At the start of the first hearing on a lawsuit challenging the Homeland Battlefield Act, a federal judge appeared to be “extremely skeptical” that those pursuing the challenge had grounds to sue the US government. However, by the end of the hearing, the judge acknowledged plaintiffs had made some strong arguments on why there was reason to be concerned about the Act, which passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on New Year’s Eve last year.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Friday March 30, 2012 1:21 pm|
|By: Kevin Gosztola Wednesday March 28, 2012 5:48 pm|
Testimony in a lawsuit against the United States government is set to begin tomorrow as multiple individuals challenge the Homeland Battlefield Act in a New York City federal court.
The lawsuit is being brought by individuals concerned that the work they engage in could now lead the government to accuse them of being an “associated force” of terrorists as a result of the new law that was signed by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve last year.
The plaintiffs bringing the case against the Homeland Battlefield Act—more commonly known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—have been dubbed by their attorneys as the “Freedom Seven.”