting into practice such plainly illegal policies as the "secret kill list" and the "disposition matrix"?

The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2012 was passed overwhelmingly by Congress, and signed into law by President Obama on December 31, 2011 – New Year’s Eve.[1] ”Lets be clear: the NDAA grants the president the power to kidnap any American anywhere and hold him or her in prison forever without charge or trial.” [2]


The FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, signed into law on February 14, 2012 [3] “orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015… The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020.” [4] “Once again, another shocking story that threatens the personal privacy of US citizens has been kept from us by our politicians and the mainstream media.” [5]


“The New York Times revealed this week [on May 29, 2012] [6] that President Obama personally oversees a “secret kill list” containing the names and photos of individuals targeted for assassination… individuals on the list include U.S. citizens, as well as teenage girls as young as 17 years old.” [7]


On October 23, 2012, Greg Miller of The Washington Post reported that:

"Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the ‘disposition matrix’…

"The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the “disposition” of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

"Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years.
… some officials said no clear end is in sight." [8]


The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” [9] Therefore, the above described governmental policies and laws that threaten to deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law are clearly illegal under the Constitution of the United States. Can governmental officials be held accountable for enacting such illegal legislation and putting into practice such illegal policies?


“Hedges v. Obama… is a lawsuit filed January 13, 2012 against the Obama Administration and members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter and current Truthdig columnist Christopher Hedges challenging the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012…” [10] Plaintiffs include a number of prominent authors and activists, including Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky and Cornell West. Hedges stated in a September 17, 2012 article:

"The judge said in her opinion that the government 'did not submit any evidence in support of its positions. It did not call a single witness, submit a single declaration, or offer a single document at any point during these proceedings.' She went on to write that she found 'the testimony of each plaintiff credible.'

“'At the March hearing, the Court asked whether Hedges’ activities could subject him to detention under § 1021; the Government stated that it was not prepared to address that question. When asked a similar question at the August hearing, five months later, the Government remained unwilling to state whether any of plaintiffs’ (including Hedges’s) protected First Amendment future activities could subject him or her to detention under § 1021. This Court finds that Hedges has a reasonable fear of detention pursuant to § 1021(b)(2).'

"The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months. It lost the preliminary injunction in May. It lost a motion for reconsideration shortly thereafter. It lost the permanent injunction. It lost its request last week for a stay. We won’t stop fighting this, but it is deeply disturbing that the Obama administration, rather than protecting our civil liberties and democracy, insists on further eroding them by expanding the power of the military to seize U.S. citizens and control our streets." [11] [12]


[1] Indefinite Detention, Endless Worldwide War and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, ACLU 2-22-12
[2] The NDAA: A Clear and Present Danger to American Liberty, by Naomi Wolf 2-29-12
[3] FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (see Sections 334 & 335)
[4] Drones over U.S. Get OK by Congress, The Washington Times 2-7-12
[5] Congress Approves 30,000 Spy Drones Over America As US Police State Tightens, by Tim Watts 2-9-12
[6] Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will, NY Times 5-29-12;
[7] Glenn Greenwald: Obama’s Secret Kill List “The Most Radical Power a Government Can Seize.” Posted by democracynow 5-30-12 6:43
[8] Plan for hunting terrorists signals U.S. intends to keep adding names to kill lists, The Washington Post 10-23-12
[9] Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
[10] Hedges v. Obama
[11] We Won – For Now, by Chris Hedges 9-17-12
[12] Stop the NDAA: Hedges v. Obama – Lawsuit, Campaign, Case Documents