|
|
May 20, 2013
|
|
Judge Blocks Portion of NDAAPosted on May 16, 2012
A federal judge Wednesday issued an injunction against a National Defense Authorization Act provision that grants the military the right to detain anyone it suspects of involvement in terrorism. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a group of plaintiffs, including Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, who filed a lawsuit against the legislation within weeks of President Obama signing it. Hedges was joined in the suit by linguist, author and dissident Noam Chomsky, Pentagon whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg and other high-profile activists, scholars and politicians. Hedges argued in his testimony that his work as a journalist would bring him into contact with terrorist organizations that would, given the scope of the law, qualify him for indefinite detention. The plaintiffs argued that the threat of detention alone would be an unconstitutional encroachment on their First Amendment rights to free expression and association, as well as a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process. Government lawyers and Obama had previously said the provision merely reaffirmed an existing law recognizing the military’s right to perform certain routine duties. Forrest found language in the NDAA regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists to be vague, and that contrary to the government’s claims of redundancy it expanded military powers. —ARK Download the judge’s decision here.
Advertisement Previous item: Report: Under Obama, Taxes, Deficit and Spending All Down Next item: Defense Rests in Edwards Trial New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By PatrickHenry, May 19, 2012 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment
Mekhong Kurt,
Diebold and ESS touchscreen voting have ruined what was left of democracy in this country.
Over a century ago voting was done by a show of hands, witnessed by all, those who didn’t want to have the scrutiny of their beliefs were allowed a secret anonymous ballot. When voting with secret ballots was made mandatory, the manipulation of the vote was born.
My two tours in the Marines and subsequent 30 years in the building trades have shown me that the standing military can be disbanded and half the cops in America can be fired. The second Amendment and concealed carry laws are a more effective deterrent than what we have now.
American or not, try and dictate to me and take my freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights and the blowback may be severe.
Report thisBy americanme, May 19, 2012 at 10:02 am Link to this comment
Hey little machoman Mekong Delta force:
I know you are addicted to voting.
An addict is an addict.
If you come between the addict and his addictive substance, he gets mean.
Sell your addictive substance to suckers and chumps like you. I am just saying NO, as I have said for more than 30 years.
Report thisBy oddsox, May 19, 2012 at 4:18 am Link to this comment
re ballots and bullets, a true story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw
Report thisBy Mekhong Kurt, May 19, 2012 at 1:28 am Link to this comment
americanme, you don’t know one damned thing about me except what I wrote here. Voting’s not worthwhile in your view? then what in the hell are we supposed to do—celebrate violent anarchy in the streets? (BTW, I’m an honors graduate, ex-cop, West Point nominee—the list goes on; none of it suggests I’m a drug dealer. Which, Sparky, I’ve never been.)
PatrickHenry, I’m well aware of the problems with ballots, and no, I’m not going to pretend I know how to overcome them. But I completely disagree that the voting system is the *cause*—I see it as the *victim.* And, by extension, *us* as the victims. Maybe we could have volunteer citizen monitors “guarding against the guardians” when ballots are counted. Heck, maybe we could have video recordings—but respecting people’s right to privacy. That is, have the ballot boxes themselves in focus, but showing only ballots being placed in them, then pull back to show the boxes being removed and so on the process,with the videos themselves taken under the control of people disinterested in that particular election—volunteers from other states? Something like that? (I’m not being snarky here, I assure you.) But I do hope that a single failure of the Supreme Court to do something it’s clear you and I both want doesn’t lead to armed revolution, Americans shooting Americans.
gerard—thanks.
Report thisBy gerard, May 18, 2012 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment
Mehkong Kurt: Don’t fall for the simple-minded either/or trap these guys set up here, over and over. All they care about is to “win” stupid little yes/no arguments that make them feel confident.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment
Mekhong Kurt,
You mean a paper ballot? I haven’t seen one of those in awhile.
Our current voting system is a root cause of the problem, from campaign financing to the ability to hack the count to the paperless trail, all designed to void the peoples will.
Report thisBy americanme, May 17, 2012 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment
Oh piss off with that addiction to voting crap.
Voting is for suckers and chumps.
You sound like a streetcorner drug dealer.
Report thisBy Mekhong Kurt, May 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment
PatrickHenry,your seeming eagerness to start shooting is deeply disturbing. It’s something I’m seeing more of recently.
Why don’t you “shoot” with a ballot—not a bullet aimed at a fellow American?
Report thisBy americanme, May 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment
Patrick:
When you gringos stage a revolution, I’ll eat it.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 17, 2012 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
Temporary, until the USSC weighs in.
If they overturn the injunction then the writing is on the wall and armed revolution is inevitable as TPTB will become emboldened and more freedoms and liberties will come under fire.
Report thisBy ElkoJohn, May 17, 2012 at 10:44 am Link to this comment
wow, at least (hopefully)
Report thisthe Democratic Party can’t get away
with trashing the Constitution.
By Mekhong Kurt, May 17, 2012 at 8:39 am Link to this comment
This is great news, and thanks to both Truthdig and Court House News for the story, and the link to download Judge Forrest’s entire opinion.
Now I fear she will be reversed, if not at the appeals level—depends on the circuit—then by the Supreme Court, though it’s just *barely* conceivable a Roberts Supreme Court’s decision could break in support of the district judge. In fact, after some of the questions Chief Justice Roberts asked during the arguments over the constitutionality of Obamacare, one might even dare hope he could be critical is upholding this decision. (He downright shocked me back then, pleasantly so. Well, sort of.)
Report thisBy do over, May 17, 2012 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
Great victory! Praise to the plaintiffs. Now, on to the military microwave people roasting machines.
Report thisBy krrrlll, May 17, 2012 at 6:45 am Link to this comment
This is definitely good news. Thank you and congratulation to Chris Hedges and everyone who took this on. I personally think that the NDAA law that Obama and administration has attempted to push through, has been the most disconcerting and egregious act that this administration has taken on since coming into office. Not that all the other (drone attacks, continuous wars, no accountability of wall street criminals, etc. etc.) aren’t right up there, but since this was first announced at the beginning of the year, I saw this as a direct and very calculated attack to not only citizens of the United States but citizens of the world by successive radical government administrations very methodically and with ever increasing stealth steadily chipping away and eroding our constitutional rights. It is indeed an extremely frightening piece of legislation.
However, though this is a small victory, I fear that “1984 or 1776’s” comments are very telling of what lies ahead for this fascist piece of legislation. We all need to stay vigilant and continue to tell all those who are not paying attention to these stealth attempts to subvert our constitutional rights by the corporate and political elite.
Report thisBy IMM, May 17, 2012 at 5:34 am Link to this comment
Great job Freedom 7!
Perhaps now a lawsuit to stop the
drone assassinations?
Is that doable?
Report thisBy Alan MacDonald, May 17, 2012 at 4:51 am Link to this comment
NDAA kills itself. Let’s hope the Global Empire is next
There are some honest judges left in the US!
The DGE (Disguised Global Empire) loses one!
What will Secret Agent 008 (Obama) do next to intimidate and oppress ‘subjects’ in the Empire that he acts as faux-Emperor and nominal president of?
Best luck and love to the “Occupy
Empire” educational and revolutionary movement.
Liberty, democracy, & justice
Over
Violent/Vichy
Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Report thisSanford, Maine
By michaelkuser, May 17, 2012 at 2:31 am Link to this comment
Congratulations. It’s good to see a judicial refutation of Obama’s “trust me” signing statement.
Report thisBy Marian Griffith, May 17, 2012 at 1:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@Surfboy
I am sorry for singling you out and please understand that it is not personal nor could not the same be said about at least one comment on any topic on this site (and that it is usually plenty worse on other sites)
I am also aware that you are using common vernacular, but please realise that this vernacular and the ones similar to it are rather sexist.
The phrase ‘having the balls to do ...’ essentially is saying that only a man can have the courage and moral fortitude to stand up against opposition and do what is right.
You continue to effectively say that ‘only a woman can be man enough to do what only a man can do’ which is a rather confused and confusing way to express yourself if you look at it this way. Not to mention that it manages to unintentionally be sexist towards men and women at the same time. And it says something about the lack of gender equality in both language and upbringing of children that nobody has the slightest confusion what you were actually trying to say. We are all so used to the implied sexism in phrases like ‘having the balls to do…’ and ‘having balls of steel’ that we not even realise these implications anymore. But they do contribute to the way growing up shapes our expectations of our own and the opposite gender.
...
Thus endeth the feminist sermon
Report this(and sorry for sidetracking the discussion)
By kimsarah, May 17, 2012 at 1:27 am Link to this comment
Congratulations!
Report thisBy Pat Erskine, May 16, 2012 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Dear Judge Forrest, just sending a simple sincere thanks for your appreciated ruling against NDAA.
We must keep our citizen’s liberties sacrosanct and keep government limited as our forefathers intended.
Your ruling against NDAA was a welcome change from over burgeoning powers.
Keep up the great work keeping our nation simpler and liberties and freedom properly protected for all and our future generations. We need more influential right-minded thinkers like you that know these individual liberties must be protected in the face of the challenges to same that seem to be appearing all to often of late. The very best wishes to you and thank you, I wanted to simply send you this note of support.
Report thisBy IMM, May 16, 2012 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Ah, sweet victory!
It would be nice if someone would file a lawsuit to put the brakes on the droning. Is that possible?
It would be nice for Rocky Anderson to be heading up that one.
Rocky Anderson and the Freedom 7!
Report thisBy Maani, May 16, 2012 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment
And yet another small but significant victory!
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/judge-allows-class-action-status-in-stop-and-frisk-lawsuit/?hp
Peace.
Report thisBy 1984 or 1776, May 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment
this will be kicked up to robert’s fascist court, where
Report thisthe final say so is made. Forest didn’t want to go down
in history with the dead Republic pictured in her arms.
Let roberts take that pose.
By Argy F, May 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment
This is good news.
A small, but meaningful victory
Report thisBy Jeff N., May 16, 2012 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment
Wow, gota give credit where credit is due, nice one CH and company.
Report thisBy gerard, May 16, 2012 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment
Wow! TERRIFIC!
Report thisBy oddsox, May 16, 2012 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS:
post below just minutes ago by “April,” one of the most prolific bloggers on the TeaPartyPatriots website.
Permalink Reply by April 22 minutes ago
Yes good news is good to see!
Report thisQuote:
A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a section of the National Defense Authorization Act that opponents claim allows for indefinite military detention.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan today ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued officials including President Barack Obama, claiming the act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.
The complaint was filed by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.
Hedges said he could be held in custody by federal authorities just for interviewing such individuals, according to court filings. Forrest’s order prevents enforcement of the provision of the statute pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by Congress.
The case is Hedges v. Obama, 12-CV-00331, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).