CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »
Showing posts with label Derrick Broze. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Derrick Broze. Show all posts

Monday, September 18, 2023

United Nations Marks Halfway Point to Agenda 2030 with Sustainable Development Goals Summit

United Nations Marks Halfway Point to Agenda 2030 with Sustainable Development Goals Summit

The United Nations will gather in New York City on September 18th and 19th for the Sustainable Development Goals Summit 2023 as part of an effort to recommit the world to achieving the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. This is only the second time the SDG Summit has been convened since the adoption of the 17 SDGs by Heads of State and Governments of all UN Member States in September 2015.

The UN SDGs are a collection of 17 interlinked goals designed to be a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all”. The SDGs were set in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly with the intention of achieving them by the year 2030. The SDGs were part of a larger resolution known as the 2030 Agenda, or Agenda 2030, ostensibly aimed at fighting climate change.

The UN says the SDG Summit will mark the half-way point to the deadline for Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. The Summit will also mark a “new phase of accelerated progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals with high-level political guidance on transformative and accelerated actions leading up to 2030”. The UN is hoping the Summit will “reignite a sense of hope, optimism, and enthusiasm for the 2030 Agenda”.

The UN has also stated that achieving the SDGs by 2030 will require “bold, ambitious, accelerated, and transformative actions are needed in key areas, anchored in international solidarity and effective cooperation at all levels”.

The Summit is being convened by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and will be attended by heads of state from the United States, Canada, Mexico, the UK, Japan, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Qatar, Senegal, Mozambique, and many other nations, as well as Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, the President of the World Bank, and other diplomatic officials.

The Summit includes conversations with various leaders discussing topics such as “Mobilizing finance and investments and the means of implementation for SDG achievement”, where we should expect to see a push for more environmental, social, and governance (ESG) schemes. ESG investing is also sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, responsible investing, or socially responsible investing (SRI). Environmental, social, and governance standards give socially conscious investors an opportunity to screen which types of corporations they want to endorse. The practice has also become an increasingly popular way to promote the SDGs.

As part of the SDG Summit the UN is also launching several campaigns to garner public support for more financing and moral support for the SDGs and Agenda 2030. One such campaign is a trailer called “Halftime for the Global Goals“. The message of the trailer is summed up with one line: “We’re down at half time, but any match is won in the second half”. The goal of the short video is to inspire and motivate the viewer into supporting the push for the SDGs. The video ends with the hashtag #ImagineWinning. The Halftime Show theme will continue on Monday with musical performers and speakers marking the beginning of the SDG Summit.

The United Nations Fears the 2030 Agenda Is Failing

Preparation for the SDG Summit comes after UN Secretary-General Guterres revealed in April that progress to completion of the SDGs was failing, with only 12 percent of the SDGs on track to be completed.

Guterres said progress on 50 percent of the goals is “weak and insufficient”, while 30 percent of the SDGs have “stalled or gone into reverse”. He predicted that if the current trend holds only 30 percent of nations will accomplish SDG1, focused on poverty, by 2030.

“Unless we act now, the 2030 Agenda will become an epitaph for a world that might have been,” Guterres stated.

Secretary-General Guterres also discussed his so-called “SDG Stimulus”, a plea for the G20 nations to commit to a $500 billion annual stimulus to help complete the SDGs by 2030. Guterres first made this plea in February, stating, “We need to massively scale up affordable long-term financing by aligning all financing flows to the SDGs and improving the terms of lending of multilateral development banks.”

Guterres said the SDG Stimulus plan also includes five other recommendations, including calling on all UN Member States to “recommit to action to achieve the SDGs at national and international levels between now and 2030”. Guterres suggests doing this by “strengthening the social contract” and “reorienting their economies towards low-carbon, resilient pathways aligned with the Paris Agreement”.

At the recent G20 gathering in New Delhi, India, the G20 nations agreed to support the acceleration of funding for the SDGs. In the “G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration” they write:

“At the midway point to 2030, the global progress on SDGs is off-track with only 12 percent of the targets on track. During this Decade of Action, we will leverage the G20’s convening power and its collective resolve to fully and effectively implement the 2030 Agenda and accelerate progress toward the SDGs, in a timely manner, to shape the world we want to see for our future generations.”

The G20 leaders also made it perfectly clear they will continue to back the Agenda 2030. “We will provide full support to the United Nations 2023 SDG Summit, the United Nations Summit of the Future, and other relevant processes” they wrote in the declaration.

The Autonomous Development Goals as an Alternative to the SDGs

In the last few years an anti-Agenda 2030/SDGs/Great Reset movement has emerged around the world as regular people begin to question the purpose and goals of the top down push towards Agenda 2030. However, I believe that if we are to counter “The Great Reset” agenda we must counter the United Nations and World Economic Forum by offering alternatives to their plans, including Agenda 2030. I have helped launch movements like The Greater Reset to offer an alternative vision for 2030 and beyond, one that is driven by the people, from the bottom up.

I propose that the best parts of the UN SDGs be stripped from the top-down, authoritarian template employed by the UN and WEF. I also propose that a set of Autonomous Development Goals (ADGs) be outlined and adhered to on a voluntary basis by individuals, businesses, and civil society organizations that align with the ADG’s goals and philosophy.

The point is to propose a set of living goals, which can be updated and adapted with the times. Anyone who believes that the ADGs represent our best path forward to maintain liberty, privacy, and bodily autonomy could “sign on” or adopt them as their own. The goals would also aim to be truly inclusive of voices that are already completely ignored by the UN and WEF, including indigenous communities, working class people from all political backgrounds, and the youth. This could eventually lead to a public gathering of brilliant minds from around the world who want to contribute to the ADGs. As with the SDGs, those involved could set target dates for ensuring progress is made in support of the ADGs.

For too long, the UN has pretended to represent the diversity of our world while continuing to uphold colonizing structures that have wreaked havoc on the planet for generations. With a looming Technocratic State of digital bio-surveillance, it has never been more appropriate for the people to recognize the values they hold dear and set their own specific goals for the coming decade and beyond.

I propose the following ADGs:

Goal 1: Promote access to non-state-funded forms of education that emphasize voluntaryism, self-ownership, mutual aid, critical thinking, creativity, and self-directed learning.

Goal 2: Foster the creation of a network of homeschooling co-ops, unschooling pods, worldschooling advocates, and forest school proponents, whose services can be easily accessed by parents in need.

Goal 3: Create localized and decentralized food systems through community gardens and food forests, and connecting communities with local food producers.

This can be accomplished by making knowledge of permaculture and indigenous food systems more readily available to the masses.

Goal 4: Create pesticide and GMO-free zones where communities can practice agriculture without fear of contamination from genetically-engineered technology and toxins.

Goal 5: Promote digital privacy education and encryption tools. Encourage and support access to these tools.

Goal 6: Defund the corporations, banks, philanthropic foundations, and governments, which are the true causes of the destruction of the planet – its people, wildlife, and ecosystems. This could be achieved through mass boycott and divestment campaigns coordinated by grassroots organizations around the world.

Goal 7: Support and promote the use of alternative (digital and paper) currencies. The heart of our current predicament is economic enslavement in a system based on debt and the forced use of state-backed fiat money. Thus, every person should have access to the currency of his or her choice.

Goal 8: Protect the right of all people to access land. Protect the right to harvest rainwater, solar energy, and other resources that allow individuals to become self-sustaining.

Goal 9: Promote a new standard of optimal human health by fostering dialogue about practices and modalities that have been maligned or made illegal by governments. Encourage an honest debate on the benefits of a range of diets and lifestyles while respecting individual choices.

Goal 10: Build human settlements that foster empowerment, community, resiliency, and innovation. Create communities free of exposure to harmful environmental toxins, including, but not limited to, electromagnetic frequency radiation, GMOs, aerosols, pesticides, nanotechnology, etc.

The above goals represent the first spark in what I hope will become a roaring inferno of effort to envision and manifest a parallel world to the one being sold to us by the Predator Class. If enough courageous people take the time to develop these seeds into strong roots, we may yet have an opportunity to turn the tide of technocratic tyranny, which has most recently shown itself in the form of COVID-1984 and now in the form of Agenda 2030, SDGs, and The Great Reset.

Share this:

Source:  https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/sdg-summit-2030/

 

Sunday, December 20, 2020

The Hidden Truth About the NDAA 2021

The Hidden Truth About The NDAA 2021 

By Derrick Broze

The U.S. Senate recently voted 84 to 13 in favor of the 2021 version of the annual military budget, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate’s vote follows a 335 to 78 vote by the House of Representatives. Despite promises of a veto from Donald Trump, the bill currently has a veto-proof two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate. Trump has until December 23rd to decide if he try to veto the $740.5 billion bill.

Most of the media discussion about the 2021 NDAA has revolved around two issues: Trump’s opposition to renaming military bases named after Confederate war heroes and the battle over Section 230 of the Communication Act.

Trump has stated that his admin “will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations”. He also threatened to veto the massive spending bill if Section 230 of the Communication Act was not “completely terminated” to allow internet providers and Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter to be held legally liable for the content on their websites. Trump has argued the social media giants should be treated like publishers to reduce online censorship or deletion of content falsely labeled “misinformation”.

While the discussions about the names of military bases and Section 230 arguably have their place in a discussion on the 2021 NDAA, an exclusive focus on these topics ignores troubling concerns in the remainder of the bill.

Indefinite War, Indefinite Detention

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany stated that Trump is concerned about a provision in the bill relating to troop withdrawal and deployment in Afghanistan, South Korea, and Germany. The NDAA includes amendments that seek to block planned troop drawdowns from Afghanistan and Germany. If these new amendments are included in the bill it would require a review from several government agencies prior to any future troop withdrawals.

On December 10, Senator Rand Paul spoke out about provisions in the NDAA 2021, stating that the new bill would prevent future presidents from being able to withdraw troops without consulting with Congress first. Paul said these provisions would prolong the failed War on Terror.

Another product of the War on Terror (aka the War on Freedom) is a provision contained in the NDAA which was originally included in the 2011 version of the bill. Some readers may recall that since 2011 the NDAA has included a provision which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to trial. The bill was signed into law by former President Obama and the indefinite detention provision is still contained in the NDAA, having been approved by Congress every year since it first passed.

When the indefinite detention clause was first included there were many mainstream news reports discussing the dangerous potential for the provision. There were dozens of politicians speaking out and even a federal lawsuit that ultimately failed to remove the provision. However, as we approach 2021 there is hardly a mention of the indefinite detention clause anywhere in corporate media. Unfortunately, there appears to be very few in the political world willing to speak up about the issue.

One of the few to speak up during the recent round of voting is Justin Amash, a Libertarian representing Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District. Amash has consistently spoken out against the indefinite detention clause. On December 8, he spoke out again, tweeting, “Voted no on the NDAA. Voted no on all the NDAAs. Bring home the troops. Stop indefinite detention without charge or trial. Fight the military-industrial complex.”

Read more 

Be the first to comment.

 

Blogger's note:  subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on those using the blog.  However, the blogspot is on google, and google may collect information, and send cookies.  Many of the links that  we connect to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do.  You are keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.

The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog.  They are the views, and opinions of the author(s) of the article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, March 31, 2018

9/11 Victims Family Members’ Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Can Proceed

 
Despite heavy resistance and threats from the Saudi Kingdom, a U.S. judge has ruled that family members of 9/11 victims can proceed with lawsuits.
The families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks have long sought to hold members of the Saudi royal family accountable for what they say amounts to funding and harboring terrorists. After years of anguish and waiting, the family members’ struggle moved one step closer to reality on Wednesday after a U.S. judge rejected Saudi Arabia’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuits.
“U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said the plaintiffs’ allegations “narrowly articulate a reasonable basis” for him to assert jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a 2016 federal law,” Reuters reported. Saudi officials continue to deny any involvement in the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The Kingdom has traditionally been immune from these type of lawsuits, but that changed in September 2016 when the U.S. Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a law that allows victims of terrorism to file lawsuits against foreign nations. The 9/11 families have fought for years to sue the Saudi Kingdom to reveal more details about the role the nation played in the 2001 terror attacks. The Saudi government has opposed JASTA since its inception, at one point threatening to liquidate millions of dollars in U.S. assets.
Judge Daniels also dismissed lawsuits against two Saudi banks and a construction company owned by the Bin Laden family who are accused of financing the terror attacks. Daniels said he lacked the jurisdiction to hold these entities accountable. However, Daniels said there was adequate evidence to proceed with an investigation into two men linked to the Saudi government: Omar al-Bayoumi, an alleged intelligence officer; and former consular official, Fahad al-Thumairy. The presence of the two men and their potential connections to the Saudi government was strong enough evidence to convince Daniels the lawsuits could proceed. “Neither the 9/11 Commission Report, nor any other governmental report, adequately and specifically refutes plaintiffs’ allegations,” he wrote.
Terry Strada, national organizer for the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism and widow of Cantor Fitzgerald employee Tom Strada, told Courthouse News the ruling brought “tears of joy.”
In March 2017, Activist Post reported that the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to investigate the connection between over 100 Saudi lobbyists, U.S. veterans, and the Trump International hotel. The group, which represents an estimated 6,500 families of 9/11 victims, called on the Department of Justice to investigate a foreign influence campaign by Saudi Arabia which sought to convince veterans to fight against a recently passed law that allows for lawsuits against the Saudi kingdom in relation to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Yahoo! News reports that lawyers representing the 9/11 families are accusing Saudi operatives of deceiving hundreds of veterans into lobbying against the bill by warning them that they may be susceptible to lawsuits in foreign countries for their role in military conflicts. The group of over 300 veterans was flown to Washington D.C. and treated to meals and discussion about the fate of JASTA. Veterans were not notified that the financiers of their trip were representatives of the Saudi Kingdom.
In addition, during a recent hearing for the lawsuits against Saudi Arabia, a former FBI agent called attention to the involvement of the Saudi Kingdom. In a six-page statement provided as part of the lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, retired FBI agent Stephen K. Moore says the 9/11 Commission has provided the American public with incorrect statements regarding the FBI’s investigation. Moore is a 25-year veteran of the FBI who retired in 2008. He also led the FBI’s PENTTBOM, or “Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing Investigation,” a 400-member task force responsible for investigating the 9/11 attacks. Specifically, Moore disputed statements made by the 9/11 Commission regarding the FBI’s investigation into two Saudi hijackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two of the five men accused of crashing American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Moore’s statements deal with Hazmi and al-Mihdhar’s connection to Saudi diplomat Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi. Thumairy was an imam at a Los Angeles mosque with extreme views, while Bayoumi was a suspected agent of the Saudi government posing as a student.
The role of Saudi Arabia is disputed within the so-called 9/11 Truth community. Some see the pointing of fingers at Saudi Arabia as a distraction from the involvement of officials within the U.S. government and other nations like Pakistan and Israel. There are definitely reasons to suspect these nations and individuals, but that does not mean the role of Saudi Arabia should be completely ignored or dismissed. The 9/11 terror attacks were a coordinated false flag attack involving multiple nations, government officials, and private individuals. At the very least we know that the story paraded around as the “official” account of events is a complete and total lie.
 

 

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1, Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2 and Manifesto of the Free Humans.
Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com
Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Steemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
 
Blogger's note:  Subterrnews.BlogSpot.com has again been shadow banned.  We must be over the target as we are taking flack.  Apparently they at GOOGLE are about repealing the first and second amendments of the Constitution.  The offense on the American people is in full swing.  My blog posted many of the details of the False Flag shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas School, alng with a commentary on the so-called March for Life.  These miscreants at Google feel that it is their obligation to their masters to silence any and all dissent.  Google is one of the memory holes of 1984. 
So please post the articles on any and all social media that you can.  Send these articles to any and all of your friends.
Thanks, for together we can defeat the shadow government of this world.

Thursday, December 28, 2017

U.S. Judge Rules Trump Administration Must Provide Detained American With Legal Counsel


While the Trump administration attempts to strip the citizenship of an American citizen who has been held for more than 3 months, a federal judge has ruled he must be given access to a lawyer.
A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. government must provide a lawyer to an American citizen who is currently being held in secret after being accused of fighting with the Islamic State. The man has not been identified despite being held in a secret prison in Iraq without charge since around September 12 when he reportedly surrendered to U.S.-backed Syrian “rebels.” Meanwhile, court documents reveal that the U.S. military did not discount the possibility of coercing the man into relinquishing his American citizenship and deporting him to Saudi Arabia, where he has dual-citizenship.
The Associated Press reports:
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the Defense Department’s motion to dismiss the matter and ordered the military to let the ACLU “immediate and unmonitored access to the detainee” so that it can determine whether he wants the ACLU to represent him. The judge also ordered the Defense Department not to transfer the detainee until the ACLU tells the court of the detainee’s wishes.
“This is a landmark ruling that rejects the Trump administration’s unprecedented attempt to block an American citizen from challenging his executive imprisonment,” said Jonathan Hafetz, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “Ensuring citizens detained by the government have access to a lawyer and a court is essential to preserving the Constitution and the rule of law in America.”
The New York Times also reported that the government planned to prosecute the man in a civilian court for allegedly providing material assistance to terrorist groups, “but the F.B.I. was unable to assemble sufficient courtroom-admissible evidence against him.” Robert M. Chesney, a national security law professor at the University of Texas, Austin, told the Times that sending the man back to Saudi Arabia is “the most desirable outcome for all parties concerned.” The man’s connection to Saudi Arabia was first reported by The Hill on December 13.
Stripping Citizenship
The Times reported that there has been discussion around sending the man back to Saudi Arabia as part of a deal with the Saudi government and the Trump administration. It remains unclear whether or not the U.S. will require the man to relinquish his U.S. citizenship in exchange for a deal. The ACLU reports:
the government won’t say whether it is considering requiring the detainee to relinquish his American citizenship in exchange for his release from U.S. detention. The filing also states that the government does not believe it is legally required to allow him to consult an attorney before renouncing his citizenship.
The decision would go against a 1967 Supreme Court ruling which stated: “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.” As the ACLU notes, the only other time this issue has arisen involved the detaining of Saudi-American dual national Yaser Hamdi. However, in that case Hamdi was able to consult with lawyers before deciding whether to renounce his citizenship or challenge his detention in the courts. “Thirteen years after Hamdi had the benefit of counsel and the judicial system before deciding whether to renounce his citizenship, the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to hide an American citizen from lawyers and the courts are simply unprecedented,” the ACLU writes.
The Fight for Habeas Corpus
Throughout the proceedings of  American Civil Liberties Union v. Mattis, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has expressed skepticism and frustration over the U.S. government’s arguments for detaining the man. Earlier in December the Justice Department argued that the court had no authority to rule on wartime detentions by U.S. military in an overseas conflict zone. The man has been labeled an “enemy combatant” by the Trump administration despite a lack of evidence to bring charges against the man. At a November 30 hearing, the government revealed that the man asserted his constitutional right to a lawyer.
The issue to be decided in ACLU v. Mattis is whether or not the U.S. government can hold someone indefinitely without a court review. The U.S. government believes it can hold a suspect for a “reasonable period” before deciding whether or not to charge or release the individual. The government also claims that the ACLU cannot represent the man because they have had no contact with him and he has not made a request.

The crux of the case is whether or not the judge will throw out the ACLU’s habeas corpus petition on legal grounds. Habeas corpus is a recourse in law which allows an individual to report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order a determination of whether the detention is lawful. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1, Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2 and Manifesto of the Free Humans.
Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com
Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Steemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

U.S. Judge Rules Trump Administration Must Provide Detained American With Legal Counsel

 
While the Trump administration attempts to strip the citizenship of an American citizen who has been held for more than 3 months, a federal judge has ruled he must be given access to a lawyer.
A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. government must provide a lawyer to an American citizen who is currently being held in secret after being accused of fighting with the Islamic State. The man has not been identified despite being held in a secret prison in Iraq without charge since around September 12 when he reportedly surrendered to U.S.-backed Syrian “rebels.” Meanwhile, court documents reveal that the U.S. military did not discount the possibility of coercing the man into relinquishing his American citizenship and deporting him to Saudi Arabia, where he has dual-citizenship.
The Associated Press reports:
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the Defense Department’s motion to dismiss the matter and ordered the military to let the ACLU “immediate and unmonitored access to the detainee” so that it can determine whether he wants the ACLU to represent him. The judge also ordered the Defense Department not to transfer the detainee until the ACLU tells the court of the detainee’s wishes.
“This is a landmark ruling that rejects the Trump administration’s unprecedented attempt to block an American citizen from challenging his executive imprisonment,” said Jonathan Hafetz, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “Ensuring citizens detained by the government have access to a lawyer and a court is essential to preserving the Constitution and the rule of law in America.”
The New York Times also reported that the government planned to prosecute the man in a civilian court for allegedly providing material assistance to terrorist groups, “but the F.B.I. was unable to assemble sufficient courtroom-admissible evidence against him.” Robert M. Chesney, a national security law professor at the University of Texas, Austin, told the Times that sending the man back to Saudi Arabia is “the most desirable outcome for all parties concerned.” The man’s connection to Saudi Arabia was first reported by The Hill on December 13.
Stripping Citizenship
The Times reported that there has been discussion around sending the man back to Saudi Arabia as part of a deal with the Saudi government and the Trump administration. It remains unclear whether or not the U.S. will require the man to relinquish his U.S. citizenship in exchange for a deal. The ACLU reports:
the government won’t say whether it is considering requiring the detainee to relinquish his American citizenship in exchange for his release from U.S. detention. The filing also states that the government does not believe it is legally required to allow him to consult an attorney before renouncing his citizenship.
The decision would go against a 1967 Supreme Court ruling which stated: “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.” As the ACLU notes, the only other time this issue has arisen involved the detaining of Saudi-American dual national Yaser Hamdi. However, in that case Hamdi was able to consult with lawyers before deciding whether to renounce his citizenship or challenge his detention in the courts. “Thirteen years after Hamdi had the benefit of counsel and the judicial system before deciding whether to renounce his citizenship, the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to hide an American citizen from lawyers and the courts are simply unprecedented,” the ACLU writes.
The Fight for Habeas Corpus
Throughout the proceedings of  American Civil Liberties Union v. Mattis, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has expressed skepticism and frustration over the U.S. government’s arguments for detaining the man. Earlier in December the Justice Department argued that the court had no authority to rule on wartime detentions by U.S. military in an overseas conflict zone. The man has been labeled an “enemy combatant” by the Trump administration despite a lack of evidence to bring charges against the man. At a November 30 hearing, the government revealed that the man asserted his constitutional right to a lawyer.
The issue to be decided in ACLU v. Mattis is whether or not the U.S. government can hold someone indefinitely without a court review. The U.S. government believes it can hold a suspect for a “reasonable period” before deciding whether or not to charge or release the individual. The government also claims that the ACLU cannot represent the man because they have had no contact with him and he has not made a request.

The crux of the case is whether or not the judge will throw out the ACLU’s habeas corpus petition on legal grounds. Habeas corpus is a recourse in law which allows an individual to report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order a determination of whether the detention is lawful. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1, Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2 and Manifesto of the Free Humans.
Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com
Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Steemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
 
 

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Federal Government Continues to Argue in Favor of Indefinitely Detaining an American Citizen

On Monday a federal judge challenged the U.S. government to justify the continued imprisonment of an American citizen who has been denied access to a lawyer for over three months.
Washington D.C. – U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has expressed skepticism and frustration over the U.S. government’s arguments for detaining an American citizen for three months. On Monday, at the latest hearing in the case of American Civil Liberties Union v. Mattis, the Justice Department argued that the court had no authority to rule on wartime detentions by U.S. military in an overseas conflict zone. Judge Chutkan seemed to lean in favor of the ACLU’s argument that the man should have access to a lawyer, which he has been denied thus far.
The ACLU is fighting to represent the American who has been accused of fighting alongside the Islamic State in Syria. The U.S military has been detaining the American citizen at a secret prison in Iraq without access to a lawyer or even releasing his name to the public. He has been labeled an “enemy combatant” by the Trump administration despite a lack of evidence to bring charges against the man.
At a November 30 hearing, the government revealed that the man asserted his constitutional rights to a lawyer. Still, the government claims they are not sure he wants to challenge his imprisonment via the courts. The issue to be decided in ACLU v. Mattis is whether or not the U.S. government can hold someone indefinitely without a court review. The U.S. government believes it can hold a suspect for a “reasonable period” before deciding whether or not to charge or release the individual. The government also claims that the ACLU cannot represent the man because they have had no contact with him and he has not made a request.
“He wants counsel, which is an assertion and a request that I don’t think I can ignore,” Judge Chutkan said Monday as reported by the Washington Times. Justice Department attorney Kathryn Wyer told the judge it was a “temporary situation” and the government is “trying to resolve this matter expeditiously.” Wyer also stated that the there was no evidence the suspect wanted representation. However, Judge Chutkan was not supportive of this claim.
“He understands enough to say ‘I want a lawyer, I’m not going to say anything until I get a lawyer, and I’m willing to wait until I get a lawyer,’” she said.
This is not the first time in three months the judge has admonished the government. On November 30 the judge also chastised the government for not being prepared and failing to provide vital information for the case.
“You’re not answering my question, and I’m not trying to be impatient but I’m growing impatient,” Chutkan said at the time. “The court feels the need for that information in order to make an adequate determination in this case. … Frankly, I’m amazed you didn’t come to this hearing with that information.”
According to the Washington Times, an anonymous senior administration official with knowledge of the case said the government is still trying to determine what to do with the man. “We don’t want to release someone who is a terrorist. We don’t want to hold someone who can’t be held,” the official told the Times. “We are trying to see if we have all the evidence collected yet.”
The crux of the case is whether or not the judge will throw out the ACLU’s habeas corpus petition on legal grounds. Habeas corpus is a recourse in law which allows an individual to report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order a determination of whether the detention is lawful. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
According to Lawfare blog, the ruling will likely look at the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In that case, the courts found that at some “reasonable point” a detained American is constitutionally entitled to a habeas corpus petition and access to a neutral tribunal to challenge the legality of their detention. Lawfare writes:
With respect to ACLU v. Mattis, if the court eventually reaches the underlying merits, the government surely will rely on Hamdi and likely also argue that the fact that the the government is detaining the prisoner extraterritorially calls into question the full application of the Constitution to his case.
The court is expected to rule in the coming days on the matter.
As Activist Post previously reported, it is possible that this man is being held under section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual military budget. Many of you may remember that the NDAA 2012 contained the controversial section 1021 and 1022, provisions which allowed indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to trial if they are suspected of terrorism.
Unfortunately this disturbing detention of an American citizen is likely already codified into law. No matter how immoral or wrong we believe it to be, the courts are controlled by the same people maneuvering the political show. Individual judges like Chutkan may attempt to push back against the tyranny. Ultimately we must recognize that these violations of liberty are not an exception, but rather part of the standard operating procedure of the State. As long as this centralized power exists we will continue to suffer.
Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2
Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com
Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Steemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
Image Credit: Getty/ The Daily Beast