Untitled

socialuprooting:

Homeland Battlefield Act Portion Found Unconstitutional By New York Judge
Citing a threat to journalists and scholars, a judge on Wednesday struck down as unconstitutional a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the law has a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights” for journalists and others. She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects anyone who “substantially” or “directly” provides “support” to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban can be detained indefinitely. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to change it.
“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” the judge said.
She called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable.
The ruling came in a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of journalists, scholars and others. Forrest cited the vague nature of the law as it pertains to journalists and the government’s inability to provide assurances that the specific conduct at issue would not subject plaintiffs to prosecution and detention.
The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism.
The lawsuit was filed two weeks later by a group of writers and activists, including Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges, who testified that the vagueness of the law left him “constantly second-guessing what or what not constitutes terrorist activity under this legislation because it’s so amorphous.”
A message left Wednesday with a spokeswoman for federal prosecutors was not immediately returned.
Bruce Afran, a lawyer for seven individuals and one organization that brought the lawsuit, called the ruling a “great victory for free speech.”

Homeland Battlefield Act Portion Found Unconstitutional By New York Judge

Citing a threat to journalists and scholars, a judge on Wednesday struck down as unconstitutional a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the law has a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights” for journalists and others. She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects anyone who “substantially” or “directly” provides “support” to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban can be detained indefinitely. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to change it.

“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” the judge said.

She called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable.

The ruling came in a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of journalists, scholars and others. Forrest cited the vague nature of the law as it pertains to journalists and the government’s inability to provide assurances that the specific conduct at issue would not subject plaintiffs to prosecution and detention.

The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism.

The lawsuit was filed two weeks later by a group of writers and activists, including Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges, who testified that the vagueness of the law left him “constantly second-guessing what or what not constitutes terrorist activity under this legislation because it’s so amorphous.”

A message left Wednesday with a spokeswoman for federal prosecutors was not immediately returned.

Bruce Afran, a lawyer for seven individuals and one organization that brought the lawsuit, called the ruling a “great victory for free speech.”

crisisgroup:

The Republic | Syrian opposition council appears to crumble as infighting

By Zeina Karam, AP

BEIRUT — Syria’s main opposition council is crumbling under the weight of infighting and divisions over issues that cut to the heart of the revolution, including accusations that the movement is becoming as autocratic as the regime it wants to drive out.

The slow disintegration of the Syrian National Council, which has become the international face of the uprising, could complicate Western efforts to bolster the opposition, just as President Bashar Assad’s regime gathers momentum in its crackdown on dissent.

On Thursday, SNC leader Burhan Ghalioun said he was ready to step down once a replacement is found, amid mounting criticism of his leadership.

The decision came just days after he was re-elected for a third, three month term during a council vote held in Rome. The council has said it would rotate the presidency every three months, so Ghalioun’s repeated appointments rankled some who wanted a new face.

“I will not accept under any circumstances to be a divisive candidate, and I am not after any post,” said Ghalioun, an exiled Syrian and professor at the Sorbonne in Paris. “I will resign as soon as a new candidate is picked, either by consensus or new elections.”

Ghalioun, a secular Sunni Muslim academic who has led the council since its formation in September, has been criticized by some opposition figures of being too close to the Muslim Brotherhood and of trying to monopolize power.

FULL ARTICLE (The Republic)